The US Election 2016, Part V

[Volourn]

Exactly. Parties are supposed to represent those who vote for them not the other way around.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

It's because when you vote for a third party candidate you hurt the major party you're most closely aligned to, thus helping the other major party.

 

If your party can't put forward a decent candidate, they don't deserve your loyalty.  Our vote is our most powerful tool in enacting change.  If we vote for the same party every time regardless of their actions, we are giving up our power.

 

They may not deserve my loyalty but the other party will screw me a lot more. If you want change, you got to work to add run-offs to our elections. Even if one party collapses and is replaced by two or more parties, eventually it'll consolidate into the same corrupt two party (or may be one party) system, if election laws aren't changed.

[213374U]

What you're really asking for is for voters to do so without any regard for which of these folks has a realistic chance of winning.  Which I'd say is asking voters to be idiots who give no thought to how best to get the policies they care about implemented.  The system as it is structured rewards strategic thought on the part of parties, advocacy groups, and voters.

That doesn't describe the current situation for many people. It's not asking people to choose how best to get the policies they care about implemented (which sounds great in theory), but rather asking them to choose how best to avoid policies that they feel are unacceptable... only both serious* candidates advocate policies that are unacceptable for many people. So yeah, negative voting.

 

The system as it is structured rewards corruption and backroom dealing. And what you're proposing by suggesting that folks only vote for candidates with "realistic chances" (as defined by whom?) is that the US remains trapped in a sort of twisted self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Pidesco]

The two alternative candidates also advocate widely unacceptable policies, I think. Johnson promised to literally end the IRS. I'm not too clear on Stein's campaign, but at the very least, she appears scarily non committal towards stuff life vaccines or GMOs. She seems to represent the bad science side of the left in the US.

[Guard Dog]

The two alternative candidates also advocate widely unacceptable policies, I think. Johnson promised to literally end the IRS. I'm not too clear on Stein's campaign, but at the very least, she appears scarily non committal towards stuff life vaccines or GMOs. She seems to represent the bad science side of the left in the US.

The idea to move away from income tax to a consumption tax is hardly new or unacceptable. We've been kicking it around for years. In theory at least. So far an actual workable plan has not been put out. The problem is the IRS has spawned a small army of tax prepares, including a few multi-million dollar enterprises who will fight like hell through lobbying and congressional campaign donations to maintain the status quo. 

 

I like the idea of sales taxes or even a flat tax because every one pays then. Right now somewhere around 80% of all tax revenue is paid by just 25% of tax payers. And many of the ones who pay little to nothing are still bitching it's not enough. 

 

As for Jill Stein, she's no Ralph Nader, that is for sure. She has had a few spoons from the left wing's fruit loop bowl.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Guard Dog

[213374U]

Right now somewhere around 80% of all tax revenue is paid by just 25% of tax payers. And many of the ones who pay little to nothing are still bitching it's not enough.

Funny how that works. Because right now somewhere around 11% of all wealth in the US is in the hands of just .01% of citizens (.00025% hoarding a bit over 3%). And many of the ones who have the most are still bitching it's not enough.

 

And by the way, the flat tax is the most regressive option out there. A flat federal income tax would later combine with state/municipal taxes for an extremely uneven distribution of tax/earning ratios, punishing the poor(est) the most. You like this idea, why exactly?

[Bartimaeus]

The two alternative candidates also advocate widely unacceptable policies, I think. Johnson promised to literally end the IRS. I'm not too clear on Stein's campaign, but at the very least, she appears scarily non committal towards stuff life vaccines or GMOs. She seems to represent the bad science side of the left in the US.

 

Stein is like the crazy aunt version of Sanders...anti-GMO, anti-vaccines, anti-nuclear...and why? It really just comes across as pandering to her support base. I probably agreed with maybe - maybe - about 75% of Sanders' positions...with her, it's probably more like 70%, but the extra 5% lost is some crazy basic stuff that makes it hard to respect or support her.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Longknife]

I asked a page ago if someone could source Stein + vaccines, no one did and here we are discussing her anti-vacc status again.

 

I know very very little of Stein, but I HAVE found an interview with her basically responding to a question of "are you against vaccinations" and her answer was akin to "no of course not." I can dig up that interview and link it here, but I'd just rather see a source to the contrary because at this point I find it a tad alarming that I see such constant quick dismissal of a candidate without anyone actually sourcing the claims made against them.

 

I've done some brief googling and what I can find on the issue is that she's voiced criticism of the political power held by the pharmaceutical industry while critiquing the system we currently have for determining which vaccines are neccesary. While it's fine to disagree with her on some of the stuff she's said, I typically see her labeled as an "anti-vaxxer," which gives the impression she thinks vaccines cause autism and the like, which I can find absolutely zero evidence for. Just sitting here a bit perplexed because I get the impression the public got politic'd on this issue and the abridged description of her stance does very very little to convey her actual stance while giving off the impression she harbors a wildly unpopular and silly belief, which I simply find zero evidence for.

[BruceVC]

I asked a page ago if someone could source Stein + vaccines, no one did and here we are discussing her anti-vacc status again.

 

I know very very little of Stein, but I HAVE found an interview with her basically responding to a question of "are you against vaccinations" and her answer was akin to "no of course not." I can dig up that interview and link it here, but I'd just rather see a source to the contrary because at this point I find it a tad alarming that I see such constant quick dismissal of a candidate without anyone actually sourcing the claims made against them.

 

I've done some brief googling and what I can find on the issue is that she's voiced criticism of the political power held by the pharmaceutical industry while critiquing the system we currently have for determining which vaccines are neccesary. While it's fine to disagree with her on some of the stuff she's said, I typically see her labeled as an "anti-vaxxer," which gives the impression she thinks vaccines cause autism and the like, which I can find absolutely zero evidence for. Just sitting here a bit perplexed because I get the impression the public got politic'd on this issue and the abridged description of her stance does very very little to convey her actual stance while giving off the impression she harbors a wildly unpopular and silly belief, which I simply find zero evidence for.

Produce the link  of Strein saying that or it didn't happen, your word  alone is not enough to convince me in anyway 

[Ganrich]

 

Right now somewhere around 80% of all tax revenue is paid by just 25% of tax payers. And many of the ones who pay little to nothing are still bitching it's not enough.

 

Funny how that works. Because right now somewhere around 11% of all wealth in the US is in the hands of just .01% of citizens (.00025% hoarding a bit over 3%). And many of the ones who have the most are still bitching it's not enough.

 

And by the way, the flat tax is the most regressive option out there. A flat federal income tax would later combine with state/municipal taxes for an extremely uneven distribution of tax/earning ratios, punishing the poor(est) the most. You like this idea, why exactly?

The people that make the big money have the resources to hire tax lawyers to find loopholes or move their money into offshore accounts to avoid taxes. If everyone payed a flat tax then it wouldn't be worth the lawyer fees nor banking fees and they would let that money be taxed. The more the fed charges the rich the less the fed make, and it has been this way since they started with gradual increases based on income. Heck, they could probably charge them up to 25% and make more revenue, but they choose to do 70ish% and make no revenue.

 

The argument is "should the gov be perceived as unfair or actually get some more revenues". $19,000,000,000,000 in debt... I would be fine with the perceived as unfair option.

[Longknife]

 

I asked a page ago if someone could source Stein + vaccines, no one did and here we are discussing her anti-vacc status again.

 

I know very very little of Stein, but I HAVE found an interview with her basically responding to a question of "are you against vaccinations" and her answer was akin to "no of course not." I can dig up that interview and link it here, but I'd just rather see a source to the contrary because at this point I find it a tad alarming that I see such constant quick dismissal of a candidate without anyone actually sourcing the claims made against them.

 

I've done some brief googling and what I can find on the issue is that she's voiced criticism of the political power held by the pharmaceutical industry while critiquing the system we currently have for determining which vaccines are neccesary. While it's fine to disagree with her on some of the stuff she's said, I typically see her labeled as an "anti-vaxxer," which gives the impression she thinks vaccines cause autism and the like, which I can find absolutely zero evidence for. Just sitting here a bit perplexed because I get the impression the public got politic'd on this issue and the abridged description of her stance does very very little to convey her actual stance while giving off the impression she harbors a wildly unpopular and silly belief, which I simply find zero evidence for.

Produce the link  of Strein saying that or it didn't happen, your word  alone is not enough to convince me in anyway 

 

 

 

Took two seconds to find the vid in question and a vid that shows her stance that likely spawned the rather broad and vague stance of "anti-vaxx." 

 

I'm not even defending her, I just find any situation where the standard, abridged view of a politician's stance seems to vastly differ from their actual stance to be a rather unfortunate product of politics. From the digging I've done, that does indeed seem to be the case here.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

The two alternative candidates also advocate widely unacceptable policies, I think. Johnson promised to literally end the IRS. I'm not too clear on Stein's campaign, but at the very least, she appears scarily non committal towards stuff life vaccines or GMOs. She seems to represent the bad science side of the left in the US.

As for Jill Stein, she's no Ralph Nader, that is for sure. She has had a few spoons from the left wing's fruit loop bowl.

 

 

Jill Stein's positions on vaccines, GMO and science at large is quite offputting, but i can say that her VP-candidate is even more so:

 

 

Baraka described the vigil for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting as a "white power march" and Je suis Charlie as an "arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy" because of France's colonial history, the caricature at issue, French support for American policy in Syria and Libya, and the disproportionate interest in this particular act of war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajamu_Baraka

 

*insert smart and snarky point here*

Edited August 25, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3756674/Nigel-Farage-share-stage-Donald-Trump-discuss-Republican-presidential-candidate-learn-Brexit-success.html

 

 

I see Nigel Farage is aligning himself publicly with Trump.....another  " credible and appreciated " endorsement of the Trump campaign 

[Hiro Protagonist]

Looks like the God Emperor may get up and the Hilldog is on her way out.

[Hurlshort]

My wife was commenting on how unhealthy Clinton looks.  She seems to be struggling with walking.  Given the way her health declined during her Secretary of State run, I'm really surprised that isn't a bigger concern at this point.

[Meshugger]

My wife was commenting on how unhealthy Clinton looks.  She seems to be struggling with walking.  Given the way her health declined during her Secretary of State run, I'm really surprised that isn't a bigger concern at this point.

 

According to the rumors (based on wikileaks) she is taking the same medicine as people with narcolepsy, parkinson's and alzheimer's. But it can also be abused by people who wish to stay awake for longer periods of time. Of course there people trying to meme her of being really sick, unfit for standing during the upcoming debates.

 

Speaking of memes:

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Meshugger

[213374U]

The people that make the big money have the resources to hire tax lawyers to find loopholes or move their money into offshore accounts to avoid taxes. If everyone payed a flat tax then it wouldn't be worth the lawyer fees nor banking fees and they would let that money be taxed. The more the fed charges the rich the less the fed make, and it has been this way since they started with gradual increases based on income. Heck, they could probably charge them up to 25% and make more revenue, but they choose to do 70ish% and make no revenue.

 

The argument is "should the gov be perceived as unfair or actually get some more revenues". $19,000,000,000,000 in debt... I would be fine with the perceived as unfair option.

 

 

There is something that doesn't add up, though. You say taxing the rich doesn't work because they have the resources to avoid paying, and at their current taxation levels, it's cost-effective for them to do so. But GD says 80% of tax revenue comes from the richest quartile. Which one is it?

 

A sovereign debt of $19 trillion is not as problematic as a household debt/disposable income ratio of over 110%, because unlike the Fed, Joe Sixpack can't print money or use personal sovereignty to declare all his debts null and void. And in a consumer-driven economy, if consumers are choked by debt service, who's left to drive the economy? Shifting a bigger part of the tax burden onto lower quartiles is bad because most of that debt is consumer credit and mortgages, which you'd see a massive default on.

 

So rather than fight fiscal fraud, reduce legal loopholes, and cut back spending to sensible levels, let's just... tax the underclass out of existence. A government so overtly unfair, as you admit yourself, would soon be seen as an invitation for revolution.

[Gromnir]

whenever medical issues and the Presidency arise, our first thought is not fdr, but is kennedy

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/309469/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/06/health/the-doctor-s-world-disturbing-issue-of-kennedy-s-secret-illness.html?pagewanted=all

 

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,393754,00.html

 

 

it were a different time, but kennedy bold-faced lied 'bout his addisons on numerous occasions. during the heated democratic nomination, lbj had private investigators dig up proof that jfk had addisons, and kennedy lied multiple times.  claimed war injuries.  kennedy actual represents a medical milestone as he is the first recorded patient with addisons to survive major surgery.  kennedy didn't wanna be confined to a wheelchair, so he got back surgery that predictable resulted in complications. nevertheless, kennedy survived.  can't imagine such stuff being successful hidden today, but looking at the nonsense from both trump and clinton camps regarding their respective health, perhaps we is being naive. 

 

side note:

 

jfk's presidency were so fascinating. he became some kinda liberal folk hero, but when he ran 'gainst nixon the focus o' his campaign were the russian threat and how eisenhower and the republicans had allowed the military to become weak.  honest. the foundation 'o his campaign were the need to resist the soviet threat, and a belief that a credible military power to deny commie encroachments 'cross the globe were essential to maintaining the American way o' life.  

 

civil rights? *chuckle* mlk SR. would not support kennedy 'cause jfk were a papist.  weren't 'til the feds arrested mlk JR. late during the Presidential race that kennedy managed to get african american support. were days that nobody public knew where mlk jr was being held. for chrissakes, jfk were running with lbj, whom he loathed, precisely 'cause he needed the southern democratic vote, and most african-americans at the time were republican.  so instead o' having bobby use his doj influence to track down and release mlk jr., kennedy opts to send a letter o' support to mlk jr.'s wife.  that's all.  didn't wanna offend white democrats in the south. and that letter is what possible won kennedy the election-- an empty letter o' condolence.  mlk's wife does a radio interview and thanks kennedy.  the kennedy campaign then prints out copies o' kennedy's letter and the transcripts o' the radio broadcast from mrs. mlk and then the campaign floods southern black communities with paper.  and that is how kennedy became an advocate o' civil rights? when vote for Presidency takes place, jfk's campaign were actual shocked by how relative poor he were doing in catholic districts, but were equal surprised by how well he were doing with african-american demographic.  in an extreme close election, an impotent letter o' condolence made the difference? possible.

 

kennedy presidency were fascinating and curious... particular given how jfk is actual remembered.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps edit: added a couple more kennedy health articles

Edited August 25, 2016 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Right now somewhere around 80% of all tax revenue is paid by just 25% of tax payers. And many of the ones who pay little to nothing are still bitching it's not enough.

Funny how that works. Because right now somewhere around 11% of all wealth in the US is in the hands of just .01% of citizens (.00025% hoarding a bit over 3%). And many of the ones who have the most are still bitching it's not enough.

 

And by the way, the flat tax is the most regressive option out there. A flat federal income tax would later combine with state/municipal taxes for an extremely uneven distribution of tax/earning ratios, punishing the poor(est) the most. You like this idea, why exactly?

 

Not necessarily, most flat tax proposals include the exclusion of significant amount of income at the bottom, so the poor still wouldn't pay any income tax. Right now Mitt Romney only pays 12%, what's fair about that? Having said that a completely flat tax is not the best fit for US at this point. The key is getting rid of all deductions and exemptions, and taxing every kind of income at the same rate. Then there still could be 2-3 different tax brackets. This would produce a much more efficient tax system and increase economic growth.

[213374U]

 

My wife was commenting on how unhealthy Clinton looks.  She seems to be struggling with walking.  Given the way her health declined during her Secretary of State run, I'm really surprised that isn't a bigger concern at this point.

 

According to the rumors (based on wikileaks) she is taking the same medicine as people with narcolepsy, parkinson's and alzheimer's. But it can also be abused by people who wish to stay awake for longer periods of time. Of course there people trying to meme her of being really sick, unfit for standing during the upcoming debates.

 

Lincoln is suspected to have suffered from severe mercury poisoning caused by some pills he took for melancholy. Mercury poisoning symptoms include tremor, fits of rage, insomnia, and memory impairment. Thankfully he stopped taking the meds shortly after inauguration.

 

I'm sure Hillary is just following in his footsteps.

[Meshugger]

 

 

My wife was commenting on how unhealthy Clinton looks.  She seems to be struggling with walking.  Given the way her health declined during her Secretary of State run, I'm really surprised that isn't a bigger concern at this point.

 

According to the rumors (based on wikileaks) she is taking the same medicine as people with narcolepsy, parkinson's and alzheimer's. But it can also be abused by people who wish to stay awake for longer periods of time. Of course there people trying to meme her of being really sick, unfit for standing during the upcoming debates.

 

Lincoln is suspected to have suffered from severe mercury poisoning caused by some pills he took for melancholy. Mercury poisoning symptoms include tremor, fits of rage, insomnia, and memory impairment. Thankfully he stopped taking the meds shortly after inauguration.

 

I'm sure Hillary is just following in his footsteps.

 

 

Or even Wilson's footsteps.

[Zoraptor]

 

My wife was commenting on how unhealthy Clinton looks.  She seems to be struggling with walking.  Given the way her health declined during her Secretary of State run, I'm really surprised that isn't a bigger concern at this point.

 

According to the rumors (based on wikileaks) she is taking the same medicine as people with narcolepsy, parkinson's and alzheimer's. But it can also be abused by people who wish to stay awake for longer periods of time. Of course there people trying to meme her of being really sick, unfit for standing during the upcoming debates.

 

If modafinil is the worst thing she's on she's doing pretty well for a 70 year old. I'd be far more concerned about her blood clot and any prolonged effects it has had. It [modafinil, not the blood clot] probably has less side effects and is less addictive than caffeine.

 

"Treats things like naroclepsy, Parkinson's an Alzheimer's" is pretty histrionic (for those wondering, it is a quote from elsewhere) since you immediately think of serious medications when they are mentioned.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Raithe]

[Meshugger]

 

*fssssssch*

 

ouch!

[kirottu]

http://www.ash4president.com/

 

"No bull****. No baby-kissing. Just hard-assed promises from a kick-ass candidate. Ash Williams is no ordinary man. He's fought demons from hell while chugging a cold, crisp Shemp's, and delivering one-liners that would drop your momma's panties. In comparison, running this country is a cakewalk...and he's ready to do it single-handed."