2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 7,079 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

My friend has a terrifying take on the election:

  • Clinton represents four more years of a long, slow decline of our country into a theocratic plutocracy, with more "deregulation", more Supreme Court decisions that deem that corporations have the same rights as people, and in general more "Corporations are King" decisions and focus, converting us into "plutarchs" and "serfs".
  • Trump represents a fundamental upheaval. The man cannot be diplomatic if he tries, cannot comprehend international trade or relationships, and had such a simplistic view of international conflict it's terrifying to behold. He would be catastrophic for the U.S.

  • Hence, you have two choices:
    (1) Vote to maintain the status quo.
    (2) Vote to intentionally cause a crisis in this country. Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it.

    Therefore, our duty as responsible U.S. citizens is to vote for Trump, intentionally causing a catastrophe, because it's better than accepting the continuing decline of the country under our current "party leadership" (both Democrat and Republican -- the only thing they can agree on is that corporations are more important than people).

    I'm sorry to say I have no argument to dissuade him...

    You really don't have an argument to dissuade someone who thinks the responsible thing for a U.S. citizen to do is intentionally cause a catastrophe? Try, "Don't be stupid, it's nowhere near that bad." Or "Isn't the current slow decline actually slow enough for you to run for office to correct the system?"

    Sorry, I'm tired of hearing Clinton and Trump referred to as equally destructive. Trump's unsuited to the job by every metric you measure suitability by, and Clinton's has low likability numbers because she's been bad mouthed by conservative talk radio since her husband was in office. It's not remotely the same thing.

    Edit: You may have ninja'd me CB, but you put me at the top of the page! :P


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    NobodysHome wrote:

    My friend has a terrifying take on the election:

  • Clinton represents four more years of a long, slow decline of our country into a theocratic plutocracy, with more "deregulation", more Supreme Court decisions that deem that corporations have the same rights as people, and in general more "Corporations are King" decisions and focus, converting us into "plutarchs" and "serfs".
  • Trump represents a fundamental upheaval. The man cannot be diplomatic if he tries, cannot comprehend international trade or relationships, and had such a simplistic view of international conflict it's terrifying to behold. He would be catastrophic for the U.S.

  • Hence, you have two choices:
    (1) Vote to maintain the status quo.
    (2) Vote to intentionally cause a crisis in this country. Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it.

    Therefore, our duty as responsible U.S. citizens is to vote for Trump, intentionally causing a catastrophe, because it's better than accepting the continuing decline of the country under our current "party leadership" (both Democrat and Republican -- the only thing they can agree on is that corporations are more important than people).

    I'm sorry to say I have no argument to dissuade him...

    Well, voting to intentionally cause a crisis is insane. Trusting that we've always responded well to crises and therefore will do so this time is terrifying. It also smacks of someone who thinks they've got a good chance of weathering the crisis - there are reasons minorities are so solidly behind Clinton, they're the ones most likely to be devastated by any such crisis.

    As for the steady decline, while I'm willing to admit that many things have slid during the last 8 years, I could also point at things the Democrats have done to counter the slide to theocratic plutocracy. LGBTQ rights being the most obvious, but there have been at least some attempts to replace some of the deregulation - Insufficient perhaps, but there.

    In everything, it's been against staunch Republican opposition. In Congress and the states, but also in those Supreme Court decisions you mention. How often were those decisions, especially, but not exclusively, the theocratic ones a 5-4 majority with both Obama's picks on our side? Getting another Democratic pick to the Court changes the balance there, possible for decades. A good part of the reason we've been in that slide is that we've had a conservative court for so long. There's a reason the Republican Senate refuses, against all precedent to even consider Obama's nominee. A court where Kennedy isn't the swing vote, but part of a conservative minority leaves us in a fundamentally different place and lets us start undoing some of the damage.

    Whatever you think of Clinton or Obama, he did and she'll do, far less damage than Bush did at worst. At best, especially if we can get a Democratic Congress, we may actually see some progress.
    Beyond that, the crisis of the Bush years, the wars and the financial collapse, got us Obama. 8 years of Obama got us the Sanders candidacy. What will 4 or 8 years of Clinton get us? Maybe an even more progressive challenge, building on the Sanders legacy?
    If we survive Trump, we'd be back to "Any Democrat who can beat him".

    Liberty's Edge

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Voting to cause a crisis...yeesh. I'm sure the Jews would be grateful to all the Germans who did that.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    If you want to get rid of Citizens United and/or other decisions granting more rights to corporations, you really only have two options:
    1)Amend the Constitution. This option is extraordinarily difficult.
    2)Have a democrat appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia.

    That's it. There are already four justices on the Court who oppose (and voted against) Citizen's United. If you want it overturned, you need to elect Hillary Clinton to appoint the fifth justice.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    The New York Times has an interesting graphic on its front page right now showing that only 9% of Americans voted for Trump or Clinton as candidate, meaning only one person in 20 is on record as a Trump supporter.

    That likewise means only 1-in-20 is on record as a Clinton supporter. ;)

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    137ben wrote:

    If you want to get rid of Citizens United and/or other decisions granting more rights to corporations, you really only have two options:

    1)Amend the Constitution. This option is extraordinarily difficult.
    2)Have a democrat appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia.

    That's it. There are already four justices on the Court who oppose (and voted against) Citizen's United. If you want it overturned, you need to elect Hillary Clinton to appoint the fifth justice.

    Exactly.

    The Supreme Court has been dominated by GOP nominated justices since 1969... and one controversial case after another has come down to a 5-4 decision.

    THAT, in and of itself, is your long slow decline into theocracy and corporatism. The liberal Warren court ended and we have had a conservative SCOTUS ever since.

    That should have ended earlier this year, but the GOP controlled Senate has refused to act on Obama's nominee. So this election is hugely important for the Supreme Court.

    If Clinton wins the court will tip back to liberal control for the first time in nearly fifty years... and since justices usually choose to retire when they can be assured of a friendly replacement, it could be another 50 years before the balance tips again. Or Trump could win and we might face 100 straight years of conservative judicial dominance.


    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    The New York Times has an interesting graphic on its front page right now showing that only 9% of Americans voted for Trump or Clinton as candidate, meaning only one person in 20 is on record as a Trump supporter.
    That likewise means only 1-in-20 is on record as a Clinton supporter. ;)

    Which isn't really surprising or meaningful in either case. First a relatively small percentage of the population actually votes in primaries. That population is then divided into Republican and Democratic supporters and then further divided among the candidates in each contested primary.

    It would be mildly interesting to compare to how that statistic stood in 2008.


    Not likely. Currently the average term of service by a Supreme Court justice is ~25 years.

    Interestingly, it is possible to impeach a sitting justice. It's only happened once, but it has happened.

    Edit: regarding voters in primaries for 2012, looks like 15.9%. 2008 was 30.3%, just short of the record set in 1972 @ 30.9%.


    Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
    Thomas Seitz wrote:
    Pan wrote:
    Thomas Seitz wrote:
    All I know is I'm getting sick of bugs being blown in my face to keep the fan going in the window so I don't blow out some brain cells...
    Maybe you should start a thread about being without AC.

    Who said that it was the lack of AC?!

    (Also AC is now fixed)

    What does Armor Class have to do with it? Well, I suppose if your AC is too low, you'll get hit by bugs more often.

    Sarcasm,

    Not that kind. But thanks for the breath weapon effect. :p :)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Thank you all, as always, for insightful (rather than inciteful) comments.

    I'll point out the Supreme Court appointments to him.

    THAT is the single-most-terrifying aspect of a Trump presidency, and an excellent reason to vote against him.

    I was going to rail against pro-business democrats, but while Clinton was pretty bad in that regard (NAFTA, the "modification" that was really a repeal of Glass-Steagall, logging in the national forests), Obama's been refreshingly major-pro-business-decision-free, if you ignore the gigantic elephant that is, "Let's force EVERYONE to pay insurance companies to get health care!" (I'm a huge fan of single-payer, so the ACA offended me more than anything any president's done since Bush attacked Iraq...)

    I still worry that Hillary will be far more like Bill than Barack...
    ...but the Supreme Court MUST change, and it's a great reason to vote against Trump.


    thejeff wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    The New York Times has an interesting graphic on its front page right now showing that only 9% of Americans voted for Trump or Clinton as candidate, meaning only one person in 20 is on record as a Trump supporter.
    That likewise means only 1-in-20 is on record as a Clinton supporter. ;)
    Which isn't really surprising or meaningful in either case.

    It is when you consider the larger context. Earlier, thejeff, you suggested that Trump's over-the-top behavior had not cost him yet and wouldn't cost him going forward. I disagree on both counts.

    Historically, how many GOP nominees have had sitting US senators refuse to endorse them in convention speeches? And how many GOP nominees have had as few A-list speakers in the first place? Even in cold, hard, numbers, Trump is facing a 20 point deficit in favorability ratings, and has been flirting with record lows.

    The fact that he won the nomination does not mean that he's popular, even among Republicans, since the early anti-Trump vote was split so many ways.

    And, of course, going forward -- well, American politics has been dominated for decades by a play-to-the-wings strategy during the primary, followed by a play-to-the-center strategy for the general election. I think Trump may have a difficult time moving to capture the center.... and Clinton is already there, of course.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    NobodysHome wrote:

    Thank you all, as always, for insightful (rather than inciteful) comments.

    I'll point out the Supreme Court appointments to him.

    THAT is the single-most-terrifying aspect of a Trump presidency, and an excellent reason to vote against him.

    I was going to rail against pro-business democrats, but while Clinton was pretty bad in that regard (NAFTA, the "modification" that was really a repeal of Glass-Steagall, logging in the national forests), Obama's been refreshingly major-pro-business-decision-free, if you ignore the gigantic elephant that is, "Let's force EVERYONE to pay insurance companies to get health care!" (I'm a huge fan of single-payer, so the ACA offended me more than anything any president's done since Bush attacked Iraq...)

    In defense of the ACA, which I share similar views on in many ways, it was the best that could get through the Senate at the time. It depended on the most conservative (or most opposed) Democratic supporting Senator. Thanks to the filibuster any single Democratic Senator could block it completely. Including the "Independent" Joe Lieberman who'd campaigned for McCain. Even one or two more Democrats would have given much more leeway to negotiate a better deal.

    You can argue it would have been better to do nothing, but there was no way we were going to get single payer out of the Congress we had.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:

    It is when you consider the larger context. Earlier, thejeff, you suggested that Trump's over-the-top behavior had not cost him yet and wouldn't cost him going forward. I disagree on both counts.

    Historically, how many GOP nominees have had sitting US senators refuse to endorse them in convention speeches? And how many GOP nominees have had as few A-list speakers in the first place? Even in cold, hard, numbers, Trump is facing a 20 point deficit in favorability ratings, and has been flirting with record lows.

    The fact that he won the nomination does not mean that he's popular, even among Republicans, since the early anti-Trump vote was split so many ways.

    And, of course, going forward -- well, American politics has been dominated for decades by a play-to-the-wings strategy during the primary, followed by a play-to-the-center strategy for the general election. I think Trump may have a difficult time moving to capture the center.... and Clinton is already there, of course.

    It's certainly cost him mainstream Republican official support, as you say that was obvious at the Convention, but he's running on an anti-establishment, anti-government appeal anyway, so it's not clear how much it's costing him in actual votes.

    I hope you're right, but I'd love to see some erosion in his numbers to support it.


    Seems that real numbers (post-convention boosts) of consequence won't start showing up for a week or two.

    What will get Trump elected is complacency on the part of the other candidates.


    Turin the Mad wrote:

    Seems that real numbers (post-convention boosts) of consequence won't start showing up for a week or two.

    What will get Trump elected is complacency on the part of the other candidates.

    From what I've seen, any convention boost for Trump should be showing up by now and it looks like he got a point or two. We're starting to see post-convention polling for Clinton and it looks good, 5 - 6 points or thereabouts. It'll firm up more over the next week as more polls come out.

    Normally, we'd expect that to fade a bit and the race to tighten. I'm not convinced that'll happen this time.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    NobodysHome wrote:

    Thank you all, as always, for insightful (rather than inciteful) comments.

    I'll point out the Supreme Court appointments to him.

    THAT is the single-most-terrifying aspect of a Trump presidency, and an excellent reason to vote against him.

    I was going to rail against pro-business democrats, but while Clinton was pretty bad in that regard (NAFTA, the "modification" that was really a repeal of Glass-Steagall, logging in the national forests), Obama's been refreshingly major-pro-business-decision-free, if you ignore the gigantic elephant that is, "Let's force EVERYONE to pay insurance companies to get health care!" (I'm a huge fan of single-payer, so the ACA offended me more than anything any president's done since Bush attacked Iraq...)

    In defense of the ACA, which I share similar views on in many ways, it was the best that could get through the Senate at the time. It depended on the most conservative (or most opposed) Democratic supporting Senator. Thanks to the filibuster any single Democratic Senator could block it completely. Including the "Independent" Joe Lieberman who'd campaigned for McCain. Even one or two more Democrats would have given much more leeway to negotiate a better deal.

    You can argue it would have been better to do nothing, but there was no way we were going to get single payer out of the Congress we had.

    Oh, I agree completely. But while we're sighing for and missing various Roosevelts, I really miss the old "name-n-shame" game that were FDR's "fireside chats".

    "This is what I'm trying to do. This is why I believe it would be good for the country. These are the congresspeople who are blocking me. If you believe as I do that this would be good for your country, please write them and let them know how you feel."

    Yeah, overly-idealistic and simplistic, but considering how simplistic the voter base is proving itself to be, I'd much rather have a "parental president" who tries to accomplish the "right thing", rather than a compromise that is in many ways worse than nothing. Yes, ACA helped many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions. But at the cost of those without pre-existing conditions, and still putting money into the pockets of the insurance companies.

    I would have accepted anything that eliminated the middle man. ACA didn't.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    NobodysHome wrote:
    (I'm a huge fan of single-payer, so the ACA offended me more than anything any president's done since Bush attacked Iraq...)

    I look at it this way;

    Before ACA ~26% of population covered by single-payer
    After ACA ~37% of population covered by single-payer

    As the GOP controlled states (slowly) accept the Medicaid expansion the single-payer percentage will continue to rise. If all of them eventually accept the expansion then close to 50% of the population will be covered by single-payer.

    Any way you look at it, the ACA was the biggest step forward for single-payer since the New Deal. Ergo, while it certainly isn't perfect, I'm not going to complain about major progress in the right direction.


    The ACA doesn't directly scale with household income. For the same exact health insurance plan, monthly cost ranges from $14/month (if you're making $20k/year) to $500/month (if you're making $60k/year), for the exact same plan, increasing somewhat at substantially higher household incomes. That the plan has onerous out of pocket limits that neither household could easily absorb or simply be incapable of absorbing adds insult to injury.

    That disproportionate cost is what sticks in the craw of some of those that object to it. Making 3 times as much gross income results in a health insurance policy that gobbles up 10% of household gross income on top of all the other higher taxes that are paid on income instead of 0.84% of gross income.

    Paying 35 times as much for the same crummy policy is unique to the ACA. No other insurance that I'm aware of does this. Only vehicular insurance is also effectively mandatory, and not having it doesn't bone you as badly as the ACA penalties do.

    Edit: single-payer as I understand it gets premiums to the level of "affordable" only when the entire nation is considered for the per-person costs. ACA doesn't do that - it does each state individually. Until it does that, calling the ACA a single-payer system seems to be a misnomer. Here looks like a comparison of single-payer vs. ACA.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    The ACA doesn't directly scale with household income. For the same exact health insurance plan, monthly cost ranges from $14/month (if you're making $20k/year) to $500/month (if you're making $60k/year), for the exact same plan

    So... you think the subsidies should be eliminated and the person making $20,000 per year should have to pay the same $6,000 (i.e. 30% of their pre-tax income) of that for health insurance?

    Quote:
    That disproportionate cost is what sticks in the craw of some of those that object to it.

    Yes, Republicans seem to hate anything that allows the poor to survive.


    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    The ACA doesn't directly scale with household income. For the same exact health insurance plan, monthly cost ranges from $14/month (if you're making $20k/year) to $500/month (if you're making $60k/year), for the exact same plan

    So... you think the subsidies should be eliminated and the person making $20,000 per year should have to pay the same $6,000 (i.e. 30% of their pre-tax income) of that for health insurance?

    Quote:
    That disproportionate cost is what sticks in the craw of some of those that object to it.
    Yes, Republicans seem to hate anything that allows the poor to survive.

    Nope. I'm saying that it should scale reasonably. If the lower income bracket is $14/month, the x3 income bracket shouldn't be paying 35x as much for the same policy. That kind of multiplier shouldn't be seen until a much higher income bracket. See the edited single payer vs. ACA link above.


    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Edit: regarding voters in primaries for 2012, looks like 15.9%. 2008 was 30.3%, just short of the record set in 1972 @ 30.9%.

    Different figures. That's the number who voted, total. Orfamay Quest was referring to the number who voted for the eventual nominee.

    For those curious about how the primary stacks up in this regard to the last couple of cycles, enjoy: (per /u/GeorgeWTrudeau on reddit)

    General Figures

    Percentage of Americans Eligible to Vote: 68.6%

    Percentage of Americans Registered to Vote: 45.9%

    ---

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2008 Primary: 18.2%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Obama in 2008: 5.85%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated McCain in 2008: 3.3%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2008 Election: 42.61%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Obama in 2008: 22.9%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted for McCain in 2008: 19.7%

    ---

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2012 Primary: 9.9%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Obama in 2012: 1.9%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Romney in 2012: 3.1%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2012 Election: 39.8%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Obama in 2012: 20.7%

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Romney in 2012: 19.1%

    ---

    Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2016 Primary: 18%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Clinton in 2016: 5.3%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Trump in 2016: 4.4%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Johnson in 2016: .006%

    Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Stein in 2016: .004%


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    The ACA doesn't directly scale with household income. For the same exact health insurance plan, monthly cost ranges from $14/month (if you're making $20k/year) to $500/month (if you're making $60k/year), for the exact same plan

    So... you think the subsidies should be eliminated and the person making $20,000 per year should have to pay the same $6,000 (i.e. 30% of their pre-tax income) of that for health insurance?

    Quote:
    That disproportionate cost is what sticks in the craw of some of those that object to it.
    Yes, Republicans seem to hate anything that allows the poor to survive.
    Nope. I'm saying that it should scale reasonably. If the lower income bracket is $14/month, the x3 income bracket shouldn't be paying 35x as much for the same policy. That kind of multiplier shouldn't be seen until a much higher income bracket. See the edited single payer vs. ACA link above.

    Welcome to the Republican* world. The 3x income bracket is out of the land where subsidies were judged to be necessary, so they pay multiple times as much. That's the way subsidized premiums have to work. You don't subsidize things for the average family, you only do so for those who really can't afford it.

    Much like the very poorest get Medicaid, but those above that level are on their own. Or were, until the ACA.
    We can tolerate subsidies for the poorest, if necessary, but not higher taxes on the rich.

    Which is what you'd want for single payer. A proper single payer system, like the one you linked, doesn't have premiums it has taxes. Probably still with subsidies (tax exemptions) for the poor, since they can't afford the taxes either. From there it scales up until the richest are paying millions for their coverage.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Only challenge is, what household income constitutes an "average family" varies wildly throughout the US. Rural Virginia may have an average household income of $20k, but it is enough to afford a small single family home in that area. Not by a lot, but by enough.

    Whereas in Northern Virginia or Virginia Beach $60k household income won't afford you a small single family home without being house-poor. Depending on where, it won't even get you a townhouse. Losing another 10% on top of being house-poor can be the budget breaking point depending on where we're talking about.


    Interesting figures, Mr. Betts, very interesting.


    A letter from a Bernie delegate on how the Clinton-Kaine campaign shouldn't take those votes for granted.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    A letter from a Bernie delegate on how the Clinton-Kaine campaign shouldn't take those votes for granted.

    "If an appreciable number of those Bernie voters opt to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate in the fall, here comes President Trump."

    So...congrats? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

    Edit: Not directed specifically at you, Turin. Rather, to the author of that article.


    *shrugs* I know most of what I'm voting for on the ticket for where I live. I don't know what the openings are further down-ticket are for elected positions just yet. One would hope that people would keep their options open until 8th November.

    However, as we've already seen posted, election fatigue has been setting in...

    Edit: thanks for the clarification, bugleyman. :) I'm really hoping that enough people will do some basic due diligence this year and vote not out of fear/anger, rather for whomever they feel represents their personal concerns. Whatever those are.

    Sadly, I think the typical bites we'll predominantly see in many of the assorted news outlets will be comprised of nothing much better than the usual fodder.


    Turin the Mad wrote:

    Only challenge is, what household income constitutes an "average family" varies wildly throughout the US. Rural Virginia may have an average household income of $20k, but it is enough to afford a small single family home in that area. Not by a lot, but by enough.

    Whereas in Northern Virginia or Virginia Beach $60k household income won't afford you a small single family home without being house-poor. Depending on where, it won't even get you a townhouse. Losing another 10% on top of being house-poor can be the budget breaking point depending on where we're talking about.

    Same applies to every federal poverty program. Hell, the same applies to things as simple as the standard income tax deduction. They weren't going to revamp the whole way we define poverty in the US as part of the health care law.


    Applying cost of living adjustments would be a straightforward process.


    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Applying cost of living adjustments would be a straightforward process.

    Then we should revise the rest of the law to do the same. Welfare, taxes, medicaid thresholds, everything.

    What scale should we do it on? Even Northern Virginia has pockets of wealth and poverty. Even expensive cities have their slums. Cost of living in DC is very high. Cost of living in Washington Heights?

    How often do we update it?

    More generally, would you really be okay with people making twice as much as you getting subsidies because they bought a house in a more expensive town? Or a more expensive part of town?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Meanwhile, Trump says he's afraid the election is about to be rigged.

    Given the way things have gone so far... I can understand mistrust in the system, but I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to:

    A) Increase the "Us vs Them" mentality by implying that others are dishonest and trying to erase the value of their votes (while ignoring all of his own lies), and
    B) Set the stage for causing a lot of trouble if he actually does lose, by getting his very fanatical followers to believe that it was clearly a rigged loss.


    Hitdice wrote:
    Still not a terribly sharp razor, though, right?

    Y'gotta put some force behind it.


    thejeff wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Applying cost of living adjustments would be a straightforward process.

    Then we should revise the rest of the law to do the same. Welfare, taxes, medicaid thresholds, everything.

    What scale should we do it on? Even Northern Virginia has pockets of wealth and poverty. Even expensive cities have their slums. Cost of living in DC is very high. Cost of living in Washington Heights?

    How often do we update it?

    More generally, would you really be okay with people making twice as much as you getting subsidies because they bought a house in a more expensive town? Or a more expensive part of town?

    Costs of living have long been well documented and adjusted regularly - at least annually, perhaps more often. I have no problem with adjustments being made as necessary across the board: welfare, tax rates, ad nauseam.

    COLAs if nothing else can establish the poverty threshold by area. If the baseline is $23k nationally but NYC's COLA is thrice that primarily from ridiculously costly housing (along with whatever else), then that adjustment should be made. It's about the only way to be fair across the board.

    Making twice as much is only relevant within the same geography.


    Rednal wrote:

    Meanwhile, Trump says he's afraid the election is about to be rigged.

    Given the way things have gone so far... I can understand mistrust in the system, but I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to:

    A) Increase the "Us vs Them" mentality by implying that others are dishonest and trying to erase the value of their votes (while ignoring all of his own lies), and
    B) Set the stage for causing a lot of trouble if he actually does lose, by getting his very fanatical followers to believe that it was clearly a rigged loss.

    A) is the game plan his campaign seems to be running.

    B) I don't know, it seems a remote possibility, who knows. The number of die hards willing to go that far is (hopefully) quite small. If the defeat is crushing rather than by the slip of a chinny-chin-chin in [insert state here], that might mollify things some. There's always a chance people could go nuts.

    Heck, didn't people go more than a little crazy after the results in 2008?


    2000.


    Turin the Mad wrote:
    thejeff wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    Applying cost of living adjustments would be a straightforward process.

    Then we should revise the rest of the law to do the same. Welfare, taxes, medicaid thresholds, everything.

    What scale should we do it on? Even Northern Virginia has pockets of wealth and poverty. Even expensive cities have their slums. Cost of living in DC is very high. Cost of living in Washington Heights?

    How often do we update it?

    More generally, would you really be okay with people making twice as much as you getting subsidies because they bought a house in a more expensive town? Or a more expensive part of town?

    Costs of living have long been well documented and adjusted regularly - at least annually, perhaps more often. I have no problem with adjustments being made as necessary across the board: welfare, tax rates, ad nauseam.

    COLAs if nothing else can establish the poverty threshold by area. If the baseline is $23k nationally but NYC's COLA is thrice that primarily from ridiculously costly housing (along with whatever else), then that adjustment should be made. It's about the only way to be fair across the board.

    Making twice as much is only relevant within the same geography.

    I've got no real problem with it either, but it's a huge task - politically at least. It's also going to involve either spending a ton more money (if we treat low COL areas as the baseline), cutting some people's aid dramatically (of we start at the other end) or more likely a combination of the two. Pissing everyone off and being politically unfeasible - spending more and cutting my benefits!

    Theoretically easy perhaps, but politically impossible, at least in this climate.
    Might work though, since the entire point of it is to take money away from poor people and give it to the better off.


    How does it take from the poor?

    Entire point of it as I read what was posted earlier was to be able to adjust to "local poverty".

    Funny thought from the hamster here would be even simpler. ;)


    *Takes the poor out for a meal*


    Turin the Mad wrote:

    How does it take from the poor?

    Entire point of it as I read what was posted earlier was to be able to adjust to "local poverty".

    Funny thought from the hamster here would be even simpler. ;)

    Well, which way are we doing it - taking from those currently getting help or spending a ton more money?

    As for Trump's tax plan: Huge giveaway to the rich and huge deficits seems to be the takeaway.


    *still would take the poor out for a meal*


    ^____^

    Huge deficits have been a thing for a while now more often than not. Don't see that changing anyone soon.

    Simplest solution is what no one thinks is possible, politically/otherwise and some would consider unfair. Not that elaborate schema are any sensible solution. *shrugs* What can one do?


    Use my suggestion Turin?

    Maybe just find evidence of alternate universes so we can send people to Faerun?


    Thomas Seitz wrote:

    Use my suggestion Turin?

    Maybe just find evidence of alternate universes so we can send people to Faerun?

    Sounds like a plan.


    Hey it's better plan than just waiting for solutions that never come. ;)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rednal wrote:

    Meanwhile, Trump says he's afraid the election is about to be rigged.

    Given the way things have gone so far... I can understand mistrust in the system, but I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to:

    A) Increase the "Us vs Them" mentality by implying that others are dishonest and trying to erase the value of their votes (while ignoring all of his own lies), and
    B) Set the stage for causing a lot of trouble if he actually does lose, by getting his very fanatical followers to believe that it was clearly a rigged loss.

    Trump's standard modus operandi is to blame everything that can/will go wrong on someone else. It's possible he is simply laying the groundwork for an excuse on him not winning in the next election, or maybe even laying the groundwork for dropping out of the race before election day. Hell apparently he spent a good chunk of that event complaining that the fire marshall had it out for him and denied him more seats at his event (rather than you know...picking and double-checking the venue beforehand to ensure it was large enough)

    At least one article I read (which I admittedly thought had a lot of wishful thinking behind it) speculated that losing the election is too big a risk to Trump's brand of "success", and he would find someway to leave the field if a loss seemed likely.

    I frankly doubt he cares enough about his potential voters or the country to really get them to cause trouble (although that may happen by accident). However I am sure he has no shortage of future profit producing enterprises that could be helped by a loyal and angry base easily told to do different things to spite democrats


    bugleyman wrote:
    Turin the Mad wrote:
    A letter from a Bernie delegate on how the Clinton-Kaine campaign shouldn't take those votes for granted.

    "If an appreciable number of those Bernie voters opt to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate in the fall, here comes President Trump."

    So...congrats? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

    Edit: Not directed specifically at you, Turin. Rather, to the author of that article.

    Scorched Earth policies seldom actually help anyone. If Bernie supporters damage elections and result in a Trump presidency, the Bernie supporters are going to be suffering with all the Hillary voters. And 4 years of trump is not going to convince the mainstream voter base that the problem was not having a more progressive candidate. It's going to convince them NOT to vote for them, probably leading to even more conservative democrat politicians


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    NobodysHome wrote:

    .

    (2) Vote to intentionally cause a crisis in this country. Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it.

    Therefore, our duty as responsible U.S. citizens is to vote for Trump, intentionally causing a catastrophe, because it's better than accepting the continuing decline of the country under our current "party leadership" (both Democrat and Republican -- the only thing they can agree on is that corporations are more important than people).

    I'm sorry to say I have no argument to dissuade him...

    I think it would be outright impossible to defend the thesis "Our country has always responded well to crises, and come out the better for it" using real history. The idea that we've come out the better for crises every time is myth. It belongs with Washington and the cherry tree.

    Some cases have already been mentioned, but one of the most consequential crises that led to a dark age in America - though not necessarily a crisis that looms large in American popular imagination today - is the collapse of Reconstruction in the South in the late 1800s. Have him explain to you how great we did during that crisis.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    More than anything, it smacks of an, "I haven't died yet, therefore I am invincible!" mentality. Which is forgivable in a naive teenager. Less so in a nation hundreds of years old.

    Sovereign Court

    MMCJawa wrote:
    Rednal wrote:

    Meanwhile, Trump says he's afraid the election is about to be rigged.

    Given the way things have gone so far... I can understand mistrust in the system, but I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to:

    A) Increase the "Us vs Them" mentality by implying that others are dishonest and trying to erase the value of their votes (while ignoring all of his own lies), and
    B) Set the stage for causing a lot of trouble if he actually does lose, by getting his very fanatical followers to believe that it was clearly a rigged loss.

    Trump's standard modus operandi is to blame everything that can/will go wrong on someone else. It's possible he is simply laying the groundwork for an excuse on him not winning in the next election, or maybe even laying the groundwork for dropping out of the race before election day. Hell apparently he spent a good chunk of that event complaining that the fire marshall had it out for him and denied him more seats at his event (rather than you know...picking and double-checking the venue beforehand to ensure it was large enough)

    At least one article I read (which I admittedly thought had a lot of wishful thinking behind it) speculated that losing the election is too big a risk to Trump's brand of "success", and he would find someway to leave the field if a loss seemed likely.

    I frankly doubt he cares enough about his potential voters or the country to really get them to cause trouble (although that may happen by accident). However I am sure he has no shortage of future profit producing enterprises that could be helped by a loyal and angry base easily told to do different things to spite democrats

    I think this whole things was to promote the Trump brand. I think he plans to lose but having run gave his kids a huge stage to introduce themselves to the world of politics. ugh


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pan wrote:


    I think this whole things was to promote the Trump brand. I think he plans to lose but having run gave his kids a huge stage to introduce themselves to the world of politics. ugh

    His kids are going to be to politics what George Bush's family is now to politics.

    301 to 350 of 7,079 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards