Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[JES]

Why exactly is this novel? If you were getting open heart surgery, wouldn't you want the most qualified and learned surgeon doing the job? Wouldn't you want it to be someone who dedicated his life to medicine? Or would you rather some random guy off the street with a lot of money do it, because HE ISN'T PART OF THE SYSTEM, MAAAAAAAN.

Why would you not want the same amount of experience / dedication from the people running the goddamn country? I sure as hell would rather have someone who knows how politics works than some asshat who decided on a whim to run for president because he has a ton of money.

Maybe because for the past decade, the only politicians who have been elected seems to do things mostly benefit you if you happen to be loaded. Rich. A fat cat. And if you're not...well too bad!!!
I know that isn't the complete picture, but it seems that when it comes to taking actions that really matter, well look at where the middle class is now, and where the wealthy fat cats are!
People are sick and tired of the wealthy getting a free ride, while everyone else is struggling. People want that to change, and for the wealthy to have a hard time as everyone else, and/or vise versa.

 

[LonelyNess]

Clearly the best way to cater to the poor is to elect the rich white guy from the party where catering to the rich is specifically part of their political platform.

I'll at least take my chances on the rich white guy/girl who SAYS they're going to help the poor/middle class. At least then there's a chance.

 

[termi]

It's nigh insulting to me how some people in this thread seem to think that being a president is something that doesn't require years of experience and active involvement with politics. Being a political leader, contrary to popular belief, is not something you just become on a blue monday because, hey, why the fuck not? Please do not forget that controlling a country is a massive task and one of the utmost importance and therefore shouldn't be done by some ignorant fuckwad with a lot of money and little to no political experience.

It's exactly this "anyone can be president"-type of mentality that allows politics to turn more and more into a populist fuckfest where the candidates who shout the loudest are preferred to the candidates who show the most political expertise. Grow up and understand that being a politician is not as easy as it looks, everyone. It's just as legitimate of a profession as neurosurgeon or judge or what have you and it should be treated with respect.

Not trying to insult anyone here btw, just trying to get a point across. I understand very well why some people don't trust "real" politicians and would rather opt for an alternative, but that doesn't mean that that feeling is necessarily justified.

 

[Ununhexium]

Please do not forget that controlling a country is a massive task and one of the utmost importance and therefore shouldn't be done by some ignorant fuckwad with a lot of money and little to no political experience.

Can we please stop bringing up how much money someone has and focus on their experience? I don't really see any issue with having a rich president. On the other hand, however, having an extremely inexperienced one is a problem. In a similar vein, can we stop using

Clearly the best way to cater to the poor is to elect the rich white guy from the party where catering to the rich is specifically part of their political platform.

I'll at least take my chances on the rich white guy/girl who SAYS they're going to help the poor/middle class. At least then there's a chance.

What the actual fuck does being white have to do with anything lol

 

[LonelyNess]

Nothing. It's as irrelevant as you feeling the need to point it out.

 

[Alfalfa]

I think the reason Trump and Carson are doing so well is because they're not politicians, everyones tired of candidates who are already senators.

On another note, can we just put our differences asside and say that any of the republican candidates would be way better than Obama (even fucking Christie would do better)

I'll give Obama credit: although his foreign policy is shaky as a string of thread, he did keep us out of several potential war situations. People blame Obama a lot for a failing Middle Eastern policy, but people do not take into account how expensive war and military intervention is. If the U.S. is going to declare war on ISIS, it would almost certainly want support from other countries so it does not have to pay the entire bill itself. I highly doubt that any other Republican candidate would go that far to keep the U.S. out of another war, since most of them speak as though the U.S. should have declared war on Russia / Syria / ISIS the moment they became a problem. I will admit that Obama did act like he was clueless how to solve many foreign policy issues, but the press tends to leave out of context the actions that Obama has initiated (not exclusive to foreign policy) that do work.

I am not saying that all of the Republican candidates are bad - Kasich and Christie are promising candidates (though Christie's positive traits have been oxidized by a lot in response to the highly over-hyped Bridgegate scandal that lacks significant logic and context), but both parties seem to do things that work and do things that set the country to fail.

 

[JES]

Can we please stop bringing up how much money someone has and focus on their experience? I don't really see any issue with having a rich president. On the other hand, however, having an extremely inexperienced one is a problem. In a similar vein, can we stop using

What the actual fuck does being white have to do with anything lol

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[QuickBH]

Sanders may be a good person, but his economic policies are just not good. Even ignoring his plans to make healthcare free (how) and tax people who earn higher incomes even more, (this hurts my family a lot, as Obamacare is already screwing my dad, who has EARNED his way to get a high income, out of a lot of money) $15 minimum wage will just kill students like me from getting a job when I head to college. After all, I'm just some kid trying to get his name recognized and needs some money to pay off my college debt with very little experience, who the heck would hire me at all if I cost $15 an hour to keep over some seasoned 30 year old. I need to be cheaper if I want to get hired.

My ideal vote is Rand Paul, with my second being Donald Trump. A simpler tax code (with, highly preferred, a flat rate) is most certainly what we need, and just less force on the economy in general. If we really want a better economy, we should let the free market be the free market and stop letting the government try to control it.

I expect a lot of hate for this, so I'll just say this. If you type in a condescending way or just try to be a dick in general, don't expect me to bother responding.

 

[brightobject]

It's not a good idea to focus on a single aspect of a candidate's policy and judge all candidates according to their positions on said issue (in your case, economic policy). I agree that Sanders' economic policies are sorta shaky, but if Trump were to be elected he would probably destroy all diplomatic relationships with the outside world in ~ two months (except CHINA! of course). So yeah, anyone thinking about voting Trump should reevaluate the thought process that led them to that conclusion.

 

[QuickBH]

It's not a good idea to focus on a single aspect of a candidate's policy and judge all candidates according to their positions on said issue (in your case, economic policy). I agree that Sanders' economic policies are sorta shaky, but if Trump were to be elected he would probably destroy all diplomatic relationships with the outside world in ~ two months (except CHINA! of course). So yeah, anyone thinking about voting Trump should reevaluate the thought process that led them to that conclusion.

Well, Trump is an expert business man for a reason, and if he says he is able to negotiate with Putin rather than going to a war, I can't say I have complete distrust in him, even if he dislikes said countries. Trump is believable in the sense that he admits he does things for self-centered reason. War simply costs too much, and it would hurt his businesses, as well as his reputation.

That being said, Trump isn't my ideal vote. That goes to Rand Paul, and he's very anti-war, and (imo) his economic policies are spot on. Trump's my second simply because his economic policies will at least help improve the economy, and because I believe his self-interest will prevent him from going full 180 when he actually becomes president, because his policies end up helping him, or at least his credibility. Also, he's most likely going to be the man up against Hilary/Sanders, so I might as well have faith in him since I'll probably end up voting for him in the actual election anyways.

 

[Bull Of Heaven]

A lot of Trump's foreign policy ideas are either "I'll learn about this after I'm elected" or "I have a secret plan that I can't talk about". I'm not American, so I have no say in who your president is, but that alone seems like a reason not to vote for him. Anyone else reminded of Herman Cain's "Uzbekibekibekistanstan" moment?

Putting aside the very real questions about Trump's business record, running a business is different enough from running a government that I'm not sure it's relevant experience.

I still doubt that Trump will win the nomination. I don't exactly know what the polls are like right now, but last I heard, he was putting up historically high negative numbers. A plurality of support in a crowded field only means so much when more voters hate you than like you. I still suspect that most of the party will rally around either Bush or Rubio in the end, though there are at least a couple of others who could conceivably win.

 

[Unlucky Desperado]

I haven't heard much about other republican candidates but how has Ben Carson moved to second in the polls and can someone help summarize his stuff and may be how he he differs from Trump?

 

[thesecondbest]

Sanders and trump will both fuck up the US. Sanders will kill the economy by over taxing businesses and trump will screw up foreign policy and probably the US itself, considering his businesses go bankrupt often. Another issue I have with most Republican candidates is how religious they are. As an atheist and someone with many Muslim friends I fear that SCS is dying out. So I hope OMalley wins, but he needs a big win today first. after him probably bush, Clinton and Paul ( or even Christie but he's too much of a meme to win even though his track record isn't bad). But looking forward to tonight.

 

[termi]

Sanders may be a good person, but his economic policies are just not good. Even ignoring his plans to make healthcare free (how)

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

The USA should focus more on comparing itself with the rest of the world, because a lot of heavily debated things in the US (univeral health care, gun control, etc) have already been implemented in many other countries (primarily in Europe) and have shown that they actually work.

There's more wrong with your post but it's 1 AM so I'm not in the mood to refute it atm. Will get back to you later.

 

[macle]

I haven't heard much about other republican candidates but how has Ben Carson moved to second in the polls and can someone help summarize his stuff and may be how he he differs from Trump?

carson is black and trump wants to build a wall

 

[JES]

Sanders may be a good person, but his economic policies are just not good. Even ignoring his plans to make healthcare free (how) and tax people who earn higher incomes even more, (this hurts my family a lot, as Obamacare is already screwing my dad, who has EARNED his way to get a high income, out of a lot of money) $15 minimum wage will just kill students like me from getting a job when I head to college. After all, I'm just some kid trying to get his name recognized and needs some money to pay off my college debt with very little experience, who the heck would hire me at all if I cost $15 an hour to keep over some seasoned 30 year old. I need to be cheaper if I want to get hired.

My ideal vote is Rand Paul, with my second being Donald Trump. A simpler tax code (with, highly preferred, a flat rate) is most certainly what we need, and just less force on the economy in general. If we really want a better economy, we should let the free market be the free market and stop letting the government try to control it.

I expect a lot of hate for this, so I'll just say this. If you type in a condescending way or just try to be a dick in general, don't expect me to bother responding.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for your dad, who I assume has a high income (otherwise, if anything, he should be benefiting from ACA). Unless the taxes kill's your families abilities to go on vacation during the summer, or have enough spare cash to otherwise go out and enjoy yourselves, I have very little sympathy, because I sure don't.
My father's small business was screwed over when the bank's and big businesses reckless actions nearly melted down the economy, and he had to shut down his business when the investors just didn't have the money to invest in getting his business idea of the ground. He's been trying to get another business idea of the ground, but it is very hard, and he is now contemplating calling it quits, and going out to find a job, knowing full well that he will not earn the same amount of money as from the job he previously quit to go start his business, and even said that he knows full well that if he does this, he will likely work until he dies.

And if anyone refuses to hire you or me because they don't want to us $15 (I'm trying to get a job too, but to earn enough money to pay for classes up front), as far as I'm concerned, that is partly their stupid fault. I'll admit that not helping is that big businesses has been shipping any jobs overseas that they can so they can get away with paying their foreign workers next to nothing (or at least less than they'd have to pay workers here), making the job market all the tighter and more competitive than it necessarily has to be.

I can definitely agree however that your dad (who I assume is not a millionaire) shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes as someone who pays more (I hope that is what a flat tax would do). A millionaire should pay less in taxes than a billionaire, and that trend should continue on down. The way that it works it that the more you earn, the more you pay into the system, and the less you earn, the more that is the opposite, and there should be no loopholes where someone who earns more would get to pay less in taxes than someone who earns less.

 

[QuickBH]

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

The USA should focus more on comparing itself with the rest of the world, because a lot of heavily debated things in the US (univeral health care, gun control, etc) have already been implemented in many other countries (primarily in Europe) and have shown that they actually work.

There's more wrong with your post but it's 1 AM so I'm not in the mood to refute it atm. Will get back to you later.

Well, I can't say much for the other countries, but I know that Canada's healthcare is anything but great.

I'll just show you this video, since I think an entertaining video would make you understand more than me writing a huge paragraph; however, my dad is a doctor and visits Canada frequently, so he can confirm about this. I know this guy is a republican, but I encourage you to actually watch the video before you make a rebuttal.

Hide

You'll have to excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for your dad, who I assume has a high income (otherwise, if anything, he should be benefiting from ACA). Unless the taxes kill's your families abilities to go on vacation during the summer, or have enough spare cash to otherwise go out and enjoy yourselves, I have very little sympathy, because I sure don't.
My father's small business was screwed over when the bank's and big businesses reckless actions nearly melted down the economy, and he had to shut down his business when the investors just didn't have the money to invest in getting his business idea of the ground. He's been trying to get another business idea of the ground, but it is very hard, and he is now contemplating calling it quits, and going out to find a job, knowing full well that he will not earn the same amount of money as from the job he previously quit to go start his business, and even said that he knows full well that if he does this, he will likely work until he dies.

And if anyone refuses to hire you or me because they don't want to us $15 (I'm trying to get a job too, but to earn enough money to pay for classes up front), as far as I'm concerned, that is partly their stupid fault. I'll admit that not helping is that big businesses has been shipping any jobs overseas that they can so they can get away with paying their foreign workers next to nothing (or at least less than they'd have to pay workers here), making the job market all the tighter and more competitive than it necessarily has to be.

I can definitely agree however that your dad (who I assume is not a millionaire) shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes as someone who pays more (I hope that is what a flat tax would do). A millionaire should pay less in taxes than a billionaire, and that trend should continue on down. The way that it works it that the more you earn, the more you pay into the system, and the less you earn, the more that is the opposite, and there should be no loopholes where someone who earns more would get to pay less in taxes than someone who earns less.

I asked my parents about how the ACA has effected their business, and the conclusion was that my parents aren't benefitting from Obamacare at all. My dad is a neurologist and my mother is the employer of this company, and my parents has to deal with the problems with Obamacare all the time. They have to pay a flat rate for health insurance their employees don't need, and the amount they have to pay increases depending on how many workers are in their clinic, and with the minimum wage requirement, they simply cannot afford to have full time workers so they have to end up cutting on workers. It's not just that they lose out on profits, they cannot function with more workers thanks to ACA and the minimum wage requirement with it. My parents would not only benefit from more workers, but have the moral capacity to love to do so, but they just can't.

 

[UncleSam]

Just going to throw this out there but I have never understood why economic policy is determined by Congress when almost 80% of Congress lacks any sort of degree in business or economics. Economic policy in this country is drafted, voted on, and signed into office by people who have no serious background nor any special knowledge of the subject.

To me, that is insane. I won't pretend to have the economic background to cast judgment on the ACA but I understand math well enough to know that the various requirements set forth in it were ideologically rather than mathematically motivated.

What is the purpose of having a bureau of economic analysis if they have little to no control over actual economic policy? Why should the highest-paying jobs available for economists be for private interests and investment firms rather than to, you know, actually improve the lives of all Americans through policy?

I'm aware that this is at best tangentially related to the election but I think this is good food for thought when approaching who to vote for in any election.

 

[billymills]

That's true, but also true for a wide range of topics. Scientific investment is voted on by those with limited understanding of science. Education funding voted on by those with minimal understanding of education and of funding. 20% of congress having an economics degree would be fine, as long as the other 80% had degrees or experience in the limited range of topics not covered in the undergraduate economics curriculum.

 

[UncleSam]

The point was that each topic should only be voted on by the subset of people who actually know something about it.

 

[Soul Fly]

The point was that each topic should only be voted on by the subset of people who actually know something about it.

That's retarded.

 

[UncleSam]

Soul Fly if someone with no background in economics tried to convince you to let them handle your personal investments you'd laugh them off, and rightly so. Why shouldn't the nations' economic policies (which also affect you by the way) be held to at least the same standard?

 

[billymills]

The point of the democratic system is to determine which people should be allowed to vote on national matters. Topics are delegated to congress via popular vote in regional elections. There's no one who can decide which representatives should be allowed to vote on which issues given their background.

If you want to argue that only some subset of people should be allowed to vote on some topics, then you'd have to change the government structure the whole way up. There's no simple way to tell the majority of representatives that their vote is invalid.

 

[ryan]

QuickBH, who the hell would hire you now at the current federal minimum wage over a seasoned 30-year-old? It's not like raising the minimum wage by so much would suddenly skyrocket the amount of seasoned 30-year-olds across the country. What it would do is cause companies to fire people because they would no longer be able to afford their workforce if that change were so sudden and drastic, but if it scaled over time alongside the gradually increasing cost of living, as was proposed last night during the Democratic debate I believe (can't remember by whom, I read about it in NYT earlier today), it would give companies more time to adjust.

Regardless, Lonelyness's view is shared by a very large number of people. I'm currently starting a new job and moving to a new city, and considering how awful it has been on me financially (and I'm making 75c over IL state minimum wage, working full time, and will have to take any overtime I'm offered once it comes my way), you can damn well bet I'd sooner vote for Clinton or Sanders over any of the potential Republican candidates who mostly avidly disagree with raising the federal minimum wage at all. It hasn't changed in something like five years I believe, and cost of living has absolutely gone up in that time. Something's gotta give. Even if a Democratic president couldn't fulfill the promise of $15/hr or $12/hr in the case of Clinton, I'll take what I can get.

 

[Ununhexium]

The point was that each topic should only be voted on by the subset of people who actually know something about it.

That's retarded.

I'm pretty sure what Soul Fly was trying to say was that if only 20% of Congress had necessary qualifications then the voting could be incredibly lopsided if one party had more qualifying voters than the other. It wouldn't really be fair to either party if the other basically had full control over economic policy