Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[JALMONT]

In the case of BP, of course BP doesn't make money off the spill, just like banking companies don't make money off being fined. But oftentimes, the fines are simply a cost of doing business. If only fines are levied, and if there remains net profit from doing something illegal, then it's worthwhile to commit fraud or negligence or whatever else.

I don't think jailing is the right option because the current retributive justice system is a joke, and there's no single person or group of people directly at fault. But fines are only an expense, much like pens or paper. And so long as it's still profitable after fines, then what's the point? Governments, ideally, have more power than simply enacting fines, all the way up to the nuclear option of dissolving corporations if necessary.

But if the motive of the a firm is to maximize profits which is done by minimizing costs, then surely it is in the firm's benefit to avoid actions that result in the levying of fines. We're not talking about weighing the risks of carrying around a bag of weed where maybe the risk is worth the reward, we're talking about a humongous disaster that's not going to go unpunished and where it's in nobody's interests for it to happen. It isn't in BP's favor at all for the Deepwater horizon spill to occur because of the costs that they will (rightly) incur. The purpose of a fine isn't to cause companies to go bankrupt, but to provide a penalty so that the firm has an incentive not to continue to incur that cost. Yes it's true that if the penalty isn't large enough then the company could ignore such a penalty and continue doing whatever illegal action it is doing, but that's not really the case with BP considering the magnitude of the disaster.

Whether or not the fine is large enough/too large or if off-shore drilling should even be allowed from an environmental perspective is a different issue that I can't really provide an answer for. There's a fine balance between not enough of a penalty (companies continue to ignore regulations/keep polluting/etc.) versus too harsh of a penalty of say the government forcing a company to disband (firms do not even bother trying to do something, which could be bad in terms of economic/technological growth not happening).

 

[vonFiedler]

BP deserved to pay for their mistake and they are being held accountable financially and in the court of public opinion.

As if that means anything for a company that provides the most necessary resource to people's daily lives. Hell, that barely means anything when people complain about bad video games. Consumer rights are at an all-time low.

But if the motive of the a firm is to maximize profits which is done by minimizing costs, then surely it is in the firm's benefit to avoid actions that result in the levying of fines.

Every single corporation in these situations assesses the amount of profits they will gain in the long-term through negligent behavior and balances them against the statistical probability of fines and losses. This is not a system that encourages accountability, which is the problem here, not justice. When large amounts of people are killed, or huge economic or environmental damage is incurred, as a result of someone's negligence due to securing profits, people need to be held accountable for that or there's not a single reason these things won't keep happening. There will be another oil spill. The actions that led to the housing market crash are already being repeated.

 

[UncleSam]

I'm pretty sure that 70 billion in fines will be enough to make the calculus of whether to properly build oil rigs in the future tilt towards 'build them properly'.

Like BP has been hurt massively as a result of this, both financially AND it's public image, which does matter to a company even just from a bottom-line perspective. BP lost 55% of it's shareholder value after Deepwater Horizon. In other words, this was a completely proportional response in terms that companies understand (ie the bottom line) to a massive fuck up. I'm not sure what else the government (or anyone else) could have reasonably done? No one is arguing that negligent behavior didn't lead to massive consequences, and that the costs of such behavior need to outweigh the short-term benefits of being negligent in the future.

I am arguing, however, that BP has paid a significant enough price to serve as a deterrent. I don't think that we ought to be throwing anyone in jail or levying additional fines or whatever nebulous punishments JES was originally suggesting (and which prompted my response).

I think the issue is the popular idea of "cost" is simply too narrow, when in reality it's not. It seems most look at cost in a small time period of direct cause-and-effect (e.g., buying a meal), rather than at the larger picture (e.g., buying ingredients and making food). This shows in personal finance, but also discussions about politics and business and other things. Not to mention cost over time (e.g., paying up front or paying over time), action (e.g., a postal service) and inaction (e.g., no postal service) have costs, and something else I can't quite remember now.

In the case of BP, of course BP doesn't make money off the spill, just like banking companies don't make money off being fined. But oftentimes, the fines are simply a cost of doing business. If only fines are levied, and if there remains net profit from doing something illegal, then it's worthwhile to commit fraud or negligence or whatever else.

I don't think jailing is the right option because the current retributive justice system is a joke, and there's no single person or group of people directly at fault. But fines are only an expense, much like pens or paper. And so long as it's still profitable after fines, then what's the point? Governments, ideally, have more power than simply enacting fines, all the way up to the nuclear option of dissolving corporations if necessary.

Of course you're correct, and the cost I am referring to is not just in terms of short-term cost. It is abundantly clear that BP has paid a massive long-term, sustained cost as a result of this, as well they should.

 

[billymills]

Does anyone like oil companies? I don't think BP's public image really matters all that much.

I don't know how large a fine should be, because I don't know the exact dollar value of the damages done. 70 billion sounds like a big number that affects internal calculus, but is it actually enough to cover the economic damage to the fishing industry, tourism industry, health issues in the immediate area, and environmental issues?

My understanding is that 11 people died. Where did you get no one reported dead sam?

 

[UncleSam]

Does anyone like oil companies? I don't think BP's public image really matters all that much.

I don't know how large a fine should be, because I don't know the exact dollar value of the damages done. 70 billion sounds like a big number that affects internal calculus, but is it actually enough to cover the economic damage to the fishing industry, tourism industry, health issues in the immediate area, and environmental issues?

My understanding is that 11 people died. Where did you get no one reported dead sam?

I misread the Wikipedia page, specifically I was reading the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill page, which made no mention of casualties in the 'consequences' section (though it did mention it in the masthead for the article), rather than the Deepwater Horizon Explosion page, which makes it much more clear that there were 11 casualties. I was definitely wrong about this though, I should've read the page more carefully to be clear that the consequences referred to in this page were referring only to the long-term environmental/public health consequences, and that the lack of a mention of human casualties was not indicative of an absence of any. Basically the fact that there were two different pages combined with the fact that there was a massive section on 'health consequences' which made no mention of casualties made it hard to understand the article.

I'm just not sure what else ought to have been done here. If someone has a better solution for what should have been done then fine, but just continually stating 'BP fucked up' and demanding generic 'executives' be thrown in prison isn't a solution I agree with and is indicative of a larger problem with thinking about issues like these.

 

[billymills]

I disagree with executives being jailed for the same reasons veiva brought up. My only issue with the fines is that they appear to be entirely deterrents, rather than sufficient amounts to take care of the damages. It appears to be along the same lines as privatize profits, socialize losses, where the state governments are on the hook for the majority of the clean-up efforts and long term social costs.

 

[JALMONT]

Every single corporation in these situations assesses the amount of profits they will gain in the long-term through negligent behavior and balances them against the statistical probability of fines and losses. This is not a system that encourages accountability, which is the problem here, not justice. When large amounts of people are killed, or huge economic or environmental damage is incurred, as a result of someone's negligence due to securing profits, people need to be held accountable for that or there's not a single reason these things won't keep happening. There will be another oil spill. The actions that led to the housing market crash are already being repeated.

Yes, that's the point of insurance and having it. If they have no insurance/don't plan for risks, then if an accident they had no control over happens, they are forced to shut down. That's not good. I don't necessarily believe that is a bad thing because I don't it's realistic to say that any amount of accountability will prevent another major accident since accidents do happen. Sometimes or another due to human error accidents occur and no penalty deterrent will be enough to stop it from happening. Certain risks may be acceptable to take in the course of business, but any risk that results in environmental damage/human deaths is never worthwhile or beneficial for a company. Bad publicity is definitely not good publicity when it involves human health or environmental damage. Companies have every reason to want to comply with safety standards, so if anything I would say that safety regulations/oversight is at fault here and needs to be fixed (which I believe is what happened?)

[As an aside, I think the financial sector is a little different by the fact that the consequences are not always easy to see. With an oil spill or airplane crash, you have environmental damages and dead people. It's harder to "see" the increased unemployment + foreclosure rate and what not. That's a situation in which I would say the consequences/regulation needs to be a stricter. That being said, it's also just the nature of the economy that we have periods of growth and recession. The trick is just getting through the periods of low economic growth where the middle class is more likely to take the hit.]

So while I totally agree companies need to be held accountable, I agree with UncleSam to the extent that a fine is also a way in which companies are held accountable assuming that the amount levied is enough to take care of the damages (and maybe even more). Was BP fined the "right" amount? That's a very difficult question to answer and the more important question in my eyes. I definitely agree with billy that the government should not be on the hook for the costs of the spill, but that BP should be responsible for most of it, if not all of it. That being said, I really don't see a situation where BP benefits from Deepwater Horizon.

 

[tehy]

here is bp's income according to some statement i found on google
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/bp/financials

edit: why did i put gross income kek
16.03B6.95B15B2.3B
7.48B4.49B7.16B7.44B6.93B

net income, the first column. I decided to add in the second column of R&D expenses because, i don't care if that's a tax writeoff it still counts. (is it even a tax writeoff? who cares)

at this point i'm astonished they managed to pay 70 billion - is that the real number?

edit:

reuters sez

BP Plc will pay more than $20 billion in fines to resolve nearly all claims from its deadly Gulf of Mexico oil spill five years ago, marking the largest corporate settlement of its kind in U.S. history, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Monday.

The agreement, first outlined in July, adds to the $43.8 billion BP had previously set aside for criminal and civil penalties and cleanup costs. The company has said its total pre-tax charge for the spill is now around $53.8 billion.

hate misleading headlines. but that looks like 70 bil.

howd they do it?

In the past, BP has paid for liabilities by shedding assets, eroding about one-fifth of the earnings base it had before 2010.

 

[Chou Toshio]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-spill/

My hard-on for Frontline documentaries will never end.

The environmental cost is horrendous but the loss of human life this company is responsible for through sheer negligence and reckless greed should definitely come with criminal consequences imo.

 

[macle]

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016...ion-on-big-chunk-of-its-oil-spill-settlement/

 

[tehy]

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group, estimated that BP will be able to deduct about $15.3 billion of its expenses from the settlement approved by a federal judge this week.


yeah that's stupid. still about 55 billion though as the article itself says, but this has no reason to exist as a law. i get how it snuck through mentally but that's still very stupid, especially since this payment is court-ordered rather than voluntarily given.

 

[Dlelelewoop]

Jumping in here in the middle of a fierce debate on BP...

I'd like to note that for anyone who is unhappy that they'll most likely have to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the fall, there are two viable alternate options: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. I myself am a libertarian-minded voter but registered independent and can't stand either Hillary or Trump.

 

[faint]

Jumping in here in the middle of a fierce debate on BP...

I'd like to note that for anyone who is unhappy that they'll most likely have to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the fall, there are two viable alternate options: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. I myself am a libertarian-minded voter but registered independent and can't stand either Hillary or Trump.

Unless it eases your mind to vote for somebody that has a 0% chance of winning, you are better off voting for who you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

 

[Stratos]

if ur still thinking of voting for jill stein after seeing her positions on homeopathy + vaccines...whoa laddie. shes just some marin county hipster soccer mom who keeps trying to run for office

 

[dice]

We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches.

I agree that just because something’s untested - as much of the world of alternative medicine is - doesn't mean it's safe. But by the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies directly tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is problematic as well. There's no shortage of snake oil being sold there. Ultimately, we need research and licensing establishments that are protected from corrupting conflicts of interest. And their purview should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural".

if you aren't aware, homeopathic medicine is as equally diluted as putting an ibuprofen in the ocean and waiting for it to be homogeneous and drinking a glass of water in hopes it'll cure your headache. in fact, homeopaths believe that the more diluted medicine is, the more potent it will be!

obvi.

 

[Bughouse]

Very few people are actually going to vote for Johnson or Stein. The best a Libertarian candidate has ever done was 1%. Nader won a bit under 3% in 2000 but most elections the Green Party gets well under 1%.

Sure, they'll do better this year than on average. But don't act like any of them are getting to anything above 5% and even 5% is pushing it. People don't bother. They either just leave the top of the ballot blank and vote down ballot, or they don't show up to vote at all.

 

[TheValkyries]

Wait fake science is a bad thing in politics now?

 

[Drangonn.]

Probably the worst part of this election is how there was no ideal choice for either side. I'm a Democrat, and I don't particularly like HRC or Sanders. However, I had to choose what I deemed the lesser of two evils. Same for Republicans. There was someone who would do jack shit to break the wall of Congress, someone who belongs more in a pulpit than the white house, and then you have the rich person who's really bad at foreign policy and tax stuff.

There is no great choice, on either side. It's kind of like choosing how painful you want your death to be.

 

[JALMONT]

if ur still thinking of voting for jill stein after seeing her positions on homeopathy + vaccines...whoa laddie. shes just some marin county hipster soccer mom who keeps trying to run for office

As someone from Marin County, this isn't all of us, I swear.

It's just a small portion (albeit too big of a percentage at that) of us really!

More on topic: how powerful is the position of President really? I know people like to make a big deal out of "well candidate A has position x on gun control so I support them," but in reality how often do those sort of stances actually change government policies when a president enters office? I just feel like the President doesn't really have a lot of power when it comes to things that require legislation to pass (depending on the makeup of Congress that is). That basically leaves things like foreign policy and appointing Supreme Court justices as the most impactful decisions that a president makes. For a while now I've just gotten a sense that the most "powerful" posts in government in terms of enforcing/requiring change has been the Supreme Court and Congress (although with Congress it's more like preventing change). I just find that it's very interesting how much attentions presidential elections are given when a lot of power for change resides in the smaller battles e.g. House/Senate elections. I guess that's just because those elections are more local, but I feel as if we don't give enough of a focus on the smaller elections.

 

[Isa]

if ur still thinking of voting for jill stein after seeing her positions on homeopathy + vaccines...whoa laddie. shes just some marin county hipster soccer mom who keeps trying to run for office

you say this but i bet you'd have no qualms against voting for a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, yn

 

[brightobject]

I'm voting for Trump unless convinced otherwise.

Hopefully I can help with that.

Kasich was the best choice for me, but what Hillary did with the Benghazi scandal and trying to replace the governments in the Middle East with failed democracies was beyond stupid. Why would countries that never had democracies in the past want one now, especially forced...

I agree that Kasich would have been a good choice (Bush even better, if not for his terrible image)...but Hillary was a very strong Secretary of State, there's no denying that. She has made many mistakes, and I agree that her handling of those things was bad. Really bad.

She was a terrible Secretary of State, and say what you want about Trump but he 100% supports Israel which is very important to me.

Hillary has supported Israel for her entire career, and doesn't plan on stopping now, if that's what you're insinuating. I think the only real 'danger' Hillary may pose to Israel would be in proposing a mutual defense treaty between Israel and U.S. (which would require Israel to define their borders). If anything one opposed to Hillary would say that she is too considerate of Zionist lobbying groups.

Not to mention that with Trump, it is POINTLESS to say that he has ever 'supported' anything. Because he hasn't. He's never held any position of a political nature, so any of his words said in the past or even now are meaningless--he can change his position whenever he wants and avoid any consequences (once again, Hillary has done the same thing, but she can be called out on it, unlike Trump) -- see his comments on abortion.

He is also basically a democrat just running under the republican ticket.

This is a BAD thing. It means it will be even more difficult for Trump and the Republican establishment to work together..and this is even further amplified by Trump's lack of tact (or simulated lack of tact/ elaborate persona) and the power of the Tea Party. Again, not really something that should be influencing your choice between Hillary and Trump.

I really don't think it matters that Trump has little political experience because he will listen to people who do, and he surely won't be worse than Hillary.

This is also something bad that I feel you are not recognizing as being bad. Firstly: you are admitting that Trump doesn't know shit. To put it bluntly.

Second, you are predicting that Trump will in essence become either a) stupid (if he refuses to listen to people, as per his persona), b) a figurehead (if he allows himself to be unduly influenced by his cabinet and Congress), or a combination of both. Why would you vote for a candidate while admitting that you don't know what he would do once in office? Not to mention that his choices for his cabinet will likely also be off-point due to the aforementioned lack of experience, further screwing any policy decisions he may make.

I do not condone the dumb shit he says about Muslims or Latin Americans but he is still the lesser of two evils.

How? Overt racism and xenophobia, crassness and vulgarity disguised as 'anti-political correctness,' is a lesser evil than...what? Hillary being bound to the landed interests? Trump IS A LANDED INTEREST HE'S A FUCKING BILLIONAIRE DUDE. Not to mention the fact that you are just ignoring it... I get that people have their priorities, but I think you are solely underestimating just how much of Trump's policy platform is racism, racism, racism. Or realising it and not caring in favor of the parts that you find attractive, which frankly I can't condone.

And every other evil they basically share in spades (other than Trump's lack of political experience). They are both untrustworthy and unreliable with regards to politics, however Trump more so due to lack of political experience. LGBTQ? They both flip flop. Abortion? flip flop. Notice that while Hillary flip flops in order to appeal to a wider electorate for long periods of time (this is bad), Trump flip flops several times within a few months because...who knows he;s Trump he just does whatever the fuck he wants (this is worse).

In addition, with a republican House and Senate we need a 'republican' President to actually get shit passed.

You already admitted that he's a 'democratic' candidate (a populist, to be exact) running under the republican ticket. Do you really think they're gonna get along perfectly just because he's republican? At least with Hilary they know what they're getting. As more and more deadlock occurs this results in forced cooperation. With Donald Trump they have what is basically a wild card, who is already anti-establishment. The best they can do is rein him in and hope for the best (as shown by Paul Ryan and Trump's joint speech, released recently).

As far as economics he surely has an edge on Hillary as well.

Well we've already discussed this itt. Trump wants to buyback our debt at lower than face value and default, which would wreck the world markets and absolutely crush the US economy. Obviously business acumen does not translate to skill in running a nation economically. Hillary, has been in politics for a long time now--she gets economy with regards to the government, both on the local and the federal level.

If you think Trump is completely unqualified I reccommend you listen to his speech on Foreign Policy on Youtube among many others.

Watched this speech:

Trump identifies five main weaknesses in the foreign policy.

(first: overextension of resources--rebuilding other countries while weakening our own) again, advocating a return to protectionism, etc

11:33 - im the only one believe me i know em all im the only one that knows how to fix it (k)

secondly: allies not paying their fair share -- admittedly an enormous problem. US is shouldering too much of the international burden. However no one disputes this.

thirdly; allies beginning to doubt presidents, US - wrong. Obama is much beloved the world over -> getting bashed for trying to negotiate with Iran??? Iran can't afford to blow up (literally)

here trump extolls the ability to be able to WALK during negotiations. This is bad. Shouldn't really need to explain why this attitude is bad in the current climate. fourth point is basically our rivals don't respect america anymore. True, but not disputed by anyone (again). note on trump's view of china http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112415/understanding-donald-trumps-stance-china.asp

fifthly: we lack a coherent foreign policy. True! (fsr notes that we should be ashamed for not helping the Christians--very confused about this)
"almost as if we don't know what's happening" true! Does not elaborate on how under him we would know what's happening (which would obviously make things a great deal easier wrt everything)

it took until 22:38 for him to actually propose something. Stop focusing on nation building and instead on increasing stability (good idea, a step back form the interventionism we've been engaging in for awhile. Disputable, but a good solid idea nonetheless)

-goes into xenophobia part: we arent importing extremism. There IS documentation and there IS paperwork (unlike what Trump says)
-really citing 9/11 as a symptom of bad immigration policy..lol

-America should be unpredictable. ISIS will be gone, I dont know when and I dont know where and I dont know how but they will be gone (K)

Argues for increase in military. I can live with that.

-priorities: middle east- support regional stability and destroy terrorists. "There are groups who no matter what we do, they will be the enemy" (muslims???) **note: later talks about old enemies becoming friends but what abt muslims and hispanics

-friendship with russia and china based on shared interests. Russia and US versus Islamic terror! If we can't make a deal, then we will walk from the table (k).

basically nothing more of substance from this point on. quite inspirational, though! Trump is a very good speaker. He has some very interesting and GOOD ideas but demonstrates a startling lack of understanding of the complex network of international forces that affect geopolitics in the middle east and worldwide, which shows in his lack of a concrete or detailed solution for most of these problems. This however is a boon to him because it makes it very easy to understand for the layman. Even if it is sorely lacking in substance.

America must be strong, wealthy, and great again. yes, of course! No one disagrees with you. You're (trump) just shouting louder than everyone else.

 

[Laurel]

Hopefully I can help with that.



I agree that Kasich would have been a good choice (Bush even better, if not for his terrible image)...but Hillary was a very strong Secretary of State, there's no denying that. She has made many mistakes, and I agree that her handling of those things was bad. Really bad.

Hillary has supported Israel for her entire career, and doesn't plan on stopping now, if that's what you're insinuating. I think the only real 'danger' Hillary may pose to Israel would be in proposing a mutual defense treaty between Israel and U.S. (which would require Israel to define their borders). If anything one opposed to Hillary would say that she is too considerate of Zionist lobbying groups.

Not to mention that with Trump, it is POINTLESS to say that he has ever 'supported' anything. Because he hasn't. He's never held any position of a political nature, so any of his words said in the past or even now are meaningless--he can change his position whenever he wants and avoid any consequences (once again, Hillary has done the same thing, but she can be called out on it, unlike Trump) -- see his comments on abortion.


This is a BAD thing. It means it will be even more difficult for Trump and the Republican establishment to work together..and this is even further amplified by Trump's lack of tact (or simulated lack of tact/ elaborate persona) and the power of the Tea Party. Again, not really something that should be influencing your choice between Hillary and Trump.



This is also something bad that I feel you are not recognizing as being bad. Firstly: you are admitting that Trump doesn't know shit. To put it bluntly.

Second, you are predicting that Trump will in essence become either a) stupid (if he refuses to listen to people, as per his persona), b) a figurehead (if he allows himself to be unduly influenced by his cabinet and Congress), or a combination of both. Why would you vote for a candidate while admitting that you don't know what he would do once in office? Not to mention that his choices for his cabinet will likely also be off-point due to the aforementioned lack of experience, further screwing any policy decisions he may make.



How? Overt racism and xenophobia, crassness and vulgarity disguised as 'anti-political correctness,' is a lesser evil than...what? Hillary being bound to the landed interests? Trump IS A LANDED INTEREST HE'S A FUCKING BILLIONAIRE DUDE. Not to mention the fact that you are just ignoring it... I get that people have their priorities, but I think you are solely underestimating just how much of Trump's policy platform is racism, racism, racism. Or realising it and not caring in favor of the parts that you find attractive, which frankly I can't condone.

And every other evil they basically share in spades (other than Trump's lack of political experience). They are both untrustworthy and unreliable with regards to politics, however Trump more so due to lack of political experience. LGBTQ? They both flip flop. Abortion? flip flop. Notice that while Hillary flip flops in order to appeal to a wider electorate for long periods of time (this is bad), Trump flip flops several times within a few months because...who knows he;s Trump he just does whatever the fuck he wants (this is worse).


You already admitted that he's a 'democratic' candidate (a populist, to be exact) running under the republican ticket. Do you really think they're gonna get along perfectly just because he's republican? At least with Hilary they know what they're getting. As more and more deadlock occurs this results in forced cooperation. With Donald Trump they have what is basically a wild card, who is already anti-establishment. The best they can do is rein him in and hope for the best (as shown by Paul Ryan and Trump's joint speech, released recently).



Well we've already discussed this itt. Trump wants to buyback our debt at lower than face value and default, which would wreck the world markets and absolutely crush the US economy. Obviously business acumen does not translate to skill in running a nation economically. Hillary, has been in politics for a long time now--she gets economy with regards to the government, both on the local and the federal level.



Watched this speech:

Trump identifies five main weaknesses in the foreign policy.

(first: overextension of resources--rebuilding other countries while weakening our own) again, advocating a return to protectionism, etc

11:33 - im the only one believe me i know em all im the only one that knows how to fix it (k)

secondly: allies not paying their fair share -- admittedly an enormous problem. US is shouldering too much of the international burden. However no one disputes this.

thirdly; allies beginning to doubt presidents, US - wrong. Obama is much beloved the world over -> getting bashed for trying to negotiate with Iran??? Iran can't afford to blow up (literally)

here trump extolls the ability to be able to WALK during negotiations. This is bad. Shouldn't really need to explain why this attitude is bad in the current climate. fourth point is basically our rivals don't respect america anymore. True, but not disputed by anyone (again). note on trump's view of china http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112415/understanding-donald-trumps-stance-china.asp

fifthly: we lack a coherent foreign policy. True! (fsr notes that we should be ashamed for not helping the Christians--very confused about this)
"almost as if we don't know what's happening" true! Does not elaborate on how under him we would know what's happening (which would obviously make things a great deal easier wrt everything)

it took until 22:38 for him to actually propose something. Stop focusing on nation building and instead on increasing stability (good idea, a step back form the interventionism we've been engaging in for awhile. Disputable, but a good solid idea nonetheless)

-goes into xenophobia part: we arent importing extremism. There IS documentation and there IS paperwork (unlike what Trump says)
-really citing 9/11 as a symptom of bad immigration policy..lol

-America should be unpredictable. ISIS will be gone, I dont know when and I dont know where and I dont know how but they will be gone (K)

Argues for increase in military. I can live with that.

-priorities: middle east- support regional stability and destroy terrorists. "There are groups who no matter what we do, they will be the enemy" (muslims???) **note: later talks about old enemies becoming friends but what abt muslims and hispanics

-friendship with russia and china based on shared interests. Russia and US versus Islamic terror! If we can't make a deal, then we will walk from the table (k).

basically nothing more of substance from this point on. quite inspirational, though! Trump is a very good speaker. He has some very interesting and GOOD ideas but demonstrates a startling lack of understanding of the complex network of international forces that affect geopolitics in the middle east and worldwide, which shows in his lack of a concrete or detailed solution for most of these problems. This however is a boon to him because it makes it very easy to understand for the layman. Even if it is sorely lacking in substance.

America must be strong, wealthy, and great again. yes, of course! No one disagrees with you. You're (trump) just shouting louder than everyone else.

Thanks, good post. Though I'm not so sure about what you said against Trump and the economy. Why do you think Hillary was a good Secretary of State?

 

[Bughouse]

Well, she worked her ass off. In her 4 years as Secretary of State, she visited 112 countries, the most of any Secretary of State. She spent a total time of 87 days in those 4 years just flying on airplanes alone. That's an average of nearly 2 hours every day, let alone the time in the meetings the flights were for.

And she was incredibly popular while doing it. She was up as high as +35% favorable ratings in some polls while serving, the highest of literally anyone in the federal government. Even after the Benghazi attack, she was at a net +25% approval rating. It's really only in the years since that the mudslinging has stuck. (not coincidentally because she has been the presumptive next nominee for that whole time)

 

[tehy]

I'm going to do a longer post so stay tuned but

Well, she worked her ass off. In her 4 years as Secretary of State, she visited 112 countries, the most of any Secretary of State. She spent a total time of 87 days in those 4 years just flying on airplanes alone. That's an average of nearly 2 hours every day, let alone the time in the meetings the flights were for.

But did any of this actually accomplish anything? When the largest accomplishment you can name is 'I talked to a lot of people' don't be surprised if everyone else says ' I could do that too, especially if I wasn't busy doing real work'. John Kerry, for example, was busy negotiating a deal with Iran, so he probably didn't visit that many countries.

And she was incredibly popular while doing it. She was up as high as +35% favorable ratings in some polls while serving, the highest of literally anyone in the federal government. Even after the Benghazi attack, she was at a net +25% approval rating. It's really only in the years since that the mudslinging has stuck. (not coincidentally because she has been the presumptive next nominee for that whole time)

We came, we saw, he died.



At least the previous administration could say they weren't smart enough to see the consequences of their actions in Iraq. But after that, you do the same thing to Libya?

As to Benghazi - whatever your position, it is obvious she lied to the families of the dead, as her email to her daughter and an Egyptian minister show (she told them it was organized, then afterwards told the families it was reaction to a video). So, there's that...

 

[billymills]

You make a good case.

I definitely trust her to fly on airplanes now.