|
sullat posted:Also, manufacturing jobs were kind of the bedrock of unions and the middle class for several decades. Even though those jobs are probably gone forever, at least waxing rhapsodic about bringing them back makes for good talking points. Although I suppose the transition of support jobs (call centers, tech support, medical imaging, lab work, programming, etc) overseas is definitely something to be concerned about since those jobs are still around and are kind of important white-collar middle class jobs. There are obviously far more nuances involved and sometimes companies just plain make bad decisions, but generally speaking companies are not going to outsource work unless it's to save money. So if the widget factory is sent to Mexico, US workers' wages are decreased (because the jobs are cut) but corporate profits are increased. The reactionary approach is to stop making the trade agreements that are leading to this outsourcing, and I can see why Sanders would go in this direction given that Congress seems incapable of looking past the next fiscal year (and usually not even that far). But if he's making a wish list of policies, why not open up trade and then tax the corporate profits that result from outsourcing? Use that money to build research labs, bridges, schools, etc, and put that money right back in the hands of people for doing productive work. And as a bonus, everyone gets cheaper widgets.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:There is a non-negligible amount of Republicans who truly believe that Obama will refuse to give up the presidency in 2016 They would be right, he'll be giving it up in 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:I don't disagree with any of this besides the Jeb thing. He does better confronting the accusations directly than he does dealing with the unspoken perception that he's very much like his brother. He can "confront" it all he wants, if the Dems aren't pants on head stupid they will trot out things like this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:voters in a general election don't think of campaigns that way I don't know that it has to be that complicated, even for relatively low-information voters. It's not a complicated message to say this guy is hiring all the same people who architected the policies of the previous Bush administration that were obviously disastrous. It's not even hard to turn it into a debate zinger - "you say you are your own man, but how can we trust that when (some number that the Dems will have pushed in the media) percent of your foreign policy team worked for your brother...and we all know how that turned out. Are you hiring these people to tell you what not to do?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So have Republicans started taking credit for the better job numbers yet by citing their takeover of Congress or are they still using the "that's not the real unemployment rate" tactic? It must be frustrating that an improving economy and better job numbers are actually bad for them in their eyes so I'm expecting a shift soon from "they're cooking the books! Smoke and mirrors!" to "see what happens when the GOP is in charge? Jobs!" They're using both lines simultaneously, most of their base doesn't have enough going on between the ears for the cognitive dissonance to be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Huntsman was actually The Only Sane Man in the 2012 Republican Primary. I disagree with him on a lot of things and think he would have taken this country in the wrong direction (especially if given a Republican Congress,) but if a Republican was going to win 2012 I would have chosen him in a heartbeat. He's basically what Marco Rubio is now. Hell, to continue the comparisons, Depends on how you define sane. Huntsman proposed probably the most regressive tax plan of any candidate (including 9-9-9), people don't seem to realize he was an extremist because he wasn't frothing at the mouth like most of the rest of the candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:we used to use ziplock bags rubberbanded around our ankles as a kid. Apparently someone needs to introduce galoshes to large parts of the country.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:They also kept the boots from eating your socks, and made them easier to slip on and off for lazy kids like me who didn't want to mess with laces. I don't know about ziplocks, though, those seem like a weird choice. Bread bags are just the right shape. Galoshes are just the right shape. This isn't even a privilege thing thing, it's a cheap piece of rubber and my parents and grandparents used them growing up in a country far poorer than rural Iowa. Is this just a pride in ignorance thing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Jeb's email open house bonanza was possibly even more retarded, but I am mostly railing against progressives who are going to attempt to defend Clinton for something indefensible. Didn't see a lot of follow-up to this, but didn't someone earlier in the thread mention that the State Department has a separate system from any communications involving classified information, and that this @hilldog.com account would only have been used for stuff that wouldn't need to be transmitted on that network?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Ayotte has the personality of an old shoe. She might be a great legislator or whatever, but she's not nearly energetic enough to ever be a real part of any presidential campaign. She also can't speak without sounding like she's about to break down crying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:That's not how campaign finance works are you insane. You can't literally pocket the money, but you can certainly use it to fund your day to day expenses and direct funds to other people who are suddenly interested in doing business with your other ventures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think she might be forced into defending the Obama years more than the Clinton years. It's not quite so easy considering the major accomplishment was Obamacare which Democrats so far still seem afraid to run on. Foreign policy was her major role with Obama and, well, the Middle East is in a state of crisis and there is a lot of controversy with Russia. It's not Obama's fault or her fault but it doesn't seem like it will be too hard for a Republican to try and sell a message that Democrats are weak there. A Bush v. Clinton election makes me very nervous. I don't think he would have a shot if not for the Clinton name taking the edge off the dynasty stuff. Barring major catastrophe, the 8 years of the Obama administration will be remembered more fondly than the W Bush administration by pretty much any measure. The economy has been improving steadily and foreign affairs have been tense but mostly tame. If Bush comes out with "do you really want 8 more years of this?", the retort is simply "as opposed to the disaster that was the 8 years before that?". The housing bubble and financial crash afterwards are still fresh on peoples' minds, and while Clinton is terrible on the issue, no Republican candidate is going to come out for more regulation and controls. The land wars in Asia are still fresh on peoples' minds, and while Clinton is terrible on the issue, no Republican candidate is going to come out for a more peaceful agenda. It may just be optimism on my part, but if it ends up being Bush v Clinton, Hillary should be able to hammer in over and over that there's no daylight between W and Jeb. The general campaign gives candidates the advantage of being able to address each other more or less directly (if one candidate raises a question, the press will get an answer from the other one or excoriate them for dodging it). I dare (and presumably Hillary will as well) anyone to substantively explain the policy differences between W and Jeb in a way that will resonate. What is Jeb going to say? "Well, I'm going to cut taxes even more", "I'm going to deregulate and privatize more than my brother", "I'm going to spend so much on defense that the world will be scared of us"? And we've all seen the adviser Venn diagram, the same exact thing is going to happen for domestic policy. What's the response there, "Well, unlike my brother I'm hiring these people to tell me what not to do"? I don't think that stuff is going to fly outside of a Republican primary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Ginger Beer Belly posted:So, I'm an Iowan that is currently Independent, not currently eligible to participate in either the Republican or Democratic caucuses. I'm pretty much a centrist who has yet to see any candidate that I care for yet. The last presidential candidate that I felt feelings stronger than "meh" for was Jon Huntsman, R-Utah. I'm going to have to question your centrism, since Huntsman proposed the most extremely regressive change to tax policy of any candidate during that cycle, and I'm including the absurd 9-9-9 plan in that. If Huntsman's proposal was in any way acceptable for you, there is no way you would ever vote for a Democrat. You are a deeply conservative person who prefers the label of Independent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:I really want to see some Saudi owned car dealership refuse to sell to women because of his religious beliefs that disallow women drivers, just so we can watch cirque du soleil levels of mental gymnastics from Indiana Republicans Women are a protected class, so the 14th amendment would trump this law. One of the insidious things about these state-level RFRAs is that there are no (or few) existing discrimination protections for the LGBT community, so these laws basically codify that, yes, you are in fact allowed to discriminate against gays.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Wait, why does the GOP base hate Graham so much? Is it because he sometimes works on legislation with the dems to make sure at least some poo poo gets done? Does anyone even know his name outside of regular Meet The Press viewers?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Can Cruz or anyone else who's currently in Congress and running for 2016 have the CBO model their tax proposals?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Lockpicks is the comparison I think of on this. They're designed to open locks you don't have a key for. There are times this might be perfectly legitimate, even a helpful service. There are other times then it's malicious and criminal. For this reason, some states regulate who can carry lockpicks (like guns), or who can buy them (like guns.) That seems like it would depend on the details though, which is why the blanket ban on lawsuits is a terrible idea. Look at what was happening with drug manufacturers - they were (are) paying their reps to talk up doctors about off-label and dangerous uses of their products. They were rightly found liable for this practice even though there was no product defect. Now this occurred via regulators, but there are no regulators with teeth for firearms manufacturers. Lawsuits and discovery are the only way to expose these things if that is the case for gun manufacturers. Are sales reps for gun makers actively promoting some sort of wink-wink, nudge - nudge background check policy for retailers? Are they promoting gun sales by creating an atmosphere of fear via trade groups? Are they pushing sales without background checks by promoting gun shows? Does any of this cross the line into civil liability by increasing the number of guns out there beyond what is reasonable or making them more likely to get into the wrong hands? We have no idea, and now it is illegal to sue manufacturers to obtain the information that might confirm this one way or another. If there is nothing illegal going on, there is absolutely no need for legislative immunity to lawsuits.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Just a reminder that the FEC has come out and said that they're not going to bother enforcing campaign finance laws because (a) they don't have the resources to do so and (b) the partisan make-up of the decision-making panel ensures that there is never any agreement on whether to act. So Jeb Bush can declare all he wants, the only downside is the appearance of impropriety to wonks.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:"The FEC" has not said that, a democratic member has. And the FEC's weekly reports of completed enforcement actions indicate otherwise. "A Democratic member" who also happens to be the chairwoman of the commission. It's obvious enough to anyone watching that avoiding PAC coordination is a wink wink, nudge nudge situation, who do you think you're kidding?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Can you explain the motive and rationale behind the coordination rules, and how the PACs are evading them? The laws are in place so that campaigns and donors can't avoid contribution limits by just funneling spending through PACs. Perhaps you've been out of the country for the last few years or just not paying attention and need to catch up, but the idea that these laws are being followed beyond a thin veneer of plausible deniability is laughable. e: Here's some documentation from the FEC if you'd like some background: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Since when is Bernie Sanders known as a gun control opponent? He's simply a bit less anti-gun than the average New England leftist. Yeah, but handguns shouldn't be legal for civilian use in the first place since there's no reason to own one except having the ability to kill a person in a small, easily concealable form factor.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I agree that handguns are among the least defensible guns constitutionally, but still very defensible. Now let me buy beltfed, full auto firearms without hassle in exchange Seems like a perfectly reasonable idea, only one of those is actually useful for committing a crime.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
There's no need for these half-assed proposals, just make voting mandatory. You can legally spoil your ballot or something if you want, but skipping out on the process entirely should exclude you from taking money from the government - including tax code transfers like the mortgage interest deduction which are vastly larger than welfare and mostly targeted at the relatively well to do, before anyone calls that proposal anti-poor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's sure done wonders for Australia. I honestly don't care what the results are, just that they're more democratic. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Are you going to provide non-campaign financed methods of transport for voting? How do you plan to enforce it? Provide mail-in, early, or other methods of voting. The enforcement is simple enough, tie it all into the IRS (which is responsible for most redistribution of income anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:"Oh, Senate floor footage, I just can't quit you bro." ~ Rand Paul. What are the possible consequences? Censure by the Senate, which would just help Paul? It's an unenforceable rule, just like campaign finance nonsense, and there is no downside to flouting it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Also, the NYT posted another negative piece about Rubio, this one about his personal finances. His struggles in that regard are pretty much common knowledge, but there are few political arguments worse than "if he can't manage his checkbook, how can he manage the country?!" so it's still an annoying piece. Why is this a bad argument? It's not like he struggled financially because he eschewed personal gain to work for a non-profit or something, he repeatedly bought unaffordable (for him) luxuries while failing to pay his debts. Not to mention the suspect things he did, like paying for personal expenses with campaign funds and using PAC money to hire family members. He actually managed to break the law blatantly enough to incur an FEC penalty - this takes some serious effort.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The 4 traffic tickets in 20 years was heinous enough, now they've unearthed that the very same recalcitrant criminal has made some dumb financial decisions and struggled to pay off student loans. Pulitzer worthy stuff here. Did you miss the part where he repeatedly violated campaign finance laws?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Finally. No DREAMers in sight. Did he bring a take-out burger to a restaurant?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:i really hope as the primaries / election approaches we have a dedicated thread for goofy candidate photos You're in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Forbes thinks he's "only" worth $4.1 billion. They could both be right, we have no idea what his liabilities are. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:9 billion in assets seems low for Trump He does not have a full ownership stake in most of the stuff with his name on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Every single person in this thread has the power to register Democrat and vote in the primary. His polling numbers are similar to if not better than what Obama had in a similar timeframe for the 2008 election. Don't be lazy and give the cop-out "my vote doesn't matter" excuse, because the more people that do that the more we lose. This is absolute nonsense. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html http://www.gallup.com/poll/27985/where-election-stands-june-2007.aspx e:f;b
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Gyges posted:What do you think Bernie will successfully accomplish in the Presidency that Hillary wouldn't? Which isn't to say they're the same thing, rather the things you can do are limited when Congress can't even vote for things they like if you happen to say you aren't against those things. Judicial nominations seem like a wash between Hillary and Bernie, so what executive actions do you think he will implement that she will not. Administrative appointments. Clinton is as likely as Obama to appoint a bunch of ex-industry figures to the heads of various executive departments (SEC, FTC, FCC, etc). We see the difference that this makes - even the appointees that Obama put into place have done far, far more to crack down on industry than these agencies had done under the Bush administration. Sanders is (presumably) more likely to appoint people who are going to seriously regulate industry without being as worried about who is going to offer them a cushy job after their term. This also plays into the culture of the agency as a whole. This is one of the most significant impacts the chief executive has, and is too often overlooked.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He is not. Well then, I guess that's settled since you're the authority on these matters. What reason is there to believe that Sander's executive appointees would not be, on the whole, further to the left than Clinton's?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If Clinton had vetoed the appropriation bill over this, it would have cost him a ton of political capital and his veto would have been overridden. If he had neutered it through directives, congress would have rewritten it to un-neuter it. The way I know this is because Clinton tried to get a full repeal bill going and Congress rushed through the ban in the appropriations bill precisely because vetoing it over this issue would be pretty drat impossible. 1994 was the year that Gingrich and the GOP re-took congress. What would have stopped him from pulling a Truman and just integrating the military via executive order? "Political realities", or whatever else you want to call the triangulation and lack of confrontation that spanned his presidency?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Just a heads up, this is a violation of federal campaign finance laws - that's why they won't sell to foreigners, and doing it through an intermediary could theoretically (though probably not) get that person in some trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:WILL RAND PAUL BRING BACK THE BOUNCE SLIDE It's even better because inflation is basically non-existent right now. mooyashi posted:aw yisssssssss Aww, shucky ducky.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:There's legitimate reasons the guy is worthless, I honestly don't see the need to lie and pretend he's a bad businessman because he uses bankruptcy law to his advantage. You realize he started quite wealthy, right? Some columnist or another made a point that had Trump simply put all of his inherited wealth in the stock market rather than running a business, he would be better off today. It would be good to get some verification of that, but the man is the epitome of someone who was born on third and assumes he hit a triple.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:O'Malley has a superpac? Seriously, who are these people interested in paying more then the campaign maximum to an O'Malley run?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf Haha, Kasich's and Pataki's favorability can be summed up in one word - "who?". e: Also true of Chafee and O'Malley.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:The frontrunners are Bush (I don't like that people are getting tricked by the "Jeb!" thing and not focusing on the "Bush" part), I personally rather enjoy that a presidential candidate is going by an acronym rather than his name. He would be the first president with a single name, all the cool factor of Madonna or Prince. That said, wouldn't JEB be more appropriate for someone rocking an acronym? JEB! JEB! JEB!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 18:58
|
|