SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-pay-your-money-and-you-take-your-chances dept.
Self-styled political outsiders Donald Trump (a billionaire businessman) and Ben Carson (a former neurosurgeon) are the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP nomination for the US Presidency, according to the Real Clear Politics average of five major polls conducted between October 10-18, 2015: Trump's 27 pct and Carson's 21 pct are far ahead of the next tier, which consists of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (9 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (8 pct) and former Florida Gov Jeb Bush (7 pct).
The betting markets view the race differently. Rubio has recently taken over as front-runner in most of the political books and prediction markets, replacing Bush, who is now in second place. This duo is followed by Trump, and then (in varying order) Carson, Cruz, and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The remaining nine candidates who have participated in at least one televised GOP debate, and who have not dropped out, are given long odds, typically between 15-1 and 100-1.
Here is the current betting line from Ladbrokes, a London-based bookmaker. For those who enjoy staring at spreadsheets, here is the rollup of online bookmakers and prediction markets.
A few books admit the possibility that a presently-undeclared candidate such as Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg could win the GOP nomination, perhaps to break a voting deadlock at the convention; they are given long odds.
Betting on political elections is prohibited in the USA, but overseas bettors aren't subject to such puritanical restrictions. A UK journalist, commenting on the betting action over who would be the country's prime minister after the upcoming general election, explained why the betting markets are often a more reliable guide than the pollsters. Incidentally, they turned out to be right in the case discussed in the article; incumbent David Cameron retained the office after the Conservatives won enough seats in Parliament to assemble a working majority.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @12:43PM
The two most popular candidates include an arrogant, loud mouthed buffoon, and a doctor who has no political background. The rest of the pack are basically nobodies, and the nobody son of an ex-president.
I have to support the doctor. Of the bunch, he's the only person proven to care about people, and capable of answering the phone in the middle of the night. (Sorry democrats - I've got to laugh at that pompous bitch who claimed that SHE can take that phone call in the night.)
As for the betting houses? WTF cares what they think?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @01:11PM
Carson is a horror once you start examining his beliefs. He believes in a 10% flat tax because it resembles the Biblical tithe tradition. He believe homosexuality is a choice because straight people come out of prison gay. He called the ACA the worst thing since slavery. His use of Nazi metaphors is bizarre. There's plenty more material to quote. While I don't like Clinton, the Democrat in me hopes Caron gets the GOP nomination because he can't win the numbers game with his extreme right wing beliefs, and a segment of GOP voters are not going to vote because he's black or not an Evangelical.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:02PM
I've always liked the idea of a flat tax. The tax structure is totally borked, and it favors the rich of course. Flat tax, whether it be 10# or 30% is "fair" to everyone. If you've only made $100 all year, you owe 30 bucks. If you make ten million, then you owe three million. Simple, and fair. "because it resembles the Biblical tithe"???? What's the problem with that? The poorest pay the least, the richest pick up the slack, and everyone carries a burden.
I don't give a damn about homosexuality - it's a dead end. Choice or not, it's a dead end, and it can only drag society down.
Nazi metaphors? I've got a ton of them myself. You DO realize that we are all set up for Kristalnacht already? WTF do you think Homeland Security is all about, and it's TSA? How do you spell "Brownshirts"?
Carson's only real problem is, he doesn't make his points in politically correct Doublespeak.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @02:37PM
> Flat tax, whether it be 10# or 30% is "fair" to everyone. If you've only made $100 all year, you owe 30 bucks.
The traditional response to that is that that $30 is worth a hell of a lot more to the poor guy than the 3 mill to the rich guy. One of them might go hungry, while the other one still has more money than he can possibly ever spend. If there was a lower limit on tax - ie no tax paid on your first $15000 income or something - then it might make sense. But yeah, I agree taxation (and welfare) is far too complex (in my country at least, and I'm led to believe that your country is even worse).
As for the presidential candidates - well I don't really keep up with it much from this side of the pond but I am surprised. Last election, when the Republicans wheeled out that unelectable parade of clowns, crooks and dogfucking bigots, I assumed it was because they didn't want to win: I figured they planned to let Obama ride out the rest of the recession and take the bad rap for the difficult decisions, then sweep in next election when things were picking up. Now they've returned with an equally baffling assortment of fools, freaks and sociopaths that wouldn't be taken seriously anywhere else in the world, and I'm beginning to wonder if this really is the best that the Republican party can come up with? An established, major political party supported by half the voters of an educated first-world nation, and they are putting forward spittle-flecked lunatics like Donald Trump? Seriously?
Are these people really as bad as they seem, or is it just the american style of character-assassination campaigning that makes them all seem so monstrous?
BTW on the subject of character assassination campaigning, I particularly enjoy when you have two candidates from the same party ripping one-anothers' reputations to shreds while they are trying to get the candidacy, then later on acting like best buddies at election time. No wonder nobody trusts politicians.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:50PM
"dogfucking bigots"
The proper term is "canine loving". It's part of the alternate lifestyles being taught in our schools today. If you find yourself working next to a canine lover, you'd better not show any disapproval, or feminists, LGBT, and CAIR will be all over you. Not to mention the ACLU.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @03:03PM
Actually I know quite a few dogfuckers, and they are some of the nicest, friendliest, most honest and reliable folks you will ever meet. One is a border collie, another is a greyhound/ spaniel cross....
(Score: 2, Funny) by davester666 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:27PM
And who doesn't like fucking a bitch?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday October 26 2015, @04:09PM
Wat?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:06PM
If there was a lower limit on tax - ie no tax paid on your first $15000 income or something
And that exactly is the traditional response. Usually not a random low number, they come up with something like the max possible SS payment or max possible poverty benefit. Or they take the standard deduction from a 1040 and social engineer it a bit.
But yeah I've never heard a serious detailed plan that isn't along the lines of (your income minus something) times some percentage.
The devil is in the details. Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
Of course it would simplify things to make all investment non-taxable and remove corporate income tax completely. So the only tax you pay is on labor. Now is a self employed dude not paying himself a salary because his business can't yet afford it technically a tax dodger because he's delayed paying himself in capex?
How about cash businesses, unless you social engineer the F out of tax forms its going to be hard to prove some waitress only earned $10K/year on base pay when she owns a giant house paid for by steakhouse restaurant tips. Or maybe getting tax free tips should be a benefit of having a shitty service tip job.
Also the social engineers see the "minus something" and start drooling where they can implement 500000 lines of tax codes to benefit the right people by varying the "something" portion based on corruption and campaign donations. Well, its (x-15000)*.1 for most people, but minus 20K if you install solar panels on your bicycle or farm corn or install a water saving toilet this year or WTF.
(Score: 4, Informative) by BasilBrush on Monday October 26 2015, @03:23PM
Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
Neither capital gains nor dividends are "the same dollar of original income". They are additional income.
And the company pay their taxes on their profit, which again is a different amount of money than your original income (which you went on to buy shares with).
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday October 26 2015, @04:42PM
Are capgains an income? I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
This is the marketing method used by the very wealthy to justify minimizing the amount of taxes they pay. Thus a large portion of their income derives from sources they have managed to get fully or partially excluded from tax calculations.
Maybe it should be done like property tax, assess each entity's total assets and come up with a tax based on that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:19PM
I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
And I pay taxes on my income when I make money and I pay sales taxes on that same money when I spend it and if I resell the thing it's counted as new income and taxed again. Why should double dipping on cap gains be special from double dipping on income from working?
I might be fine with reducing the number of times taxes are paid once we eliminate the legal illusion that the corporation and the share holder are separate legal entities with separate rights. As long as each can file separate deeds, sign separate contracts, etc. they are separate drains on government resources and should pay for them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @09:26PM
I would assume yes. They certainly should be: You got more money out that you put in, and that's income.
Indeed, if I had the power to make one change to the current tax structure, I'd switch things around to make the capital gains rate higher than the wages rate (currently it's about half the wages rate). If we're going with the theory that taxes discourage whatever activity is being taxed, then why would we discourage work more than we discourage investment, when work is what creates the goods and services that drive the real economy?
The concept of "double taxation" is basically bunk. I live in a state with a sales and an income tax. That means that when I earn money (however I do so), I pay a tax. And then when I spend that money, I pay another tax on the same income. And then the store owner pays a tax on that already-taxed sale as their income which means it was taxed twice on the same transaction. And all of that is considered normal and accepted. How is it that capital gains is any different? The real reason is this: Capital gains taxes are paid most heavily by rich people, and those rich people can and do spend a lot of money lavishly funding think tanks whose entire purpose is to come up with various ways of dressing up in nice intellectual language the statement "I don't want to pay taxes" (which is just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I want more money").
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by J053 on Monday October 26 2015, @09:35PM
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:30AM
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496 [amazon.com]
More info for those who are interested in reformed taxes.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @03:51PM
Yes, but a flat tax would be a lot fairer than what many countries have today. Today, the guy earning the $100 may only pay $20, but the millionaire can exploit all sorts of loopholes and winds up paying only a few thousand. Meanwhile, governments make up the difference by creating all sorts of other taxes (sales/VAT), licenses and fees. All of those hit low incomes a lot harder than the high incomes.
The flat tax has another benefit. There is an entire army of tax advisors, accountants, lawyers - and on the governmental side, another entire army of tax bureaucrats - that feed off of the arcane tax laws. They add nothing useful to society, but do cost us huge amounts of money. Better if the entire parasitic industry were to simply disappear. They need real jobs, doing something that actually contributes positively to society. Failing that, it would be cheaper to pay them welfare than to pay them inflated salaries for dealing with convoluted tax laws.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:32AM
Agreed. Can we admit then, though, that we shouldn't really even be taxing income at all, but only consumption. This "flat" tax should be a sales tax, not an income tax.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday October 26 2015, @04:18PM
BTW on the subject of character assassination campaigning, I particularly enjoy when you have two candidates from the same party ripping one-anothers' reputations to shreds while they are trying to get the candidacy, then later on acting like best buddies at election time. No wonder nobody trusts politicians.
Some time after the 2012 campaign I stumbled across a campaign flyer in the recycling pile that had been sent by Newt Gingrich attacking Romney. In the same pile was a campaign flyer sent by Romney attacking Obama. The two were almost word for word the same, except the changing of names. I wish I had saved or at least photographed the two, but by that time I was so sick of it all I just chucked them all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @02:44PM
There are good counterarguments to your proposed flat tax:
1. Almost all proposals for a flat tax have a lower marginal tax rate. That means that revenue will go down regardless of any other plan. Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes, it looks an awful lot like yet another plan to "starve the beast". Also, and this is important, the idea that if you cut current tax rates you increase revenue is complete hokum according to current economic forecasts - the reason it remains popular is that everybody wants to pay less in taxes without cutting spending, but wishing doesn't make it so.
2. When poor people have more money, they spend it immediately to buy the stuff they need and have been doing without. When rich people have more money, they just keep it, because they already have everything they need and most everything they want. Since sales drive the economy, that means that poor people having a little bit extra is more useful to everybody else than rich people having a bit extra.
3. There's no particular reason to link the closing of the loopholes that make rich people's effective tax rate lower than middle-class people's effective tax rate to a "flat tax". For example, we could keep exactly the same marginal tax rates but treat all income as income regardless of how it's earned (interest, dividends, capital gains, sole proprietorship / self-employment, and wages are currently all treated differently).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:58PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
2. I don't care about "driving" the economy. Again, I expect everyone to carry their fair share of the load.
3. We sorta agree on the goals, but I'd like to introduce some "fairness" to the system, and at the same time, simplify it all. Closing loopholes is great. But the tax code is so screwy, a twelfth grade education is necessary to prepare your tax returns. Since today's high school graduates have an effective education of about sixth grade*, a complicated tax structure is unreasonable.
*Do you have ANY IDEA how long it's been since I heard high schoolers talking about algebra, or trig, sines or cosines? Hell, few people under the age of thirty can even make change properly these days, let alone figure their taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:39PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
I like to think of the alleged middle class as paying the "stupid" tax. They are not smart (or crooked) enough to be rich, nor moral (smart) enough to be poor and use the power of the vast majority to change the system, since they are stupid enough to think they might someday be one of the rich. So I say, tax 'em till they are poor, and maybe they can rethink that whole "equal opportunity" thing.
(And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay. Carson cares about people? Really?)
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:53PM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
"Carson cares about people? Really?"
Probably not. He just advanced the state of the art in neurosurgery because he couldn't think of any bettter way of getting rich. Think about it - he worked on people young and old, black and white, rich and poor. He wasn't just a neurosurgeon, he wasn't even the best neurosurgeon. He advanced the state of the art. He CARED enough to pull answers out of his ass, when no one in the world had any answers. Why would anyone do that, if they didn't care about people?
People who don't genuinely care just put in enough effort to get by.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:27AM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
Why do I suddenly hear banjo music? You sure got a purty mouth, Runaway! Of course, I could be confusing Arkansas with South Carolina. Wouldn't be the first time. But in general, the more anyone makes a big deal out of "the gays", the more likely they are to be in the closet. There is a Godwin in here somewhere, a raging Himmler gay Nazi Godwin. Not to mention Karl Rove's go to guy, Jeff Gannon. He was a "top". Actually, I have no idea what the means. But it is not as bad as the "Teabaggers" not knowing what teabagging was. Suddenly, I feel deviant. I know too much!!! It is time to Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:16AM
"Actually, I have no idea what the means."
'nuff said - run along.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:22AM
There are no banjos playing or at least none that I can hear over the loud fascist marching songs coming from whoever troll-bombs opposing viewpoints.
It is misuse of the moderation system to mod people as trolling just because one doesn't like whatever opinon is espoused, please stop doing it whoever it is, over time it destroys debate as well as conversation and participation: in my opinion such misuse killed /. just as much as what Dice did.
It is also the traditional dictionary definition of being bigoted.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes
That's a peculiar definition of the word "rarely", where it means "most of the time".
Tax collection is expensive. Cheapening that alone helps a bit.
My "favorite" scheme of the bazzilion possibilities merges a flat tax with basic income. The equation looks something like Income times ten percent minus ten thousand per dependent is what you owe, and negative means you get a check for one twelveth of it every month next year. This has the interesting implication of eliminating fed tax withholding for all income earners under $100K/yr which is about 95% of the population, which is very expensive to administer. That basic income scheme usually comes with gutting numerous (all?) other entitlement programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:37PM
I have never, in my entire life, not even once, ever heard somebody propose a basic income along with a flat tax. All I've ever heard are multi-millionaires and richer proposing a flax tax to lower their own tax rates even further, and nothing else.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Some do. Some just waste it. Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness. I know a guy who is poor. He is a single father and gets assistance from the state. He works irregularly. Recently, he had steady work for a few weeks (maybe a few months) straight, so he decided to treat himself by buying a motorcycle. His third motorcycle. How many poor people smoke cigarettes? How many drink alcohol or gamble? How much is that spending really helping them and the economy?
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies that spend money on office space, office furniture, computers, research, and salaries. They create new products (including new cures for diseases) and new jobs.
Is the overall economy and society better or worse off over the long term (not to be confused with the short term, which is what the politicians care about) when money is in the hands of the wealthy vs. the poor? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:56PM
What you are describing is money movement. "wasting it" is just an opinion (well sorta).
If you buy an asset with money it is not really wasted is it? But if you buy something that gets you nothing long term then yeah you wasted *YOUR* money. But now that money is someone elses money. What will they do with it? Money only disappears in 3 cases. Me buying a cola is not one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:07PM
It doesn't matter what other people do with the money. What matters is that you, as an individual, just wasted your own money on nonsense you can't afford. When I see people constantly buying garbage they can't afford (expensive houses that really aren't a good investment, brand new computers every few years, giant televisions, expensive TV service, expensive Internet service, not taking advantages of methods to keep your food prices under $2 a meal), I think about where that money could be going instead. It could be saved so that they can retire early, or even have a retirement at all. I'm the 'cheapest' person I know, which doesn't mean you can have nothing. The entire point is sustainability, and if you're making bad choices that simply aren't sustainable on your income, you're being a fool.
No advice applies to every situation, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:20AM
some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness.
Ah, the shades of Herbert Spencer! Social Darwinism! Yes! Survival of the richest, because the poor are not wise enough to invest their grocery money in the stock market, and so rise themselves out of poverty! Oh, if only they would stop wasting their money on rent, and health care, and food, and childcare, and cable television! The poor of today are so much better off than those of Dicken's time, because they have microsoft ovens to heat their meals that they pick up between their two or three jobs. If only they would manage time better! You see, the poor are slackers, losers, the anti-Trumps, the anti-Ayn_Rands, of our world. They are poor because of their moral failings, and so the sooner we can send them off to camps, to be, um, "re-educated" to be "entrepreneuers", the better off we would all be. The poor are just holding us all back. We need a Final Solution to the Poorish Question! Seig Heil!!! (Oops, did I say that out-loud? Oh, no, Mom is gunna ground me for this one!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:38AM
The part of that comment you replied to was rather mundane, but that didn't stop you from concocting a giant fantasy wherein that person said tons of things they didn't actually say or imply in the comment. It is absolutely true that a lot of people (rich people and poor people alike) make terrible purchasing decisions. Cable television is expensive and not very useful, so yes, it would be better if people got rid of it; especially poorer people, because they can't afford to waste too much money. I haven't had cable television or television service at all for years and I've been fine; it's all just trash anyway. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, people could spend their money more wisely on food. Rich people waste tons of money, but the difference is they have much more of it to waste because they scammed and/or leeched off of many people to get where they are.
Don't jump to conclusions over the mere suggestion that some people could spend their money more wisely. It's just a fact.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:26AM
Some do. Some just waste it.
There is no difference, from an economic perspective. If they are using it to buy goods or services, then this stimulates the economy, irrespective of the moral judgements that you make about their purchasing decisions.
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies
The difference is that they often invest it overseas. Various 'free trade' agreements have really been about making it easy to move capital. If a poor person has a bit of spare money to save, then it goes in a bank, where various regulations ensure that, even if some of it is invested overseas, most of the grows returns to your economy. If a rich person has spare money, then they can easily invest it overseas and keep the growth in tax havens. You may get some of it back if they're buying expensive toys in your country, but most of it is gone.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:31PM
Flat taxes sound great on paper (especially to conservatives), but as someone else has mentioned, it's been well illustrated that flat taxes screw middle and lower class pretty badly. The problem with using Biblical tithing as support for this? The guy obviously doesn't understand separation of church and state.
Well, the Republican party is definitely for you then.
That's not his only problem. He contorts history to fit his narrative. His guns/Nazi/Jews statement was a bit nonsensical considering the Jews were such a small percentage of the German population and tended to not be armed to begin with. His problem is he's a religious Seventh Day Adventist fruitcake posing as a quiet and reasonable intellectual. At least with Trump you know he's a douchebag. I really hope Carson gets the nomination and then people shriek when they hear his answers to basic questions like the age of the Earth or whether humans and dinosaurs lived together. There's a lot more nuttiness to come out.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:38PM
Sort of like not allowing murder because of the 7th commandment. I guess by your logic it should be allowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @07:03PM
Until you account for spending power. Assuming it costs $10 per day to eat and a 20% flat tax rate, the guy who only made $100 now only has 8 days worth of food instead of 10, meanwhile the guy who made $1million doesn't even notice any drop in his spending power from losing $200k.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @07:37PM
Your point would be? Are you saying that the less wealthy guy is "entitled" to eat better, or what? If he makes $100 per pay period, then he needs to think about keeping his costs below $100 per pay period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @11:15PM
My point is what I stated quite clearly, that, contrary to your claims, there's nothing at all that's fair about a flax tax as it literally takes food away from poor people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @11:30PM
You'll have to do better than that. Other people who seem to share your opinion that poor people are entitled to food have at least suggested that the first $x,xxx dollars are exempt from tax. You're simply stating that a flat tax is unfair. Well, I insist that a flat tax is far more fair than what we have going today.
I want a flat tax, the same rate applying to everyone, no matter how high their income, no matter the source of their income. If you earn 30,000 in employment wages, another 8,000 in the stock market, another 20,000 in consulting fees, and 3,000 more in sale of assets, then ALL of it is subject to the same 30% tax. And, next year, if you only earn your 30,000 as an employee of some corporation, without any additional income, you pay the same 30%.
I might bend on some point at which income is NOT taxable. First 20,000 exempt from taxation? I could live with that, I guess. I don't like it, but I could live with it. At 20,001, you pay $.30, and for every additional dollar in income though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:11PM
Pray tell, how will it drag society down? Seriously, i'd love to hear your explanation. Because only a complete idiot believes that gays would drag society down.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:14AM
They'll spread The Gay, and then the human race will become extinct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:00PM
I know you jest but people actually believe this.
Growing up, the gay kids we made fun of and called gay/faggot/queer, turned out gay. Not because we berated them or forced them to become gay but because THEY WERE GAY and we knew it. They hung out with the girls, skipped rope, avoided hanging with the boys and played with the girls during gym. They didn't decide one day: "you know what, i'm going to suck some other dudes cock and fall in love with him because that's what I want to do." They were born to love other men and suck cock.
Gays aren't a threat to society as gays are natural. They only threaten small minded, self hating closet gays who believe that some jew died on a board of wood to save their soul. Same for the other brain dead morons believing in similar "invisible man" in the sky, war mongering prophets and other idiotic fairy tales. They are the real threat to society.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @04:02PM
The Emergency Medical Hologram is a mystery wrapped in an enigma because if you research him beyond dramatic talking points and sloganeering, get past the demographic shine, he's basically a mid range democrat who doesn't like weed, gays, or abortion. More or less plus or minus the overton window he's a dark skinned Jimmy Carter.
The more you research his policies instead of his TV gaffes, the weirder he sounds. He's hard core into gun control, disbelieves in climate change not for factual reasons but solely on belief, wants a luxury national sales tax (like the one that destroyed industries in the 80s), wants to nationalize the health care system (admittedly like civilized countries did decades ago), his opinion is about as pro-euthanasia as you can get without getting kicked out of the -R party, wants to assimilate illegals, wants to raise the minimum wage.
Like I wrote he's basically Jimmy Carter with a tan and a dislike of abortion. Actually Mondale might be a better comparison. I'd have to think about it for awhile.
Carter, BTW, is likely to be dead very soon. Advanced liver cancer diagnosis about two months ago. Given all the dirt bags in politics its sad to see a genuinely worthy human suffering, even if I would never have voted for him. He's not going to make it to the next election and I wonder if the Emergency Medical Hologram will somehow politically use that issue, seeing as he's strangely similar, to propose how he's bipartisan in most issues and therefore fairly electable.
His core beliefs being about 95% -D and 5% -R explain why he's rabble rousing the -R extremists with all kinds of ridiculous quotes. There's no way the Emergency Medical Hologram can get the nomination in the -R party as a RINO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @07:15PM
My Pacifica Radio affiliate aired some samples of his appearance on the Charlie Rose show.
Props to Rose for keeping at it and trying to pin him down on any of his broad platitudes.
It was like trying to nail Jello to a tree.
When Rose finally did get Carson to say something specific, it demonstrated to me once again that spending time in a church can really fill your head with nonsense (mostly prejudice and hate).
...and, apparently, doing that church thing on SATURDAY (7th Day Adventist) adds a whole 'nother layer of stupid.
It was more proof to me that a surgeon can be nothing more than a mechanic who happens to work on meat instead of steel.
ISTM, Runaway1956 would do well to look at the Libertarian slate or the Constitution Party.
There just **has** to be some other Plantation Capitalist who is more qualified than the bunch in the GOP clown car.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:12AM
ISTM, Runaway1956 would do well to look at the Libertarian slate or the Constitution Party.
There just **has** to be some other Plantation Capitalist who is more qualified than the bunch in the GOP clown car.
It seems that Runaway1956 will be joining us in the Log Cabin room of the GOP Clown Car, just as soon as he gets over the whole "Chelsea Manning" thing. It's OK, Runner, we accept all types in the gay branch of the Republican Party! What choice do we have?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:12PM
What choice do we have?
Bleeding heart libertarianism. Or even anarcho-libertarianism. Doesn't matter. If you're L^HGBT and you vote R or D for bigger government, you are a cow. Maybe Green is ok, but that requires a leap of faith that 3rd wave feminism will eventually come around from the firmly established anti-GBT position 2nd wave feminism left the movement in.
Sorry. It's how it is. If you're GBT, the log cabin is for cows and Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi/etc are for cows.
I don't care about religiously objecting beds and breakfasts or wedding cake bakeries. For a small span of time from the turn of the century until 2012ish, it was not difficult for trans folks to get access to at least meds, even if it was considered “cosmetic” by insurance companies. I believe the difference is that if you were trans and you could pay cash (or had insurance that didn't consider HRT cosmetic), that was a status symbol that you had a job and were a productive member of society. Would these religious objection shenanigans and agitprop about “free Obamacare sex changes!” (cower in terror, you cows, for your god shall smite you for providing proper health care to people who disobey him! Jesus would never do anything like that! Unless it's about bacon. Jesus will forgive bacon lovers and provide a triple bypass entirely on my fucking dime and the fucking dime of every trans person who's heard “religious objection!” from a medical professional in the past three years) continue under single payer? Yep, with certainty. The difference is a trans person would no longer need to jump through hoops to get “out of network” and out of state care (and probably still be stuck paying cash) when the “network” is every endocrinologist in a 500 mile radius. /rant
Note: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) may be running as a Democrat (currently, until the coronation is complete), but he sounds a lot like a bleeding heart libertarian to me. (gewg_ has also noticed that he's not much of a Leftist.) I don't expect the Libertarian party to take him under their wing (perhaps it's best that way), but I expect a repeat of Ross Perot. It'll be (Trump|Bush) vs. Grand Duchess Clinton vs. Sanders. So, Sanders 2016 is my recommendation for the GBT demographic. The L- demographic that usually goes out front in that acronym is welcome to throw in for Sanders, too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bziman on Monday October 26 2015, @04:49PM
It's good that you don't like Clinton. Stop mentioning her as the opposition to the GOP. She is the same thing. There is a non-right-wing candidate for you: Bernie Sanders.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @07:51PM
While Bernie is slightly less Wrong-Wing, don't confuse him with a Leftist.
(Yeah. Lamestream Media has USAian politics -very- skewed toward the Reactionary edge.)
Now, implementing Bernie's ideas about a broader fairness to the system (7 useful graphics) [commondreams.org] *would* be a shift toward the Center.
...but to be an actual Leftist would mean that he rejects Capitalism and wants to make e.g. Verizon an entity with collective-ownership. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
That's not Bernie.
Bernie's proper descriptor would be Liberal Democrat [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [fpif.org] or Social Democrat.
To find a candidate that is truly Left, you're going to need to look at e.g. the Socialist Party USA or the Revolutionary Communist Party (1 hour 14MB MP3s, often with party spokesmen). [kpfk.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Tuesday October 27 2015, @01:11AM
While there is plenty to dislike about Carson, it seems like there is less than most other candidates. As proof, the washington post went batshit insane about his comment about how the 2nd amendment might have changed the holocaust. While it is a debatable issue, it is hardly batshit insane. There is a very interesting article published during the 75th aniversity of Kristallnacht. [washingtontimes.com]
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:23AM
Regardless of how much 'better' he supposedly is than the other clowns, he is still a bad candidate. He wants to forbid abortion except if the woman's life is in danger. He wants to forbid abortion even if the woman was raped. He supports the drug war, has said many things that indicate he's opposed to the separation of church and state, opposes gay marriage, and probably holds many other anti-freedom stances as well. I believe he's just another anti-freedom candidate who is hardly different from a grand majority of politicians.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:36AM
More than batshit insane! Seventh Day Adventist and John Birch and W. Cleon Skousen, the wacko-ist of the wacos!
While it is a debatable issue, it is hardly batshit insane.
Extremely batshit insane! So much batshit insane that the Potassium Nitrate pfiltrates itself right into your dry powder for a total rebellion with Cilven, where wacko Mormons, Seventh Day-o-ists, and just plain "the only people left in the Republican Party" congregate. Bats themselves can not believe how crazy Carson is, and that he is a front-runner for the crazy in the Republican (Crazy) Party. I was just talking to God the other day, you know, the one true God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, and he said that he never talked to any of the Republican candidates, let alone encouraged them to run. So I am lead to a single solitary conclusion: Satan is behind the Republicans. Would not Satan be a Mormon? Wouldn't Satan be a neurosurgeon? Wouldn't Satan . . .Oh crap, if anyone is so gullible as to believe in demonic influence on the Republican Party, they might as well vote Republican. What's the difference, anyway?
Well, here's a hint: crazy people are often wrong. Not always, but enough that maybe they should not be elected.
And as well, you may want to actually read history. Yes, reading is hard for Republicans, but with practice anyone can read. Look up the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", Jews with guns. Carson wasn't there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:12PM
Why's he more insane than any other big-guy-in-the-sky idiot?
The christain sabbath is borrowed directly from the jewish one, which starts t sun-down on friday and ends at sun-down on saturday. To simply continue that convention isn't particularly weird at all. In particular comared to the suspenion of disbelief required to believe in fairies in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @01:33PM
Carson's a nutter... So it Trump.
I am just surprised that republicans are actually considering electing these idiots. Where are the statesmen? Where are the folks that know how to govern?
pfff... GOP, you've been hijacked by crazies...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday October 26 2015, @02:23PM
I am just surprised that republicans are actually considering electing these idiots. Where are the statesmen? Where are the folks that know how to govern?
pfff... GOP, you've been hijacked by crazies...
Trump and to a lesser extent, Carson have the "fuck you" vote. You should instead ask why the "fuck you" vote is so large? There have always been crazies among the electorate. But it is interesting how we're completely missing choices that the Republican base (much less the Republican crazies) would care to vote for.
But don't worry, I bet the Republican establishment will make sure via the usual vote manipulation (like 2012 [madisonvoices.com]) that the nomination process will result in a safe choice (like perhaps Jeb Bush).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @02:27PM
It's a sad state of affairs when Jeb Bush is the 'reasonable' candidate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:34PM
It's a sad state of affairs when Jeb Bush is the 'reasonable' candidate.
He's one of the neocon nutcases. Only reasonable from a neo- or corporatist position. Otherwise, he's pretty much nuts.
You should instead ask why the "fuck you" vote is so large?
The neocon / tea party people took over the -R party financially, for awhile, until mere money couldn't float them anymore, meanwhile they kicked out all the "normal" republican people like me. If you're not a billionaire or talk directly to Jesus on a daily basis, it was bye bye don't let the door hit you on the ass, back in the 90s and 00s. So all they had in their little extremist camp was an enormous pile of corporate money, extreme fundies, chickenhawks, and corporate hirelings. It worked for awhile until it didn't.
There's a large number of non-neo -R class of people itching to vote for someone not bankrolled by the Koch brothers or anyone not holier than thou (which incidentally excludes the mad doctor).
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @04:13PM
> There's a large number of non-neo -R class of people itching to vote for someone not bankrolled by the Koch brothers or anyone not holier than thou (which incidentally excludes the mad doctor).
So why the fuck haven't all these people started a brand new party all of their own to scratch that itch? I know you have a strong two-party dichotomy mentality over there and that many people would vote for a rabid possum wearing a red/ blue rosette out of nothing but habit, but surely by now there ought to be some third-choice "Sane Conservative Party" or something gradually gaining ground over the last ten or fifteen years. If it exists, I've yet to hear of it. The only alternative/ independent candidate I ever hear about is that Ron Paul guy, and from what I can tell he's just as squirrelshit as the Rs.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @04:27PM
Its more or less called the libertarian party. Pretty much since the neo's took over I've been voting -L, in the event that I vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @04:38PM
I thought the libertarians were the ones that wanted to scrap welfare, abolish taxes, and remove all forms of "meddling" with the "free market" (ie get rid of things like environmental regulations, health & safety, minimum wage, monopoly controls etc) - that doesn't sound to me like a more sane and reasonable republican party. It sounds like a super concentrated neo-conservatism, now with less Jesus.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:10PM
Well, neo-conservatives usually want the government to intrude on people's personal lives as much as possible. Mass surveillance, the TSA, the drug war, etc. I would say that that is the main difference between them and most libertarians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:16PM
You have described a Authoritarian Reactionary.
A Neoconservative is an interventionist who really really likes The Military-Industrial Complex and wants all that stuff that has been purchased to be constantly used in Imperialist (mis)adventures.
Very often, they are Chickenhawks who never served in the military.
If they did serve, it's a pretty safe bet they were never in ground combat.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:05AM
But all of this surveillance and anti-privacy nonsense is closely related to the Military-Industrial complex. Often it's in the name of defense.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:24PM
I thought the libertarians were the ones that wanted to scrap welfare, abolish taxes, and remove all forms of "meddling" with the "free market" (ie get rid of things like environmental regulations, health & safety, minimum wage, monopoly controls etc) -
Those are Anarchists calling themselves Libertarians, most of us really just want to streamline government and minimize waste. Most Libertarians recognize that there are times when some regulation is needed, like with OSHA and the EPA; it's when those organizations overstep their bounds that we get annoyed. Really more like classical Liberals before liberalism got overrun with SJWs and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:31PM
remove all forms of "meddling"
And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling bureaucrats!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:20PM
but surely by now there ought to be some third-choice "Sane Conservative Party" or something
Response:
Its more or less called the libertarian party. Pretty much since the neo's took over I've been voting -L, in the event that I vote.
Excuse me, but the parent post was asking for something "sane" and "conservative", not something insanely individualist and radical beyond all measure! I mean, holey Ayn Rand, Batman!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 26 2015, @06:52PM
Maybe because most voters don't want to vote for a party who is going to lose the first 4-8 elections they're in.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Monday October 26 2015, @03:01PM
Now: the big question is why they're hijacked by crazies.
I have a theory above and beyond "half of Americans are idiots and the media is complicit." That idea is centered on "safe districts" and gerrymandering.
Take a state legislature completely dominated by one party when redistricting rolled around. In 2010 that was particularly common. They gerrymander hard. Make 1/6 districts safe for their opponents(mostly democrats this time) in order to make 5/6 safe for themselves. This renders the actual election pointless, mostly, since they know 60% of the voters in their district are reliable republicans.
The side effect is that the voters kind of know this too. And when primaries happen, they aren't worried about picking someone with popular appeal, oh no, they're going to make an intraparty dispute pushing towards the fringes. Half the time, the extremists win the primary, then are essentially unopposed for seats. Before you know it, you've loaded the national legislature with extremists who will risk the faith and credit of the united states over minor budget disputes, and ripping their party leader out of his seat for daring to try and compromise and find solutions to problems.
And that affects the nature of the national conversation. Nevermind that it's slightly less than half of one party who, thanks to aforementioned gerrymandering, actually gets about 45% of the vote for the national legislature and about 55% of seats. They're still directing what gets debated and treated as important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @11:17PM
Hijacked? They've been pandering to the crazies for more than a decade now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @01:54PM
Here's the thing about the Democrats versus the Republicans: If you watched the two debates, you saw the Republicans busy trying to out-God and out-conservative each other while the Democrats were seriously discussing policy proposals. Even the guys who have since dropped out (Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee) were mostly focused on policy ideas e.g. "What should we do about Syria?" and spoke relatively realistically about the options.
Right now, the impression I get from the Republicans is that they have much more of an interest in looking good on TV than they do in actually governing. Their front-runners Trump and Carson are both TV personalities with absolutely zero experience in government. You left out Fiorina: A failed CEO who is being treated like she's a brilliant leader when the only thing she's ever shown aptitude for is marketing herself (and again, with absolutely no government experience).
The House is looking even worse: The Freedom Caucus has made it abundantly clear that their goal is to use the power of the purse to force the entire domestic apparatus of the US federal government to shut down. The deal that Paul Ryan (a guy whose claim to fame is budget proposals where the numbers don't add up) is cutting with them includes a promise to do exactly that. Now, I guess if you're a libertarian you see that as good news, but for anybody else that seems like a really really bad idea.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:12PM
And, you hit the key notes of many libertarian and independent pundits. The Republicans are so retarded, they just let the Democrats walk all over them. In effect, they permit the Democrats to draw up the outline of the game, as well as the rules of the game, then they show up late to the game, and think that they can beat the Dems, despite their home field advantage.
And, people like myself who despise democratic policy are left wondering why they even play the game. WTF? We lose whether the Republicans play or not.
The only thing going for the Republicans at this point in time, is the fact that Democrats have held the White House for 8 years, and the incumbent has record low approval ratings. Even black people and Muslims disapprove of the chump.
And, THAT only points up the stupidity of Democrats. They want to run Shrillary? How is that different from a third term for Obama? Put Hillary into a real suit, and Obama into a tacky pants suit, and you can't tell them apart!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @03:13PM
No he doesn't. Obama's lowest approval rating on record is 37%, and is currently around 46% [realclearpolitics.com], which is not great but certainly not a record low. The lowest recorded presidential approval rating was 19%, for George W Bush (Harry Truman is a close second, hitting a low of 22%). What was your source for the idea that his rating was a record low?
The body with truly remarkably low approval ratings is Congress, currently at 16% in the most generous poll (less generous ones put approval of Congress in the single digits). And those numbers have been below 30% for years [realclearpolitics.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:27PM
What was your source for the idea that his rating was a record low?
Probably for his term?
Its been bouncing along the same low level for the last four and a half years, with variation being quite a bit smaller than error bars. He's a pretty consistent dude. It took him only a couple months to go from 60/20 to his current stats which he hasn't budged from. Its been about half a decade since he's been above low forties and he's never been below low forties, plus or minus maybe five percent polling error bars.
So technically he's been at his record low for almost his entire time in office.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @03:55PM
Possibly, although Pew Research [pewresearch.org] definitely doesn't seem to think so. The presidents who've really sunk down to the floor were either embroiled in scandal (e.g. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton) or gotten a bunch of American civilians killed due to lousy foreign policy (Carter, George W Bush), while Obama really hasn't been caught up in either of those (whether he should or not is open for debate, but so far he hasn't been).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday October 26 2015, @06:14PM
or gotten a bunch of American civilians killed due to lousy foreign policy (Carter, George W Bush)
I sincerely hope that isn't why people hate Bush. The damage the terrorist attack did is nothing compared to the damage done to our country when the government decided to respond to it by shredding our constitution and violating our fundamental liberties more than it did before. Of course, if being a supporter of freedom is your reason for hating Bush, you probably also hate nearly every single politician in existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @09:38PM
When I think of "overt militarism", Jimmy Carter is way, way, WAY down on the list.
Now, there was lots of covert stuff going on then in Central America and South America that was funded and planned and executed with USA.gov's help.
I'm thinking not many USAians got zapped in those activities.
The only actual military operation I associate with Carter was the Desert One fiasco where aircraft ran into each other in a sandstorm at an improvised airfield during a rescue operation.
To see a significant number of dead USAians before Dubya, I think you would want to mention Reagan and the barracks bombing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bziman on Monday October 26 2015, @04:51PM
Third term for Obama? You mean a fifth term for Bush, don't you?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @05:51PM
No. You might think it makes you sound "Insightful" to say shit like that, but that is a pretty ignorant thing to say. Because you disagree with both of them does not make the two of them the same.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:44PM
There's only one thing wrong with your comment, and that is the phrase "the Democrats were seriously discussing policy proposals".
They weren't seriously discussing anything. At least, not in the sense of trying to put forward genuine policy proposals. They were saying the words they think the public wants to hear. No one, not one single candidate, actually intends to do any of the things they propose. Just like good old hope'n'change Obama: one they are in office, it's "the new boss, same as the old boss". Rule by the 1%, continuation of the same big government, corporate cronyism policies that both parties support. The only real difference between the two parties is minor quibbling over exactly how the spoils will be divided.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @07:22PM
For what it's worth, Bernie Sanders does have a record of consistently putting his money and his votes where his mouth is. As in, I know people in the city he was mayor, and my sister lives in Vermont, and there's a pretty universal view that he's the least politician-y politician out there.
I'd have every reason to expect him to use the power of the presidency to do exactly what he says he wants to do to the best of his ability.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:56AM
"...to the best of his ability."
And that is where he'll fail. Welcome to the US political machine/meat-grinder. Still, if elected, he may become known as the least ineffective/damaging president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:13AM
When did mind-reading become possible? Hillary is the only one you can truly say that about, but Hillary is far from the only candidate.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:27AM
Mind-reading isn't possible, but I would say taking into account probability would be a good move. Given history, how likely is it that many or any of these losers are actually telling the truth? Not very likely from what I see.
Furthermore, a lot of the policies these fools claim to support are awful, so if they do intend to implement them, that would also be bad.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47AM
They weren't seriously discussing anything. At least, not in the sense of trying to put forward genuine policy proposals.
You see, this is how far it has gone. Poor Bradley (13- is that Borg designation?) cannot even detect when policy is being discussed! The Right Wing Noise machine has totally discombuberated his policy-discussion detection systems! How many other humans might be in the same condition? Can we expect a Cube, or at least a Sphere, so that me might all be assimilated into the Newt Collective along with Limbaugh, O'Really, Alex Jones, and D'nesh D'souza? I hope the end will be quick and merciful. If not, some of these bastards should do hard jail time.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @02:55PM
The incumbent party candidates tend to compare themselves to the dude in office, either positively or negatively, to raise money. The dude in office is the lightning rod they all revolve around because, lets face it, he won last time, so you want to position yourself as the dude who won plus a little bit better. Hey you guys who gave the last winner $1M, look at me I'm just him with different demographics, I agree with everything he did that turned out to work and disagree with everything he did that turned out not to work, now toss some of that money over here just like you purchased him last time!
The non-incumbent party candidates have no incumbent lightning rod, so they hoover up as many extremists as possible to get PAC money and nomination votes, at which point they ignore them and rush to the center at the speed of a near sonic boom. If they had a lightning rod they'd beta orbit the lightning rod, but then by definition they'd be the incumbent party as per above and it would be the other guys flirting with extremists and it would be all about who's a better friend to the SPLC rather than who's a better friend to the NRA or whatever.
Its a story old as the hills and the -R or -D only apply as per incumbency (is that a word?) status. Aside from that yeah your observations are mostly accurate they're following the stage rules just like the last zillion elections. With the merger of .com and .gov some time ago, dudes who mostly played the .com team are hardly inexperienced with the .gov side. Also Fiorina is the token woman, if the -D put up a woman as nominee or VP then she's in. She's a total loser and would hopefully lose, but she's guaranteed in, so we're stuck with her stinking up the place until the -D side announces nominee and veep, assuming they don't pick yet another member of the Clinton crime family, in which case we're stuck with her as veep.
Its an unusually weak slate of candidates. Nobody with leadership skill wants the job, so you're left with riff raff on both sides. Must be El Nino or global warming or something. You'd think that somewhere out there, on both sides, there would be better qualified candidates, perhaps a dogcatcher or a small town mayor or owner of a hot dog push cart.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday October 26 2015, @05:38PM
There's a lot of truth there, and it's left a lot of current and former Republicans looking for someone who can actually represent them. The party that used to claim to be against big government and pro leaving people alone (aka freedom) is long dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:09PM
> I guess if you're a libertarian you see that as good news, but for anybody else that seems like a really really bad idea.
Even a libertarian can acknowledge that whatever government we need must be effective and competent - a focus on cuts without a focus on improving governance is easiest but also the easiest path to failure.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 26 2015, @02:10PM
The two most popular candidates include an arrogant, loud mouthed buffoon, and a doctor who has no political background. The rest of the pack are basically nobodies, and the nobody son of an ex-president.
Better than last time around.
As for the betting houses? WTF cares what they think?
I guess that depends on whether you're interested in what is probably the best guess out there for who will be the next US president.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:13PM
"best guess" is still just a guess -
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday October 26 2015, @02:28PM
"best guess" is still just a guess -
So? Not all guesses are created equal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 26 2015, @02:48PM
Now, to be completely fair: to a lot of Americans, "no political experience" is a positive. Because, to them, it means that someone is not corrupt.
You or I could list a multitude of problems with that belief, but when has that ever stopped anyone?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:48AM
to a lot of Americans, "no political experience" is a positive. Because, to them, it means that someone is not corrupt.
I don't think that's entirely fail. Libertarians have shown us that corruption can be handled just as well, if not better, by the private sector.
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:06PM
> I've got to laugh at that pompous bitch who claimed that SHE can take that phone call in the night.
So much for Soylent's reputation for insightful commentary. Looks like we are just as full of unsupported opinion as the green site.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Monday October 26 2015, @06:37PM
and capable of answering the phone in the middle of the night. (Sorry democrats - I've got to laugh at that pompous bitch who claimed that SHE can take that phone call in the night.)
What the heck are you talking about?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:47PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @01:02AM
So ben carson who knows exactly nothing about all of those topics but has been on call or clinton who has been working all that shit for years including being on call as secstate and you think carson's the right one? Your objections are so ridiculously juvenile. There are a lot of reasons to dislike hillary but your choice of what to focus on is so off the mark that no one sane can take you seriously.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:10AM
I suppose you aren't aware - CLINTON SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!
How many bodies in Benghazi? How many bodies in the streets of America?