2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:10 pm UTC

Trump's lawyers would likely not wish to take such an obviously doomed case. There's absolutely no way any judge would convict on such ludicrous grounds given the circumstances.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... facturing/
Trump's core voters are out of work or afraid they'll be out of work. They blame trade and globalization when really it's computers that have destroyed them. Us manufacturing is in a golden age where they make more than ever. It's just a golden age that doesn't require people.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:42 pm UTC

Oh yeah. Nobody is "bringing back" manufacturing jobs. Those jobs are gone forever.

It's necessary, though. You can't compete with Chinese factories by hiring as many people as they do. I mean, not unless you're paying similar wages and for similar conditions. Automated factories are WAY better. The idea that we can somehow have plentiful jobs, that are also good paying, and that also do not require much, if any secondary education is....well, not realistic. Not anymore. There's no competitive advantage to be had in that.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

The average Trump supporter is wealthier than the average Clinton supporter, according to at least one poll.

EDIT: in fact it found that Clinton is more popular among those making <50k, which is not that same thing.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:The average Trump supporter is wealthier than the average Clinton supporter, according to at least one poll.

EDIT: in fact it found that Clinton is more popular among those making <50k, which is not that same thing.


Is that really much different than the standard Republican/Democrat split? I would figure the wealthier tend to vote Republican.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:When people are presented with their own arguments but stated as coming from others, participants would reject 50 percent of their own arguments as insufficiently compelling.
When people were presented with Hitler quotes and told they came from Trump, a small selection chosen for this video of what may have been a very large number of generally less entertaining Trump supporters found them 100% supportable.

It'd be funny in fiction. Heck, in video games with a quicksave/quickload function we'd all want to make a backup save or two and then see how a Trump presidency would go, wouldn't we? As long as you can f9 yourself back to a saner world and none of it's affecting real people ...
"All Muslims should be forced to wear green crescent moon badges on their clothes when out in public." "YEAH! WHOO!" "Muslim-owned businesses should be confiscated by the state and auctioned to Christian citizens!" "YEAH! WHOO!" "March them into the desert ..." "YEAH!" "... and shoot the stragglers!" "WHOO!" "People tell me, they say to me, I hear that there's a rape problem because too many young men, decent, white men, can't get consent. I say we should use the Muslim girls to satisfy those young men's needs. They don't know what consent is anyway, because Islam doesn't have consent. You want to get laid, as long as you're white, you can use a Muslim. Boom! I'd let blacks use them, too, one girl per week, because I'm not racist. I know black people. I don't like 'em, but I know I'm not a racist. I know more about black people than Barack Obama does. Boom." People would still cheer, wouldn't they? It's like playing through an RPG and trying to "collect" all the bad endings, even though you know the (tactically, finacially and/or morally) right course of action. He's collected them for you. All ya gotta do is vote him in.

What is it with "Boom!" anyway? Jon Stewart was always saying it when mocking Trump's speeches and mannerisms. WTF does it mean, "Boom?"
THIS is a boom. Trump'd probably look at that and say that his hotels have better beaches because he knows what's good for business, or something.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/01/what-republicans-and-democrats-get-wrong-about-american-manufacturing/
Trump's core voters are out of work or afraid they'll be out of work. They blame trade and globalization when really it's computers that have destroyed them. Us manufacturing is in a golden age where they make more than ever. It's just a golden age that doesn't require people.


I remember the Dutch vice PM saying something about this as well. He expects a job loss of 1 million in the Netherlands over the next 15-25 years. I think it were those numbers, but that would be a massive amount over 17 million citizens and a large part of our workforce already doing something in high education.

Anyway, when I looked things up, I didn't find the numbers but I did see the response from some research group that said that the robot takeover would be slower and there would also be (different) new jobs, so the job loss wouldn't be as much as the vice PM said (whether that was 1 million or not). Still, there will be a job loss.

The question that remains is this: are you going to allow yourself (as a country) to be outpaced by whatever competitor shows up due to your complacency or are you constantly going to look for new things to do? And if the first thing happens, who are you going to follow in order to turn that around?
  • The man who is constantly looking for ways to make more profit for his company without regard of his employees? I may exaggerate here but the Trump "made in China" hats are in my memory.
  • Or the person who looks at people before $$$? I doubt Clinton is that person, based on how her campaign in 2008 started (As if she was the obvious "don't look at other candidates Here I Am"-choice for the Democrats), she likes power a bit too much. That's a reason for me to not vote for a certain person.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:[*]Or the person who looks at people before $$$?


Yeah, we don't have that option in this election. It ain't Trump, it ain't Hillary. Shit, if we're looking at third party candidates, even, Libertarians are not renowed for ignoring money for social goals, and I *highly* doubt the Greens can solve this.

Even if you think it's the right choice, it doesn't exist.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:[*]Or the person who looks at people before $$$?


Yeah, we don't have that option in this election. It ain't Trump, it ain't Hillary. Shit, if we're looking at third party candidates, even, Libertarians are not renowed for ignoring money for social goals, and I *highly* doubt the Greens can solve this.

Even if you think it's the right choice, it doesn't exist.

Plasma wolf needs to consider a fourth option. Let the people get rich over globalization. Tax rich people globally and use that money to improve the people who got laid off.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

Relying on the "globally" to avoid people fleeing income redistribution?

I believe there are some practical problems there. Mostly, nobody seems to actually care all that much about equality beyond country borders. Outside of wonky libertarians, that is. So, you're going to have some trouble getting folks to sign on. It's the global warming problem all over again, only it's even easier for rich countries to avoid the costs.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:53 pm UTC

Yeah. If you're going to tax the rich globally, before you redistribute that money to 'those who have been laid off', surely first dibs has to go to the billion+ living on a dollar a day?

And, compared to them, isn't everyone here rich beyond the dreams of avarice? Shouldn't all our money be redistributed too..? Or is rich defined simply as 'having a lot more money than me'..?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:24 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Yeah. If you're going to tax the rich globally, before you redistribute that money to 'those who have been laid off', surely first dibs has to go to the billion+ living on a dollar a day?

And, compared to them, isn't everyone here rich beyond the dreams of avarice? Shouldn't all our money be redistributed too..? Or is rich defined simply as 'having a lot more money than me'..?
Pretty much everyone in the US is in the top 20% of the world, so yeah a lot would be redistributed. That said, the lower classes in the US are already seeing their income redistributed via outsourcing and free trade.


Image
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:39 pm UTC

And now that Clinton is gaining in the polls, the nominee for Whiner In Chief is already saying that the election will be rigged.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... -challenge
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:And now that Clinton is gaining in the polls, the nominee for Whiner In Chief is already saying that the election will be rigged.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/t ... -challenge

article wrote:"If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government," Stone said. He also promised a "bloodbath" if the Democrats attempt to "steal" the election.

Say, this is a real nice electoral process you got here. Sure would be a shame if somebody was to have a riot in it.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

Wow... this Khan thing really is getting bigger.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ocument/p1

I doubt that Trump is going to apologize, but I think he needs to address this. My bet is that Trump begins to ignore this event because I seriously doubt he can insult his way out of this bind...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:29 am UTC

I know people think I'm nuts, but read this.
There are other ways the widespread discontent with politics as usual could express itself on Election Day in a way that winds up hurting Clinton. Garin, for example, notes that while the candidacy of Libertarian Gary Johnson is “largely a wash, millennials are more likely to back a third party, and that hurts us more.”
And it could explain why, after all the confident assertions that the numbers point to a Clinton victory, so many of those I spoke with echoed the words of the 40-year party warrior: “If Trump wins, it means everything I thought I knew about politics is wrong. It’s just that I’m a lot less sure about what I know than I was a year ago.”

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:06 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Relying on the "globally" to avoid people fleeing income redistribution?

I believe there are some practical problems there. Mostly, nobody seems to actually care all that much about equality beyond country borders. Outside of wonky libertarians, that is. So, you're going to have some trouble getting folks to sign on. It's the global warming problem all over again, only it's even easier for rich countries to avoid the costs.

Start taxing other countries or work out snitching deals like we did with the Swiss. It's not like Ireland or the Cayman Islands can fight back. All they offer is financial obfuscation and low taxes. The real issue is that the politicians want it that way because the electorate wants tax laws just the way it is(or their piece of it).

As for income inequality, you don't agree with taxing some of the gains from globalization to help out the losers?

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:33 am UTC

At this point, I'm voting for Hillary because whoever wins in 2020 will have a much easier time cleaning up her mess than cleaning up Trump's. Though, if I were old or sick enough that I wouldn't have to live with the consequences too long, I might vote Trump out of morbid curiosity.

For all the things that should've hurt Trump more than they did, his initial speech introducing A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe as his running make is the biggest for me. Trump barely spoke about Pence, didn't seem to know much about him, and wouldn't even stand on the stage while Pence spoke to support his VP. He clearly wasn't happy with Pence. Trump hypes himself as this master negotiator/deal-maker who knows how to get what he wants out of a situation, but he couldn't even get a running mate he likes. With all the talk of how horribly offensive Trump is, it's easy to over look how horribly incompetent he is.


Rhode Island's blue enough that I could vote third party without consequence. But, I doubt I will. I don't think I've seen any 3rd party candidates down ballot since I moved here, just a few Independents. I'd at least see some Libertarians when I lived in New Hampshire. If the only candidate a party has on the ballot is the President, that's not really a political party.

I'd actually worry about a third party presidential candidate I agree with getting enough votes to qualify for Federal funding and debate participation. As they draw more attention, the vote of people I generally agree with would be split two ways, and we'd never get a majority again. R 45%, D 40%, G 15% means R wins. If third parties start going after state and local elections, they might get enough power to reform the election process to prevent this, maybe with IRV, that'd be great. If Jill Stein draws voters who'd otherwise stay home, and they vote for liberals down ballot, that's a plus. But, voting third party for President when you were going to vote anyway could be counterproductive. Telling Dems that they're leaving progressive votes on the table didn't seem to work with Nader in 2000.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:36 am UTC

sardia wrote:
As for income inequality, you don't agree with taxing some of the gains from globalization to help out the losers?

The losers are relatively rich (top 20%) and gains tend to be many of the worst off, why the hell would you tax that?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:09 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:For all the things that should've hurt Trump more than they did, his initial speech introducing A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe as his running make is the biggest for me. Trump barely spoke about Pence, didn't seem to know much about him, and wouldn't even stand on the stage while Pence spoke to support his VP. He clearly wasn't happy with Pence. Trump hypes himself as this master negotiator/deal-maker who knows how to get what he wants out of a situation, but he couldn't even get a running mate he likes. With all the talk of how horribly offensive Trump is, it's easy to over look how horribly incompetent he is.
He wanted Kasich, and allegedly went so far as to offer to put him in charge of "domestic and foreign policy".
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:29 am UTC

From Paul Manafort, back in May:

He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn't want to do. He sees himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.
Exit the vampires' castle.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:37 am UTC

Donald Trump has claimed that there is a possibility of the US presidential election being “rigged” as he tried to divert attention away from a disastrous week for his campaign by also labelling his rival Hillary Clinton as “the devil” and praising the primary opponent of Republican speaker Paul Ryan.

The Republican nominee has in the past few days faced a barrage of criticism following his controversial comments about the Gold Star parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq.

In response to an emotional attack on him by the parents of 27-year-old army captain Humayun Khan, who died in a suicide bombing, Trump had claimed to have made sacrifices equal to their son.

A range of figures and organizations from across the political spectrum from John McCain to Barack Obama to the Veterans of Foreign Wars have criticized him for his comments.

But at rallies on Monday Trump declined to address that controversy and, in moments typical of his campaign so far, decided to ignite others.

At a campaign town hall in Columbus, Ohio, Trump said he feared that the election would be “rigged,” in an unprecedented statement for a major party nominee in modern history.

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he told the crowd.

He did not elaborate but later repeated the charge on Monday night with Sean Hannity on Fox News, saying: “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Roger Stone, a long time confidante of Trump, amplified these concerns in an interview with a far right wing radio show.

Stone said: “I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly.”

Laying out a strategy for Trump to adopt, Stone added: “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”

He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempted to “steal” the election.

On Monday night, Trump also escalated his rhetoric about Democratic rival Clinton. In a packed rally in a high school gym in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, he called the former secretary of state “the devil”.

The two new controversies ignited by Trump were the typical modus operandi of the Republican nominee when he is under attack. Instead of apologizing or backtracking, he has long thrown out a kaleidoscope of allegations in order to shift the news cycle to stories less damaging to him.

In the same vein, Trump surprisingly tweeted praise for Paul Nehlen, the long shot primary opponent of speaker Paul Ryan, who was running a campaign similar to Trump’s focused on trade and immigration.

The tweet marks a clear rebuke to Ryan, who, while endorsing Trump, has long been critical of the Republican nominee’s more extreme rhetoric as well as his support for a ban on Muslims.

Trump announced Monday that he had raised $35m in July, which he claimed was “unheard of for Republicans”.

Campaigns are not due to file reports to the Federal Election Commission until 20 August. However, if accurate, that figure would represent a decrease of $66m on the total raised by Mitt Romney in July 2012.


link

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5588
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Eternal Density » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:31 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Thought this was amusing. Article from 1995

Spoiler:
Image

Lazar wrote:And Hillary had even been on their board of directors three years earlier.

And in 1997, an American woman became President!
http://www.biography.com/people/janet-jagan-279082
(Of Guyana. And she lost U.S. citizsnship in the 40s (because Marxism). But still, she was born in Chicago and became a national president, so it counts.)
Sableagle wrote:It'd be funny in fiction. Heck, in video games with a quicksave/quickload function we'd all want to make a backup save or two and then see how a Trump presidency would go, wouldn't we? As long as you can f9 yourself back to a saner world and none of it's affecting real people ...

It'd make a good TV show next year. Trump playing himself as fictional president. He'd like that. More fun and freedom with less responsibility compared to being actual president. Let him ad-lib his lines.

Or tell him he's really president and film that. The Trumpman Show!
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:54 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Yeah. If you're going to tax the rich globally, before you redistribute that money to 'those who have been laid off', surely first dibs has to go to the billion+ living on a dollar a day?

And, compared to them, isn't everyone here rich beyond the dreams of avarice? Shouldn't all our money be redistributed too..? Or is rich defined simply as 'having a lot more money than me'..?


'zackly. I am rich compared to a great many people. Easy to lose sight of that, perhaps, especially when they are socially distant from me, but it's true all the same. Even if I lost my job, I have a great many advantages over many people.

But the bar does seem to start, for most everyone, at about where they are as normal, and people richer should give money to them.

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Relying on the "globally" to avoid people fleeing income redistribution?

I believe there are some practical problems there. Mostly, nobody seems to actually care all that much about equality beyond country borders. Outside of wonky libertarians, that is. So, you're going to have some trouble getting folks to sign on. It's the global warming problem all over again, only it's even easier for rich countries to avoid the costs.

Start taxing other countries or work out snitching deals like we did with the Swiss. It's not like Ireland or the Cayman Islands can fight back. All they offer is financial obfuscation and low taxes. The real issue is that the politicians want it that way because the electorate wants tax laws just the way it is(or their piece of it).

As for income inequality, you don't agree with taxing some of the gains from globalization to help out the losers?


No. I currently would rather spend money on various entertainment items than donate it to save the lives of poor people in some far off country. This is obvious, because I spend more on the former. This is generally true for everyone else, too.

So, no, we don't want that.

I mean, presuming you're talking about taxing the relatively well off to help the people in foreign factories making pennies a day or whatever. If you're taxing the latter, that just seems unfair.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:42 pm UTC

Framing taxing the ultra wealthy as 'all western developed countries' is an unexpected track. that argument against raising taxes to combat income inequality seems like a straw man. By your logic, you're saying that the poor countries shouldn't make the ultra wealthy in their country pay extra.

And no, I'm referring to people displaced by globalization. Like the stereotypical factory worker who got replaced by a third world cheaper worker or machine. Taxing the owners and investors who profited off the fruits of trade to offset the localized damage seems a pretty good idea. The alternative is Trump clones wreaking havoc around the globe.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:51 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Framing taxing the ultra wealthy as 'all western developed countries' is an unexpected track. that argument against raising taxes to combat income inequality seems like a straw man. By your logic, you're saying that the poor countries shouldn't make the ultra wealthy in their country pay extra.


Well, if you're talking globally, the difference between wealth in countries is glaringly obvious.

If a job gets outsourced to China, the savings will probably not result in immense gains for the CEO(shit, many CEOs are well compensated regardless of performance). You *can't* recoup all the money lost by those workers by taxing him. It doesn't math.

The point is that wealth is flowing to Chinese workers. They might be underpaid as shit by our standards, but it's a boost for them. I know it's popular to hate on the rich, but in practice, it isn't the rich people taking the jobs. It's either immigrants, foreigners or robots. And in ANY case, that involves expenditures on those things.

Taxing the rich cannot fix this. Not in the long term. Yeah, the company might be more competitive, but that wealth is tied up in robots or overseas factories, it's not a scrooge mcduck vault of unused money. And if you tax the shit out of your companies, you make them not competitive. And you really can't convince every other country to do that as well. Literally anyone can just...not, and utterly crush you in the markets.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:38 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Tilting at windmills at this point.
I'd like to revise whom I directed this statement at.

Relatedly, I am deeply saddened all the birds are apparently dead.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Yeah. If you're going to tax the rich globally, before you redistribute that money to 'those who have been laid off', surely first dibs has to go to the billion+ living on a dollar a day?

And, compared to them, isn't everyone here rich beyond the dreams of avarice? Shouldn't all our money be redistributed too..? Or is rich defined simply as 'having a lot more money than me'..?
Well the US is generally pretty well off, "dollar a day" figures are extremely vacuous. The purchasing power of a dollar (or any currency) varies greatly from place to place. There are also issues with less developed economies tend to be less formal and thus counted less (barter tends not to be counted, as do things produced for personal consumption; a maid work is counted but a housewife's work isn't).

A more detailed analysis of how much people earn versus what they need to pay for basic needs puts most American's pretty well of generally, but it still objectively sucks to be in America's bottom 1 %
Plasma wolf needs to consider a fourth option. Let the people get rich over globalization. Tax rich people globally and use that money to improve the people who got laid off.
If we confine our concern to the well being of Americans, a version of this could make sense. Tax the Americans that benefit from globalization and use the money to benefit Americans hurt by it.

This raises the significant (but theoretically solvable) question of how to precisely identify those hurt and helped and what to do to benefit those hurt. Another complication is that taxing those who benefit from imports is basically a tariff, which would run afoul of trade agreements.
Additionally Taxing those who benefit by exporting goods is unconstitutional.

I think, if we were to try to pursue such a strategy, it would best be done by making gradualistic trade agreements (to allow time for the economy to adapt and making the changes more predictable) and by aiding the hurting sections of our country and forgetting about directly tying the aide to the globalization.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3994
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Xeio wrote:Tilting at windmills at this point.
I'd like to revise whom I directed this statement at.

Relatedly, I am deeply saddened all the birds are apparently dead.


Also of note in that article is Trump's claims that he will end all coal mine inspections. Unless i'm wildly mistaken, MSHA is under the Department of Labor, under the Secretary of Labor, under the President. I don't know if the President can completely eliminate federal mine inspections (depending on how relevant statutes are worded), but he can certainly curtail inspections and enforcement to the point of utter ineffectiveness.

The irony of course is that this will ultimately kill the very people that would be key to his getting in to office.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:06 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The irony of course is that this will ultimately kill the very people that would be key to his getting in to office.


To play Devil's advocate, if they think the additional risk is worthwhile, who better to decide that than them?

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:To play Devil's advocate, if they think the additional risk is worthwhile, who better to decide that than them?


I'd imagine the problem is making sure the workers going into the mines actually understand what the increased risk means. Or that the workers would even be told at all.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

Coal miners understand the risk. Their fathers and grandfathers learned the hard way. What they don't have are alternatives, in terms of employment. Enforcement is already, shall I say, spotty. Trump is an ass, playing upon fears in a dying business. Fuck him and his New York sensibilities.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... uilibrium/
We'll have to wait for more looking to see what percent of Hillarys polling is convention bounce and how much is the new equilibrium. This assumes that Trump doesn't continue to shove his racist foot in his mouth(if said horrible things even matter to his marginal voters).
Tldr things are looking better for Hillary, but still be wary of Trump.

Tyndmyr, there's a proof of concept on global taxation and redistribution. The climate change deal set up a slush fund that pays poor countries to help them offset climate change. It's part slush fund, part equalizing income inequality.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

Yeah, saw that w/regards to Trump. I gotta figure that him pissing off his base is contributing to that. They'll rally behind him no matter what he says about the outsiders, but bashing in-group folks is kind of dumb.

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, there's a proof of concept on global taxation and redistribution. The climate change deal set up a slush fund that pays poor countries to help them offset climate change. It's part slush fund, part equalizing income inequality.


In theory, yes, this could work, and we could stop global warming. It'd provide an effective disproof of my position.

I do not anticipate this outcome, however.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Xeio wrote:
Xeio wrote:Tilting at windmills at this point.
I'd like to revise whom I directed this statement at.

Relatedly, I am deeply saddened all the birds are apparently dead.


Also of note in that article is Trump's claims that he will end all coal mine inspections.


No. What he actually said in the article is that he would decrease the frequency of inspections; which is entirely different from ending all coal mine inspections. His claim that they're happening two or three times a day is bullshit, but there are valid arguments in the industry that inspections are happening too frequently, which imposes a cost on mines.

Unless i'm wildly mistaken, MSHA is under the Department of Labor, under the Secretary of Labor, under the President. I don't know if the President can completely eliminate federal mine inspections (depending on how relevant statutes are worded), but he can certainly curtail inspections and enforcement to the point of utter ineffectiveness.


Well, again, given that he never said anything about completely eliminating inspections, the point is moot. That said, an administration can influence the frequency of inspections.

The irony of course is that this will ultimately kill the very people that would be key to his getting in to office.


Not really, no.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:32 pm UTC

So, too, is Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump standing back and watching the Republican party fall into near-chaos after he gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he said he is refusing to endorse House speaker Paul Ryan, Arizona senator John McCain or New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte - three of the most powerful and high-profile elected Republicans in the country, and three of his most frustrated supporters-slash-critics.

Less prominent members of the party are already jumping ship: Yesterday, top Jeb Bush adviser Sally Bradshaw, co-author of the 2013 Republican “autopsy” that called for increased outreach to millennials and Latinos, left the party and said she would vote for Hillary Clinton if Florida appeared close; this morning, New York congressman Richard Hanna became the first sitting Republican to endorse Clinton, and Chris Christie aide Maria Comella told CNN this afternoon that she plans to vote for Clinton because Republicans are “at a moment where silence isn’t an option.”

Trump’s refusal to endorse after a disastrous week for his campaign does, however, possess a tactical advantage: If McCain or Ryan rescind their endorsements now, for any reason, Trump will dismiss it as political vengeance, limiting the damage that would ordinarily accompany the disavowal of a presidential nominee by his party’s most respected members.


Meanwhile, Trump handles a baby crying slightly awkwardly

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

I know it's just a conspiracy theory, but the notion that Trump is just a plant to tear apart the Republican party is looking more and more plausible.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:08 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I know it's just a conspiracy theory, but the notion that Trump is just a plant to tear apart the Republican party is looking more and more plausible.

Working class white men have been receptive to Republican's message on cultural grievances since Romney, maybe even the Tea Party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -like-him/
The key predictors of being a Trumper is being a noncollege working class white man who is very concerned about immigration, Muslims, and minorities. Roughly 20%* of the country shares some aspects of this, aka the real Americans. So no, this is just the GOP reaping the kudzu they sowed to win back Congress. Get white people angry and scared, and get them out to the polls. Whether the GOP as an institution started it, or if the dark impulse pushed the party into it is less clear.

PS Trump just stabbed Ryan and McCain in the back, by refusing to endorse them. ** He even complemented Ryan's opponent and mirrored Ryan's language back at him. Kinda petty, but that's Trump for you. Instinctive, petty, and still a very real chance of winning. This is probably related to the fact that the antiTrumpers are more like Kasich's group and not Cruz. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... upporters/ Aka, really small. Man, this election moves fast.

*http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-voters-are-real-americans/
**https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/02/donald-trump-just-reminded-america-that-the-only-loyalty-he-respects-is-to-donald-trump/

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:17 am UTC

I hope Trumps Secret Service detail is on their toes, Hillary's too for that matter. This is as ugly as I have ever seen it. I would like to see all the candidates upright and breathing before and after the elections.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:51 am UTC

CNBC: "Ally of Trump staffer Paul Manafort: The staff is suicidal, he's mailing it in."

And according to Ali Vitali, NBC's embedded reporter in the campaign: "A Trump campaign source, in reax to this, tells me 'it's all true' and 'way worse than people realize.'"
Exit the vampires' castle.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grop and 11 guests