US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2133

On July 27 2015 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
You know, Trump's a joke and I really should hate that he's demeaning the political process but he's such a caricature that I can't

Hillary Clinton laid out some lofty goals for her presidency in a speech on Friday.

"My mission from my first day as president to the last will be to raise the incomes of hardworking Americans so they can once again afford a middle-class life," she said. "This is the defining economic challenge not only of this election but our time."

So, she has her work cut out for her. But interestingly, that line came not from a populist barn burner of a speech, but from a policy-focused address about ending "quarterly capitalism" — the tendency for businesses to focus on short-term shareholder gains over long-term investment.

The wonkier bits of her speech about capital-gains taxation might only interest a specific subset of people, but she couched them to attract a much broader audience of voters angered by what they see as an unfair economic system. Democrats and Republicans alike are trying to channel that anger, but are offering very different solutions — so much so that the leading candidates for both parties seem to be living in two economic realities.

Voters are frustrated by a range of economic issues: inequality, stagnant incomes and debt, to name a few. That frustration is the driving narrative of the 2016 election, as candidates try to convince voters that they can forge an economy that won't make Americans feel stuck in neutral.

Americans have barely seen their pay outpace inflation since the recession. Annual wage growth has been stuck at around 2 percent since 2009, and median household incomes are where they were in 1995.

But that's not all that's wrong: faith in the American Dream has dipped. In the late 1990s, 74 percent of Americans thought hard work was the way to get ahead in America. By January 2014, it was 60 percent. And since the recession, most Americans just haven't felt — for more than a handful of weeks at a time, anyway — that the economy is getting better.

Politicians, of course, have taken notice. Indeed, to win any national election, they simply have to.

On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:
At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay?

On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:
At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay?

On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:
At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay?

On July 26 2015 15:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:

So basically Vietnam, Korea or the first Iraq war?

WW2 got bad, but even the bombing raids were mostly on industrial or military areas, villages or cities weren't slaughtered because of guerrilla activity, and even the occupations were done under imperialistic pretenses, and not "we're trying to find all our enemies". Most of the devastation of civilian areas was because of actual armies fighting their way through them.

Conduct of nations and their military in WW2 was very much a bridge between the old imperial conquests and the new wars of ideologies.

On July 27 2015 03:48 ACrow wrote:

As soon as he stops acting like a joke?


Sadly, in the european theatre of war, bombing raids against civilians were a common reality in WW2. For example, there is hardly any German city that wasn't bombed (talking about specifically targetting the civilian areas to demoralize, not just industrial areas, the most infamous example would be the bombing of Dresden with approx. 22k to 25k civilians killed within three nights) and earlier in the war the German air force did the same, e.g. when targetting London. WW2 was truely a barbaric time, no sugarcoating possible...

On July 27 2015 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:

He could become President and he would still be a joke.

On July 27 2015 03:48 ACrow wrote:

Sadly, in the european theatre of war, bombing raids against civilians were a common reality in WW2. For example, there is hardly any German city that wasn't bombed (talking about specifically targetting the civilian areas to demoralize, not just industrial areas, the most infamous example would be the bombing of Dresden with approx. 22k to 25k civilians killed within three nights) and earlier in the war the German air force did the same, e.g. when targetting London. WW2 was truely a barbaric time, no sugarcoating possible...

On July 26 2015 23:38 lord_nibbler wrote:
Civilians killed by the US since 1945?
Over 15 million! (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) plus about 10 million by 'US proxies'.
Or how about the fact, that the 'West' killed more than 4 million Muslims in the last 15 years in the name of fighting terror.

Tell me when exactly do you reach the 'major league' in this category?

On July 27 2015 04:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Major cities are basically what I meant by industrial areas.

And regardless, the bombings in the European theatre weren't done because nations didn't want to risk the lives of soldiers. They were losing soldiers in the millions and it wasn't enough (and Germany couldn't get a foothold in the UK, and the allies didn't have a foothold in Europe).

That's a stark difference between the more modern use of long range artillery, missiles, drones, etc. and nations who are willing to go to war, but only with minimal risk to soldiers.

On July 27 2015 04:19 Mohdoo wrote:


I think I was more so addressing the fact that a lot of people keep saying he's a nobody that's going nowhere. But if he's turning in his financials for debates and staying strong in polls, does it not appear likely he'll stick around?

I would also perhaps argue that even if this did start out as a publicity stunt, the fact that this campaign is actually gaining a lot of steam would very likely encourage him to just go for it.

On July 27 2015 04:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Major cities are basically what I meant by industrial areas.

And regardless, the bombings in the European theatre weren't done because nations didn't want to risk the lives of soldiers. They were losing soldiers in the millions and it wasn't enough (and Germany couldn't get a foothold in the UK, and the allies didn't have a foothold in Europe).

That's a stark difference between the more modern use of long range artillery, missiles, drones, etc. and nations who are willing to go to war, but only with minimal risk to soldiers.

On July 27 2015 03:40 Millitron wrote:

When he wins the election. Mitt Romney was a joke too.

On July 27 2015 10:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I've said it before in this thread: the whole concept of preliminaries is completely idiotic. It's two groups each deciding one candidate that the entirety of the country gets to decide to give individual power to.

And pretty much the only reason it exists is because of financial support and ridiculously bloated campaign costs.

On July 27 2015 10:55 cLutZ wrote:


No its not. Primaries exist because without primaries you almost ensure a candidate with under 40% (possibly under 30%) support wins the Presidency. The only system that can avoid that is a runoff or automatic runoff, both of which are not practicable for many reasons. The runoff is bad because either you have too short of a runoff, or you have a very long time between a person being elected President and them actually becoming President if the runoff is ever not needed. The automatic runoff is a superior system in some ways, but was simply not technologically feasible for the entire country pre-1970s, probably not pre-1980s.

Additionally, the winnowing down effect of primaries is beneficial to the system because it gives mid-tier candidates chances to elevate while cutting off low-tier candidates.

On July 27 2015 11:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:

2) Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of.

On July 27 2015 11:55 Yoav wrote:


This part is kinda inherent in the system. Any instant runoff system still does this.