US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5931

On November 06 2016 01:28 WhiteDog wrote:

Are you seriously saying that the increase in production in china (to take one exemple) have no impact on energy prices ?

On November 05 2016 12:58 KwarK wrote:


Are you a foolish person?

On November 06 2016 01:33 a_flayer wrote:
it seems to me that if you have no job it doesnt matter how cheap the goods are

but i can already hear the argument going "trump supporters have jobs" so please ignore me lol

On November 06 2016 01:33 a_flayer wrote:
it seems to me that if you have no job it doesnt matter how cheap the goods are

but i can already hear the argument going "trump supporters have jobs" so please ignore me lol

On November 06 2016 02:03 zlefin wrote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

On November 06 2016 02:06 a_flayer wrote:


I don't think you want to go down that road unless you agree the 1% need to be annihilated (in the economic sense, not the killing them sense) since they are so few and the many need their coins? XD

On November 06 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I never said that you were a lesser person because of your opinion. I merely criticized your opinion. Deal with it.

It's not some kind of complicated mystery as to what Trump's policies would do to the country. He's either explicitly laid out several things that he would do that would be complete and total disasters (cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare with no legitimate alternative, advocating for nuclear proliferation, etc.) or he has repeatedly shown that he simply has no solution whatsoever (ISIS, healthcare). He also explicitly incites hatred along racial, gender, and religious lines by ostracizing Muslims, kicking his own black supporters out of rallies, explicitly encouraging voter intimidation, and being the walking embodiment of sexism and male privilege. Let's not also forget that he has repeatedly and explicitly states that he would use his powers to conduct totalitarian practices, like jailing his political opponent or using his political power to silence journalists.

In what world is this man anti-establishment? In what world is he the kind of candidate that will do anything whatsoever to improve the lives of the average person? He is the very establishment that tries to bribe politicians in the first place, and he explicitly espouses totalitarian practices that are the antithesis of everything that a democracy is supposed to be. His long list of actual court cases and demonstrably fraudulent business practices put the scandals of most any politician (including Clinton) to shame.

So why is it that you can see (or at least sympathize with others that see) Trump as "anti-establishment" and the kind of candidate that would disrupt the political status quo enough to cause long-term positive change? What positive change do you actually see that would outweigh the incredible harm his (minimum) 4 years of policy would bring?

On November 06 2016 02:07 zlefin wrote:

annihilating them won't help. taxing them does. which is why we tax them.
there is a question as to what is the optimal tax arrangement for that, and plenty of possible answers, with very complicated effects.
so we already ARE down that road.
You want their money, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so it's a complicated balance with numerous sociological effects.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.

Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton. But no one knows better than Mrs. Clinton that this is the tooth-and-claw political season where accusations are going to fly for the next 19 months. And no one should know better than the former senator and first lady that they will fester if straightforward answers are not offered to the public.

The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.

The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.

The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.

The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.

There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.

It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration. Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay. When she announced her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the foundation board (Bill Clinton remains on the board). This was followed by the announcement of tighter foundation restrictions on donations from foreign countries, which had resumed after she left the State Department.

These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away.

On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:
From the NY Times Editorial Board:



Source.

I seem to recall a certain somebody who username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians?

On November 06 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:


The amazing thing about Trump is that pretty much none of it is out of context.

He has explicitly stated that he will try to sue media outlets to silence them.
He explicitly stated several times in a debate that he will try to jail Clinton after he becomes president.
He has explicitly encouraged people to go out to polls to monitor them (see: Ohio restraining order that was recently issued).
His economic plan has been thoroughly analyzed and would explode the debt much further than Clinton's and probably cause a recession.

The standard line when people say bad things about candidates in any election is, "well, you're just taking it out of context." The problem is that we aren't taking Trump out of context or twisting his words. These are all things he has explicitly said/done.

On November 06 2016 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If someplace is more economically sound for a company, then they will move there. Trade deals are as much to keep companies local by giving companies the ability to diversify their workforce on a global scale. When people say they don't want trade deals, what they're really saying is poor people in other countries don't deserve opportunity.