US Presidential Candidates

hanuman wrote:Theonly viable candidate in my opinion is Fiorina. She's more or less a moderate, and even better, she seems to have ideas and she is not wed to the notion of confrontation without compromise which is so much a part of the GOP political environment these days. However, to become the GOP candidate for POTUS, she first need to win the GOP state primaries, but she's a woman and too many of those primaries are dominated by hard line conservative voters - a group that seems to still hold fast to the idea that a woman's proper place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Could she still win the Convention next year? Possibly, but that will require a degree of charisma I truly hope she possesses. Not because I want a Republican POTUS, but because she is the only GOP candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

Keep in mind she'll eventually have to answer for shit like this in a campaign.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -scam.html

Consider how viable she'll be when it becomes general public knowledge that she talked the government into a massive corporate tax refund with job creation promises, then used essentially *all* the money to inflate her own HP stock portfolio with a massive buyback while sacking over 14,000 American workers.

(Anyone want to know why trickle-down is bullshit? Exhibit A right there)

Yeah, let's put her in charge of the whole nation instead of just one really big company and see how much damage she can *really* do to the largest economy on Earth...

gcomeau wrote:

hanuman wrote:Theonly viable candidate in my opinion is Fiorina. She's more or less a moderate, and even better, she seems to have ideas and she is not wed to the notion of confrontation without compromise which is so much a part of the GOP political environment these days. However, to become the GOP candidate for POTUS, she first need to win the GOP state primaries, but she's a woman and too many of those primaries are dominated by hard line conservative voters - a group that seems to still hold fast to the idea that a woman's proper place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Could she still win the Convention next year? Possibly, but that will require a degree of charisma I truly hope she possesses. Not because I want a Republican POTUS, but because she is the only GOP candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

Keep in mind she'll eventually have to answer for shit like this in a campaign.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -scam.html

Consider how viable she'll be when it becomes general public knowledge that she talked the government into a massive corporate tax refund with job creation promises, then used essentially *all* the money to inflate her own HP stock portfolio with a massive buyback while sacking over 14,000 American workers.

(Anyone want to know why trickle-down is bullshit? Exhibit A right there)

Yeah, let's put her in charge of the whole nation instead of just one really big company and see how much damage she can *really* do to the largest economy on Earth...

She IS a Republican, there for it is only to be expected that she doesn't give a shit about the poor and weak. After all, the GOP these days care about one thing above all else, and that is the continued hold on wealth and power by those who are already wealthy and powerful. But she is also the only candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

On the other outsiders

Fiorina

Positives

1. Excellent performance in debates to date. Debating is an important skill in campaigning, she likely would do very well in this forum.

2. She's female and thus Hilary couldn't play the sex card.

3. Regardless of her performance once she got there, she did rise to the CEO position, this indicates that she has some skills or the board would never have voted for her in the first place.



Negatives

1. Her performance at HP as CEO was terrible.

2. Most of the tech industry hates her. And for many people at HP, the hatred is personal.

3. She has no political background whatsoever. We saw the downside of this in the first 2 years of the Obama administration. Even many of Obama's allies admit that Obama made a lot of mistakes while learning on the job. And Obama had some experience, unlike Fiona who has none and thus would be expected to make many many more of these sorts of errors.

4. She doesn't have a track record. She is saying a lot of things which Republican voters like. But there is no proof she means any of them.

5. She is likely to favor policies which benefit big business over the the rest of the country.

Carson

Positives

1. Consistent positions on moral/policy issues which he has spoken about publicly for years indicates that he genuinely believes what he is saying. (To those who don't like what he is saying, remember Republican voters like these policy/moral position and he is running to be the Republican nominee, so to those voters this is a good thing)

2. Self made and incredibly intelligent.

3. Likable with a great personality

4. Good campaign skills, which is somewhat extraordinary in a beginner.

Negatives

1. Again no political background whatsoever. Repeating the downside of this in the first 2 years of the Obama administration.

2. Too nice. He's going to be dealing with that snakepit in Washington. Backstabbing, blackmailing slimy scum elected and otherwise, many/most of whom meet the clinical definition of sociopath. He's never had a time in his professional life where he has had to battle such individuals, at least not in such numbers. Unlike both Trump and Fiorina, whom had to deal with them in the business world as this type aren't uncommon in the top levels of big business either.




I know too many people in the tech industry to support Fiorina. And I think her popularity will plummet once more people become aware of just what exactly she did at HP. gcomeau's link is only the tip of the iceberg.


I do genuinely like Ben Carson, although I don't think he'd be a great president. His lack of political experience combined with his lack of experience in thwarting sociopathic scum would profoundly limit his effectiveness. He'd be a great asset to any Republican nominee and a smart candidate would bring him onboard as a member of his/her administration in some capacity.

Neither can win.
Fiorina has flipped to many positions to try and pandr to the far right base and Carson is too far and to considtsntly to the right to get the middle ground that will actually decide the election.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

hanuman wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Keep in mind she'll eventually have to answer for shit like this in a campaign.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -scam.html

Consider how viable she'll be when it becomes general public knowledge that she talked the government into a massive corporate tax refund with job creation promises, then used essentially *all* the money to inflate her own HP stock portfolio with a massive buyback while sacking over 14,000 American workers.

(Anyone want to know why trickle-down is bullshit? Exhibit A right there)

Yeah, let's put her in charge of the whole nation instead of just one really big company and see how much damage she can *really* do to the largest economy on Earth...

She IS a Republican, there for it is only to be expected that she doesn't give a shit about the poor and weak. After all, the GOP these days care about one thing above all else, and that is the continued hold on wealth and power by those who are already wealthy and powerful. But she is also the only candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

Define "absolute disaster"?

Will she go start a war with Iran? I doubt it.

Will she throw the growth of income inequality that is steadily destabilizing the largest economy on earth into overdrive? Most likely.

Now you could argue a war with Iran would be a bigger problem than the continued destruction of the ability of the United States to sustain a middle class... but I would still classify both of those things as "absolute disaster".

The bottom line is there are no candidates who would *not* be absolute disasters that are anywhere near in the running on the GOP side of this. Being in favor of policies that would actually help the country rather than just stroke the ID of the GOP base is like a disqualifying trait in the GOP primary.

hanuman wrote:She IS a Republican, there for it is only to be expected that she doesn't give a shit about the poor and weak. After all, the GOP these days care about one thing above all else, and that is the continued hold on wealth and power by those who are already wealthy and powerful. But she is also the only candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

What leads you to believe that the Democrats give a rat's ass about The Poor And Weak? The Democrat leadership are some of the world's most arrogant elitists and they feed The Poor just enough bullshit to get their votes. They are told they are helpless victims of some unspecified sort of discrimination and oppression and that the only way they can get what the world "owes" them is for their political masters to take it from somebody else. Those who succeed by their own efforts and prove it a lie are damned as traitors. Is it because successful people don't need anything from them, while failure and dependency keep them in power?

The leftists seem to believe that the primary purpose of government is to take money from people who earn it and give it to those that do not. The result of their misguided actions is to punish work and success and to reward indolence and failure. They call this "progressive" but it sure looks like the opposite of progress to me.

"The Poor" are supposed to believe that because I have a little money and property it proves I've been "oppressin' and 'sploitin' dem po' folks" and has nothing to do with the fact that I took the trouble to acquire useful knowledge and skills, get a job, work every day for 35 years, and save up some money, and they didn't. Now I see losers with no knowledge, no skills, no experience, and no work history protesting for "income equality". They got plenty of time to demand "equality" but no time to earn it.
-------------------------
Why do the politicians keep calling their runaway government spending "investment"? Because "flushing your tax money down a rat-hole" just wouldn't play well?

Imaginos1892 wrote:What leads you to believe that the Democrats give a rat's ass about The Poor And Weak? The Democrat leadership are some of the world's most arrogant elitists and they feed The Poor just enough bullshit to get their votes. They are told they are helpless victims of some unspecified sort of discrimination and oppression and that the only way they can get what the world "owes" them is for their political masters to take it from somebody else. Those who succeed by their own efforts and prove it a lie are damned as traitors. Is it because successful people don't need anything from them, while failure and dependency keep them in power?

The leftists seem to believe that the primary purpose of government is to take money from people who earn it and give it to those that do not. The result of their misguided actions is to punish work and success and to reward indolence and failure. They call this "progressive" but it sure looks like the opposite of progress to me.

"The Poor" are supposed to believe that because I have a little money and property it proves I've been "oppressin' and 'sploitin' dem po' folks" and has nothing to do with the fact that I took the trouble to acquire useful knowledge and skills, get a job, work every day for 35 years, and save up some money, and they didn't. Now I see losers with no knowledge, no skills, no experience, and no work history protesting for "income equality". They got plenty of time to demand "equality" but no time to earn it.
-------------------------
Why do the politicians keep calling their runaway government spending "investment"? Because "flushing your tax money down a rat-hole" just wouldn't play well?

I'm somewhat in the middle on this. Your statement are largely true for the middle class and even most of the lower reaches of the upper class which work for their money. However at the top crony capitalism is becoming more and more of a problem. Trump is a case in point. He uses his connections to arrange sweetheart tax deals and make sure someone else takes the fall when he loses money. Similarly even at the local level connected contractors somehow manage to get environmental waivers that are difficult for the non-connected to get. Etc Etc.

So that puts me somewhat in the middle on this issue. You and the majority of the middle class aren't gaining your wealth unfairly but a growing number of people ARE. My biggest concern isn't the levels of this problem we have now but the levels we are likely to have in the future if this trend continues. I don't want to see the USA deteriorate in to a 3rd world style kleptocracy where the only way to prosper is to be connected.

I do agree that a subsection of the Democratic party is exploiting this fear and that this subgroup (mostly politicians and the like) genuinely couldn't care less about the poor between elections. Which is why the rank and file idealists who do care are so enthralled by Bernie Sanders. I disagree with their solutions on entirely pragmatic grounds (I don't think they will work) but I empathize with their emotions.

I also tend to agree that this exploitative subgroup is doing an enormous disservice to the poor by convincing them not to try and not to work hard. At least currently (if not in the future) it is still possible for most of the poor (but not all) to improve their economic standing. And there is a great deal we as a society could pragmatically do to help.

1. Improve adult education. We're lousy at giving second chances in the education arena. It is horribly underfunded relative to the need. If poor teenagers make the stupid decision to drop out of high school but wish to complete their education in their 30s when they are older and wiser and realize what a stupid decision they made when they were young and stupid they don't have many options.

2. Expand 2 year public tech schools and crack down hard on exploitative for profits. Right now the poor wanting opportunities tend to drift to the for profits to gain skills. Unfortunately that is very much a buyer beware market. Many for profits are great schools which do a great job of preparing their graduates for real world jobs. Others are exploitative parasites existing only to drain their victims of what little money they can scrounge up. Which is which? For the potential students it can be very hard to tell.

3. Set up childcare coops with (vetted) mothers. One of the biggest groups of poor is mothers. Finding affordable childcare is a nightmare, which big government has only made worse piling on compliance requirement after compliance requirement driving up costs. And finding a job where you only work 9-2 while the children are in school is rare. Vetted mothers (check for child abuse history etc) taking care of each other children is one solution to the problem.

Etc Etc

Unfortunately I don't see many of the Democratic politicians focusing on pragmatic solutions of this type. At best they mention such things occasionally. Mostly they focus on taking money from others using the Donald Trumps of this world as an example but failing to mention that the majority of the money will not come from corrupt crony capitalists but from hard working members of the middle class.

biochem wrote:At least currently (if not in the future) it is still possible for most of the poor (but not all) to improve their economic standing.

For many of them, probably a majority, not on their own.

At least in part because:

biochem wrote:I don't want to see the USA deteriorate in to a 3rd world style kleptocracy where the only way to prosper is to be connected.

Is already true to some extent. To improve your own situation, you often have to be "above and beyond" the average somehow, and those who end up unemployed in the first place, often are not. Or at least not enough or in the right way to get them a job.

biochem wrote:And there is a great deal we as a society could pragmatically do to help.

3 good suggestions that could certainly help.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

hanuman wrote:She IS a Republican, there for it is only to be expected that she doesn't give a shit about the poor and weak. After all, the GOP these days care about one thing above all else, and that is the continued hold on wealth and power by those who are already wealthy and powerful. But she is also the only candidate who won't be an absolute disaster as POTUS.

What leads you to believe that the Democrats give a rat's ass about The Poor And Weak? The Democrat leadership are some of the world's most arrogant elitists and they feed The Poor just enough bullshit to get their votes. They are told they are helpless victims of some unspecified sort of discrimination and oppression and that the only way they can get what the world "owes" them is for their political masters to take it from somebody else. Those who succeed by their own efforts and prove it a lie are damned as traitors. Is it because successful people don't need anything from them, while failure and dependency keep them in power?

The leftists seem to believe that the primary purpose of government is to take money from people who earn it and give it to those that do not. The result of their misguided actions is to punish work and success and to reward indolence and failure. They call this "progressive" but it sure looks like the opposite of progress to me.

"The Poor" are supposed to believe that because I have a little money and property it proves I've been "oppressin' and 'sploitin' dem po' folks" and has nothing to do with the fact that I took the trouble to acquire useful knowledge and skills, get a job, work every day for 35 years, and save up some money, and they didn't. Now I see losers with no knowledge, no skills, no experience, and no work history protesting for "income equality". They got plenty of time to demand "equality" but no time to earn it.
-------------------------
Why do the politicians keep calling their runaway government spending "investment"? Because "flushing your tax money down a rat-hole" just wouldn't play well?

Imaaginos, remember that I'm an outsider looking in, and that my understanding of US politics is entirely dependent on the internet. I'm aware of this, and I'm also aware of my left-leaning beliefs, which is why I make a point of at the very least following Fox News as the main conservative news source and opinionmaker.

The thing is, when I look at policy proposals and public statements by GOP politicians, I see a refusal to increase the minimum wage yet complaints that 47% of American workers do not pay income taxes. I see the poor being blamed for their poverty, yet a staunch refusal to acknowledge that many many poor Americans are working two, even three, jobs just to survive. I see an insistence that the poor can escape poverty through education and hard work, yet a refusal to provide enough financial resources to struggling inner city and rural school districts to provide a competitive education. I see a condemnation of labour unions, yet a concerted effort to decrease the superrich's tax burden even more. I see a fanatical assault on Obamacare, yet a failure to come up with a workable alternative.

On the Democrat side, while I certainly accept your opinion of at least a portion of the liberal political establishment (after all, liberals can be among the most obnoxious self-righteous power mongers out there), I also see policy proposals that seek to divert government funds to programs that are nominally purported to provide more equal opportunities to the poor. Whether those programs actually work is an entirely different matter, of course, but the fact of the matter is that poverty is so often so deeply entrenched that only outside assistance can break its hold on the lives and futures of millions of poor people. Nothing I see from the GOP side is aimed at breaking that hold. Sanctimonious or not, self-serving or not, at least the Dems acknowledge the problem's seriousness and are willing to do something about it. That means a lot.

hanuman wrote:Imaaginos, remember that I'm an outsider looking in, and that my understanding of US politics is entirely dependent on the internet. I'm aware of this, and I'm also aware of my left-leaning beliefs, which is why I make a point of at the very least following Fox News as the main conservative news source and opinionmaker.

The thing is, when I look at policy proposals and public statements by GOP politicians, I see a refusal to increase the minimum wage yet complaints that 47% of American workers do not pay income taxes. I see the poor being blamed for their poverty, yet a staunch refusal to acknowledge that many many poor Americans are working two, even three, jobs just to survive. I see an insistence that the poor can escape poverty through education and hard work, yet a refusal to provide enough financial resources to struggling inner city and rural school districts to provide a competitive education. I see a condemnation of labour unions, yet a concerted effort to decrease the superrich's tax burden even more. I see a fanatical assault on Obamacare, yet a failure to come up with a workable alternative.

On the Democrat side, while I certainly accept your opinion of at least a portion of the liberal political establishment (after all, liberals can be among the most obnoxious self-righteous power mongers out there), I also see policy proposals that seek to divert government funds to programs that are nominally purported to provide more equal opportunities to the poor. Whether those programs actually work is an entirely different matter, of course, but the fact of the matter is that poverty is so often so deeply entrenched that only outside assistance can break its hold on the lives and futures of millions of poor people. Nothing I see from the GOP side is aimed at breaking that hold. Sanctimonious or not, self-serving or not, at least the Dems acknowledge the problem's seriousness and are willing to do something about it. That means a lot.

Define many, many of the poor working 2 or more jobs? Keep in mind the total number of people working 2+ jobs in the US was around 4% last time I looked. Many of which are like school teachers who if they get a part time job in the summer count as 2 job holders. Or Mr Weber when he was writing(and selling) books at night and working a "real" job during the day. Or people who wish to retire early.

Or if you want to compare compare which party does better limiting the 1 percent consider President Obama seems to have out distanced President Clinton that score. Amazingly enough it slowed as Republicans got control of Congress.

Not that conservative imbecile me thinks much of American Republican Party anyway.

Have fun,
T2M