[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Kelinfort]

Trump thinks Bill Gates needs to close certain parts of the Internet. No. Srsly.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/98693 ... bill-gates

Trump actually brings up a good point, the US had ICANN control up until recently. It should not have been relinquished to international organizations but they're in the process of doing so. ICANN could quite simply, revoke the DNS registrations of any ISIS websites so they'd be inaccessible, such intervention would affect most if not all of the root DNS servers. The IP addresses would be even easier to block on an ISP level.

Ban free speech too. A telescreen in every home.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trump supporters embrace Muslim travel ban plan

Next up, Trump calling for Green Crescent patches for American Muslims and appropriating huge swathes of Michigan to turn into a Muslim reservation/internment camp.

It's times like this I like living North of the 45th parallel.

[Maineiacs]

Trump supporters embrace Muslim travel ban plan

Next up, Trump calling for Green Crescent patches for American Muslims and appropriating huge swathes of Michigan to turn into a Muslim reservation/internment camp.

I look forward to the border check points where visitors are required to eat bacon before entering.

Everything's better with bacon; including xenophobia.

[Ashmoria]

So the BBC just had someone on arguing that Trump isn't actually trying to become President, he is just promoting himself to increase the value of 'brand Trump'. Is that a credible idea?

it could be but it sure seems like he is destroying his brand.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I look forward to the border check points where visitors are required to eat bacon before entering.

With a grandfather clause to exempt Jewish visitors from the bacon eating.

Nah. Burning the Palestinian flag and effigies of Palestinians is the additional test to screen in Jew. Because Muslim-sympathizing Jews are also unwelcome. *nods*

[Northern Davincia]

Apparently, slimy scumbag* Mitch McConnell, in what is almost par for the course in present day GOP politics, demands favors for his corporate oil industry buddies, proving once more that republicans really do not care about first responders... no they don't care, only insofar as they can pretend to be all patriotic in mouthing support, but when push comes to shove, the GOP keeps blocking actual bills that would help actual first responders.

Though republicans want you to believe that McConnell really really didn't do anything of the kind. Paul Ryan called it a priority. But apparently, not priority enough to prioritize voting it through, like, three months ago when the original bill expired.

The problem being, of course, lack of incentives (ie handouts for the rich) for the GOP to vote for it. If there aren't tax cuts for the rich, if there isn't deregulation, if there aren't handouts for corporations or any of that, republicans will not support a bill, no matter what that bill is, it seems. And lacking handouts for the rich, republicans want anti-abortion language. A bipartisan human trafficking bill got stuck in the Senate earlier this year because Republicans slipped in anti-abortion language.

* = opinion

Handouts for the rich, you say? Modern Republicans have always advocated tax cuts on all citizens, there's no need to censor that basic fact. How can the economy grow in the US when regulations continue to pile up on each other, and small business owners (the majority of this 1% myth you propagate) struggle daily with crippling taxes?

[Gauthier]

Handouts for the rich, you say? Modern Republicans have always advocated tax cuts on all citizens, there's no need to censor that basic fact. How can the economy grow in the US when regulations continue to pile up on each other, and small business owners (the majority of this 1% myth you propagate) struggle daily with crippling taxes?

Condoning the blocking of the First Responder bill I see.

[Northern Davincia]

Handouts for the rich, you say? Modern Republicans have always advocated tax cuts on all citizens, there's no need to censor that basic fact. How can the economy grow in the US when regulations continue to pile up on each other, and small business owners (the majority of this 1% myth you propagate) struggle daily with crippling taxes?

Condoning the blocking of the First Responder bill I see.

When have I ever mentioned such a notion?

[Gauthier]

Condoning the blocking of the First Responder bill I see.

When have I ever mentioned such a notion?

Given that your reply to the post about it focused on tax breaks...

[Northern Davincia]

When have I ever mentioned such a notion?

Given that your reply to the post about it focused on tax breaks...

My reply was an open criticism of Trumpostan's lashing against tax breaks for all Americans. In writing that reply, I had no intention of condoning the Zadroga Act's delay, and I find it bizarre that anyone could interpret that as me doing so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Apparently, slimy scumbag* Mitch McConnell, in what is almost par for the course in present day GOP politics, demands favors for his corporate oil industry buddies, proving once more that republicans really do not care about first responders... no they don't care, only insofar as they can pretend to be all patriotic in mouthing support, but when push comes to shove, the GOP keeps blocking actual bills that would help actual first responders.

Though republicans want you to believe that McConnell really really didn't do anything of the kind. Paul Ryan called it a priority. But apparently, not priority enough to prioritize voting it through, like, three months ago when the original bill expired.

The problem being, of course, lack of incentives (ie handouts for the rich) for the GOP to vote for it. If there aren't tax cuts for the rich, if there isn't deregulation, if there aren't handouts for corporations or any of that, republicans will not support a bill, no matter what that bill is, it seems. And lacking handouts for the rich, republicans want anti-abortion language. A bipartisan human trafficking bill got stuck in the Senate earlier this year because Republicans slipped in anti-abortion language.

* = opinion

Handouts for the rich, you say? Modern Republicans have always advocated tax cuts on all citizens, there's no need to censor that basic fact. How can the economy grow in the US when regulations continue to pile up on each other, and small business owners (the majority of this 1% myth you propagate) struggle daily with crippling taxes?

1) This isn't a tax break across the board, or for small businesses. It's a lifting of a ban on oil exports. This is something that helps oil companies, which even in times of falling prices still manage to remain enormously profitable. Spare us the appeal to struggling mom-and-pop businesses.

2) This is tied to a completely unrelated bill on 9/11 first responders, and McConnell is essentially willing to deny the heroes he's repeatedly given lip service to any sort of free or affordable medical care for injuries and health issues they've suffered as a result of said heroism. You don't find that just a bit unseemly?

[Northern Davincia]

Handouts for the rich, you say? Modern Republicans have always advocated tax cuts on all citizens, there's no need to censor that basic fact. How can the economy grow in the US when regulations continue to pile up on each other, and small business owners (the majority of this 1% myth you propagate) struggle daily with crippling taxes?

1) This isn't a tax break across the board, or for small businesses. It's a lifting of a ban on oil exports. This is something that helps oil companies, which even in times of falling prices still manage to remain enormously profitable. Spare us the appeal to struggling mom-and-pop businesses.

2) This is tied to a completely unrelated bill on 9/11 first responders, and McConnell is essentially willing to deny the heroes he's repeatedly given lip service to any sort of free or affordable medical care for injuries and health issues they've suffered as a result of said heroism. You don't find that just a bit unseemly?

1. Is there anything particularly upsetting about oil exports that it must be banned?
2. I find it very unseemly. I would never claim to support everything the GOP-controlled Congress has done; I still identify as a Rockefeller Republican. McConnell should not be exempt from criticism over his disrespect to our national heroes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1) This isn't a tax break across the board, or for small businesses. It's a lifting of a ban on oil exports. This is something that helps oil companies, which even in times of falling prices still manage to remain enormously profitable. Spare us the appeal to struggling mom-and-pop businesses.

2) This is tied to a completely unrelated bill on 9/11 first responders, and McConnell is essentially willing to deny the heroes he's repeatedly given lip service to any sort of free or affordable medical care for injuries and health issues they've suffered as a result of said heroism. You don't find that just a bit unseemly?

1. Is there anything particularly upsetting about oil exports that it must be banned?
2. I find it very unseemly. I would never claim to support everything the GOP-controlled Congress has done; I still identify as a Rockefeller Republican. McConnell should not be exempt from criticism over his disrespect to our national heroes.

1) *Shrug* You'd have to ask the people behind the bill, who I expect have a number of reasons. Refineries are worried that prices on crude would rise. Environmentalists are worried that it would spur further drilling and cause significant environmental damage in an era where we should be moving away from such things.
2) Fair enough.

[Britanno 2]

Gotta love Boris Johnson...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Donald Trump wants to get Bill Gates to "close up" certain parts of the internet to combat online recruitment by Daesh.

[Geilinor]

1. Is there anything particularly upsetting about oil exports that it must be banned?
2. I find it very unseemly. I would never claim to support everything the GOP-controlled Congress has done; I still identify as a Rockefeller Republican. McConnell should not be exempt from criticism over his disrespect to our national heroes.

1) *Shrug* You'd have to ask the people behind the bill, who I expect have a number of reasons. Refineries are worried that prices on crude would rise. Environmentalists are worried that it would spur further drilling and cause significant environmental damage in an era where we should be moving away from such things.
2) Fair enough.

At a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the problems and funders of extremism and ISIS is selling oil, I'd say we export and outcompete them.

[Ashmoria]

1) *Shrug* You'd have to ask the people behind the bill, who I expect have a number of reasons. Refineries are worried that prices on crude would rise. Environmentalists are worried that it would spur further drilling and cause significant environmental damage in an era where we should be moving away from such things.
2) Fair enough.

At a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the problems and funders of extremism and ISIS is selling oil, I'd say we export and outcompete them.

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

[Eol Sha]

At a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the problems and funders of extremism and ISIS is selling oil, I'd say we export and outcompete them.

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

Not to mention the environmental ramifications of putting more oil on the market.

[Geilinor]

At a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the problems and funders of extremism and ISIS is selling oil, I'd say we export and outcompete them.

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

Yumyum claimed that prices will rise and you say they'll fall?

Let's take a look at the data: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Major studies done by IHS/CERA, Resources for the Future, ICF International, Columbia University, Harvard Business School, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and most recently the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration all analyzed data on the effects of lifting the ban across an array of scenarios. This wealth of research has concluded that lifting the ban on crude oil exports will lower the price of gasoline, largely because the price is set in the international market where adding supply will reduce the cost of feedstocks to global refiners, allowing them to sell at a lower price in a highly competitive environment. Our study’s key findings included:

Lifting the ban on crude oil exports will boost U.S. economic growth, and increase wages, employment, the balance of trade, and enhance overall economic welfare.
The benefits are greatest if the United States lifts the ban in 2015 rather than delaying for all types of crude.
Lifting the ban lowers gasoline prices by increasing the world amount of crude supply available to refiners.
It is unlikely that U.S. oil exports will be a major calculus in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) decision to cut production to offset the effects of lifting the ban.
Permitting the export of crude oil will enhance U.S. global power

Columbia and Harvard University, the CBO, and the Department of Energy all have done studies discovering the benefits.

[Geilinor]

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

Not to mention the environmental ramifications of putting more oil on the market.

Then we should pass cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Moreover, if Congress truly wants to address climate change, then it should adopt appropriate climate policies that address emissions across sectors.

[Eol Sha]

Not to mention the environmental ramifications of putting more oil on the market.

Then we should pass cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Moreover, if Congress truly wants to address climate change, then it should adopt appropriate climate policies that address emissions across sectors.

Why not both? I mean, other than it being politically unfeasible.

Edit: I read your statement as an either-or. Apologies.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

Yumyum claimed that prices will rise and you say they'll fall?

Let's take a look at the data: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Major studies done by IHS/CERA, Resources for the Future, ICF International, Columbia University, Harvard Business School, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and most recently the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration all analyzed data on the effects of lifting the ban across an array of scenarios. This wealth of research has concluded that lifting the ban on crude oil exports will lower the price of gasoline, largely because the price is set in the international market where adding supply will reduce the cost of feedstocks to global refiners, allowing them to sell at a lower price in a highly competitive environment. Our study’s key findings included:

Lifting the ban on crude oil exports will boost U.S. economic growth, and increase wages, employment, the balance of trade, and enhance overall economic welfare.
The benefits are greatest if the United States lifts the ban in 2015 rather than delaying for all types of crude.
Lifting the ban lowers gasoline prices by increasing the world amount of crude supply available to refiners.
It is unlikely that U.S. oil exports will be a major calculus in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) decision to cut production to offset the effects of lifting the ban.
Permitting the export of crude oil will enhance U.S. global power

Columbia and Harvard University, the CBO, and the Department of Energy all have done studies discovering the benefits.

Prices will rise domestically for the refineries, as demand will increase with foreign refineries now in play.

[Ashmoria]

that doesn't make sense. we cant drive Saudi out of the market. all we can do is further hurt the US oil industry by lowering the price of oil even more--its under $40/barrel now.

Yumyum claimed that prices will rise and you say they'll fall?

Let's take a look at the data: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Major studies done by IHS/CERA, Resources for the Future, ICF International, Columbia University, Harvard Business School, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and most recently the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration all analyzed data on the effects of lifting the ban across an array of scenarios. This wealth of research has concluded that lifting the ban on crude oil exports will lower the price of gasoline, largely because the price is set in the international market where adding supply will reduce the cost of feedstocks to global refiners, allowing them to sell at a lower price in a highly competitive environment. Our study’s key findings included:

Lifting the ban on crude oil exports will boost U.S. economic growth, and increase wages, employment, the balance of trade, and enhance overall economic welfare.
The benefits are greatest if the United States lifts the ban in 2015 rather than delaying for all types of crude.
Lifting the ban lowers gasoline prices by increasing the world amount of crude supply available to refiners.
It is unlikely that U.S. oil exports will be a major calculus in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) decision to cut production to offset the effects of lifting the ban.
Permitting the export of crude oil will enhance U.S. global power

Columbia and Harvard University, the CBO, and the Department of Energy all have done studies discovering the benefits.

depends on the time frame eh?

personally I am very much in favor of disallowing our oil to be sucked out of the ground as fast as possible to sell around the world.

[Geilinor]

personally I am very much in favor of disallowing our oil to be sucked out of the ground as fast as possible to sell around the world.

Why? Cap-and-trade or a carbon tax are the smartest ideas if climate change is the concern.

[Geilinor]

Then we should pass cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/16-lift-crude-oil-ban-ebinger-greenley

Why not both? I mean, other than it being politically unfeasible.

There are clear benefits to lifting the ban.