[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Ashmoria]

one should try to stay out of it.

assad isn't our friend. we had/have no reason to try to keep him in power.

Regional stability is a pretty good thing.

yeah its pretty hard to have regional stability AFTER the region is destabilized.

[Dyakovo]

Sure, let's help a crazy dictator who slaughters his own population.

What exactly should one do when a civil war starts? Besides it wouldn't be the first time we've done it.

Not get involved. Also, just because we've made the mistake in the past does not mean we have to continue making it.

[Conservative Values]

So a former Senator is saying the Governor of that big state it'd be nice for us to win is going to run. No, not Kasich, the other one.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ntial-race

Sooo Rick Snyder comes from no where with the possibility of running. Even if Coleman is speaking out his ass, I agree with the article that if Snyder went to meet with the Jewish Coalition in Vegas he's got to be imagining a run. -.- This is just getting out of hand, there is a GOP governor of most states, you can't all run.

I'm a little unsure why someone would want to float a candidacy in an already crowded field.. This race is going to be the most awkward primary since 1968. I wonder how many people are going to be forced to Tim-Pawlenty-out (before Iowa) because they can't keep their campaign functioning. Plus at this rate everyone is going to get 4 minutes at the debates.

Agree? Or do you think we'll end up down to the normal number of candidates in the summer?

EDIT: This is also the fourth "Rick" floating the idea of a candidacy for President this go-round. Have we found our new dynasty?

[Ashmoria]

So a former Senator is saying the Governor of that big state it'd be nice for us to win is going to run. No, not Kasich, the other one.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... ntial-race

Sooo Rick Snyder comes from no where with the possibility of running. Even if Coleman is speaking out his ass, I agree with the article that if Snyder went to meet with the Jewish Coalition in Vegas he's got to be imagining a run. -.- This is just getting out of hand, there is a GOP governor of most states, you can't all run.

I'm a little unsure why someone would want to float a candidacy in an already crowded field.. This race is going to be the most awkward primary since 1968. I wonder how many people are going to be forced to Tim-Pawlenty-out (before Iowa) because they can't keep their campaign functioning. Plus at this rate everyone is going to get 4 minutes at the debates.

Agree? Or do you think we'll end up down to the normal number of candidates in the summer?

EDIT: This is also the fourth "Rick" floating the idea of a candidacy for President this go-round. Have we found our new dynasty?

when the front runner is at 15% I guess there is no reason NOT to throw your hat into the ring to see who might support you.

it does seem late to be just thinking about it. the ramp-up is an enormous undertaking and he is well behind the rest of the pack.

[Grenartia]

I could have a billion dollars, but I'd still be pretty fucking miserable if I couldn't do as I wanted (as long as I didn't infringe others' rights, because I know somebody's going to come along and say "what if you wanted to murder somebody, huh?).

That's you.

And frankly, I suspect you'd have to take a long hard think about the billion dollars, if the only condition put on it was that you had to live the rest of your life in Singapore or China.

It actually seems selfish to me that you wouldn't. Yes, selfish. You wouldn't give up your personal freedoms for all the good you could do with one billion dollars?

I can't do any good with it if I can do what I want with it. QED.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I say let them all run. Let George Bush's dog run if it wants. The more the merrier.

[Dyakovo]

I say let them all run. Let George Bush's dog run if it wants. The more the merrier.

The best candidate right there...

[Grenartia]

1. Actually, it doesn't remove any incentive, since buying power is effectively equalized across every location (thus making moving incentives based on more arbitrary things). $18/hr in a city maintains the same general level of livability as $10/hr in a suburb (examples, but still, I assume my point is getting across).

1. If minimum wage is the same everywhere, there's a financial incentive to move somewhere cheaper.

If it's "equalized" the incentive is removed.

2. Note that I support partial indexation, to cover the cost details that aren't covered by price-of-living assessments. Price of living is calculated on a standard basket of things people are all assumed to need: housing, food and transport mainly. But even those aren't in the same balance for everyone ... as the example later shows.

2. I'm pretty sure that's what's called favoritism, and is illegal.

3. It totally isn't. What law prohibits your mother from charging $5 a fortnight rent for the basement, when market rents for a basement flat are $400?

4. If you were applying for a government benefit you might have to mention that, and you'd be committing fraud if you declared you paid your mother $400 when really you paid $5.

5. But how can a legal minimum wage adjust according to such personal circumstances? Do you say to your employer "I live in my mother's basement for $5 a fortnight" and then your employer looks up a table of minimum wages and pays you $2 an hour less?

6. The correct way to adjust such inequalities of opportunity (what it is: not everyone's mother is so generous) is with a housing subsidy. Low income earners get a subsidy for their rent, mom's basement dwellers don't.

7. Minimum wage indexation is far too blunt an instrument. You're using the wrong tool!

1. At the same time, with the system I described, by moving somewhere cheaper, you get paid less. Simple little fact you're forgetting.

2. I'd argue for including other basics, such as entertainment, as well as average medical costs.

3. I will be the first to admit I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like housing discrimination of some form. Assuming, of course, your mother is a commercial landlord or an agent thereof (such as an apartment complex).

4. And? Can you come out and state exactly what the problem is?

5. It can't. That's where the safety net comes in. If your reasonable expenses are still too much, you get assistance to pick up the slack. If you don't have to spend as much in some areas, you don't get any extra assistance, and its effectively as if you are making above minimum wage (which I fail to see any problem with), and the employer doesn't have to pay any extra.

6. Which means having to fund more to public assistance. Not that I'm opposed, but it does mean having to take away funding from other areas, like infrastructure, or military, or education, or research. Corporations, being the tools that they are, need to be manipulated, like the tools they are, to pick up the slack.

7. I don't agree that your proposed tool is the correct one.

[Grenartia]

If minimum wage is the same everywhere, there's a financial incentive to move somewhere cheaper.

Oddly enough, it seems a lot places that have no state minimum wage (above and beyond the federal) are also places that have some of the cheapest cost of living. I'll have to dig up something more concrete, but from watching House Hunters, I can say that houses that would cost in the vein of $300,000 the northeast are more like $120,000 in the bible belt (i.e. Texas, Alabama), alongside somewhat cheaper gas, more readily available used cars (less rust, old people dying after retiring to the sun belt), cheaper utility (water & electric) rates, etc. So if the whole of the country is indexed by cost of living, to (for example) what is equivalent to $10 an hr in the suburban northeast, I wonder if Texas would even see an increase.

And "Right to Work" states have lower wages for all workers (union and non-union).

http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/

[Grenartia]

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

Pretty much the only good thing about the 50s in America. We need the economics of the 50s and the social policies of modern Canada.

[Patridam]

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

Pretty much the only good thing about the 50s in America. We need the economics of the 50s and the social policies of modern Canada.

Well, if we could make life for every American as good as it was for white men in the 50s, we'd probably all be better off.

[Grenartia]

Then we need civil disobedience and marches on Washington.

Such tactics may have worked in the 1960's, but this is a completely different time period, and the circumstances are also very different.

The U.S. government is too broken to be repaired. The system needs to be completely scrapped and redone. One possible way to do this would be a revolt that overthrows the government, however it is probably not a good idea to take on the most powerful military on the planet.

Besides, revolutions historically have a tendency to backfire, since winning a revolution requires having the asshole with the biggest and most numbers of sticks, and such people generally tend not to have the best interests of others at heart (hence why they're assholes). The only revolution I can think of that even remotely came close to benefiting everyone on the victor's side was the American Revolution, and thats probably because our asshole with the biggest and the most sticks wasn't that much of an asshole off the battlefield. Which is like, a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance, really. The only reliable and least risky method of affecting and achieving positive change is by reform. I contend that the system as stands will take much effort to repair, but is not beyond repair.

[Grenartia]

The 1990's are still in view, we should recreate that economy.

Well, if the aim is income equality (as it seems to be for socDems) then the 90s would be somewhat poor model as it wasn't a whole lot better than now.

Also, along with the 90s comes grunge and SUV's and ain't nobody want that.

Speak for yourself. Grunge tried to bring rock back to its heyday, and SUVs are very practical vehicles, gas mileage notwithstanding (and with continued research into alternative energies, can be made practical again), given their load capacity.

[Grenartia]

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

As a ... whatever you are ... you may be interested to know that the top marginal tax rate in 1959 was 91%.

The Tax Foundation did not approve

And this is why, as a Social Democrat, I like Ike.

[Patridam]

Speak for yourself. Grunge tried to bring rock back to its heyday, and SUVs are very practical vehicles, gas mileage notwithstanding (and with continued research into alternative energies, can be made practical again), given their load capacity.

Well, this can very well result in an enormous tangent but suffice to say that I at least prefer 80s hair bands to 90s grunge.

As for SUVs, there's very little they can do that a minivan or large station wagon cannot, and SUVs will always have intrinsically worse fuel economy and worse handling than a minivan/wagon of comparable size, performance, and technology because they, by classification, are taller, higher-riding, usually boxier, and mostly on BOF-truck platforms. Improved technology can make SUV's better in regards to economy, but the same technology applied to a car-based MPV (i.e. minivan or station wagon) will result in a vehicle with economy still greater than that of the SUV.

In any case, there are perhaps other eras of economic prosperity we could replicate instead, such as the nigh-constant bull market years from 1947 to 1973.

[Grenartia]

How are any of those bad?

1. Hating the wealth-creating part of the economy is bad.
2. Supporting common core is bad as it doesn't allow for specialisation or regional differences in education.
3. Supporting abortion is bad because it kills unborn, innocent children.
4. Supporting affirmative action is bad as it does not give places to people based on merit, but instead decides that skin color, gender or sexual preference has something to do with it.
5. Supporting compulsory vaccination is bad as it undermines parental rights.

I'm with you on all the rest, however.

1. No, the wealth-creating part of the economy is the average worker. Not "business".
2. I take that as a code phrase for "teach kids bullshit that we know is bullshit, because we want stupid voters in 20 years".
3. While I can sympathize with your sentiment, maybe if Repubicans were more receptive to eliminating the NEED for abortions, people wouldn't have to get any (other than rape, incest, and life of the mother, though arguably, they can do more to stop rapes, too). Maybe if the Republicans supported things like welfare, comprehensive sex-ed, universal healthcare, free contraception, living wages, people would find children to be less of a burden, and would be better able to afford to take care of and raise them (inb4 adoption, simply being pregnant is also a significant financial burden, one too many people can't afford to have). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
4. Then how the hell do you propose ensuring minorities get the same job opportunities as non-minorities? Also, AA is not about choosing the less qualified over the more qualified. Its about choosing the most disadvantaged over the least disadvantaged, when their qualifications are equal.
5. Parents shouldn't (and arguably don't) have the right to deny necessary medical treatment to children. Children are not their parents' slaves. Children are their own people, and shouldn't be disadvantaged by their parents' dumbfuckery, in any form.

[Patridam]

As a ... whatever you are ... you may be interested to know that the top marginal tax rate in 1959 was 91%.

The Tax Foundation did not approve

And this is why, as a Social Democrat, I like Ike.

1.) Those taxation policies existed prior to Ike's presidency.
2.) Tax evasion was wildly rampant during those years, probably even more so than it is now. I doubt anyone actually paid that 91 % tax rate.
3.) I'm curious as to your opinion of Kennedy, given that it was his administration that removed steeply bracketed taxes.

[Grenartia]

Did you remember to tax that?

Whether or not the poverty thresholds are considered to be before or after-tax income varies. But I'll entertain this.

Just looking at the individual, they'd pay a 10% low bracket income tax, an average (it varies) 2% low bracket state income tax, and the 0.9% Medicare tax. That adds up to 12.9% total tax, which is probably more like 13.5% after local taxes and fees.

The poverty threshold for an individual earner is a $11,720 yearly income. Divided by 86.5 then multiplied by 100 that results in $13,550 before tax income necessary to be earned per year. Divided by 50 weeks a year (assuming two weeks off), that's $271 before-tax income each week . $271 divided by 40 hours worked per week is a wage of $6.78 per hour.

And that's before considering the average tax return of 7% of your before-tax yearly income. If you consider that as part of the after-tax income, the effective tax rate drops to 6.5%, which means that (after some math) the wage per hour need only be $6.27.

And yet, this still isn't liveable. Clearly, the arithmetic for calculating poverty is biased too low.

[Patridam]

Whether or not the poverty thresholds are considered to be before or after-tax income varies. But I'll entertain this.

Just looking at the individual, they'd pay a 10% low bracket income tax, an average (it varies) 2% low bracket state income tax, and the 0.9% Medicare tax. That adds up to 12.9% total tax, which is probably more like 13.5% after local taxes and fees.

The poverty threshold for an individual earner is a $11,720 yearly income. Divided by 86.5 then multiplied by 100 that results in $13,550 before tax income necessary to be earned per year. Divided by 50 weeks a year (assuming two weeks off), that's $271 before-tax income each week . $271 divided by 40 hours worked per week is a wage of $6.78 per hour.

And that's before considering the average tax return of 7% of your before-tax yearly income. If you consider that as part of the after-tax income, the effective tax rate drops to 6.5%, which means that (after some math) the wage per hour need only be $6.27.

And yet, this still isn't liveable. Clearly, the arithmetic for calculating poverty is biased too low.

As someone who's lived in a family of three that has never broken the poverty threshold thereof, and experienced not unreasonable comfort therein, please define "liveable".

[Grenartia]

The problem is, sudden and large increases to a minimum wage can throw the markets into chaos and cause mass inflation.

It's not the 2.6% of workers that make minimum wage that's the problem, it's the 30% of workers who earn less than $11 an hour. The whole wage scale of semi-skilled or promoted-unskilled jobs would be thrown off, and inflation (which is not great as it is; the Obama administration has been downplaying it) would skyrocket.

Hence why a simple raising of the minimum wage is inadequate. A requirement to it being tied to cost of living incentivizes corporations to cut costs on products (while maintaining and improving regulations keeps them from skimping on quality), and requiring they cut upper management pay before mass numbers of job cutting ensures that jobs don't get lost to pay for the increased costs.

[Dyakovo]

Pretty much the only good thing about the 50s in America. We need the economics of the 50s and the social policies of modern Canada.

Well, if we could make life for every American as good as it was for white men in the 50s, we'd probably all be better off.

Whaddaya know? We can agree on something...

[Patridam]

Well, if we could make life for every American as good as it was for white men in the 50s, we'd probably all be better off.

Whaddaya know? We can agree on something...

Heck, as a white man life is probably worse for me right now than it would've been 60 years back... or even 30 years back.

[Seleucas]

I don't really support any of them. Rand Paul is closer rhetorically to what I want, but I think he would still be about as disappointing as the rest.

[The United Territories of Providence]

There are two big issues with this group of candidates.

About half are "conservative" enough to win the primaries, but way too "conservative" to win the general election.

The other half are just "conservative" enough to give Hillary or any Democrat a challenge, but not "conservative" enough to win the primaries.

It also doesn't help that the GOP has morphed the definition of conservative into a hawkish, xenophobic, fundamentalist, racist, homophobic, anti-science, corporatist abomination...

[Dyakovo]

Whaddaya know? We can agree on something...

Heck, as a white man life is probably worse for me right now than it would've been 60 years back... or even 30 years back.

Life getting better for everyone else does not equate to life getting worse for white men.