MurraysWorld  >  Chit Chat  >  U.S. Presidential Election 2016
Pages: 1 2 [3] Reply

U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Quote

Minimum wage is around $10 at the moment

Federal minium wage is $7.25. The median hourly wage in poorer states like Alabama and West Virgina is under $15.
IP Logged
Quote

I've also felt he is comparable to Corybn but without the crazy.

What opinions would you have liked him to change? Considering the opinions he is consistent on, I see that as an asset rather than a Corybn idealistic arrogance. I prefer a man with honourable consistency to an expert shape shifter controlled by big money but each to their own.

I know it's boring to hear but something really does need to happen in regards to the wealth gap and soon. I see Bernie as the only candidate who will genuinely pursue that with real intent.
[ Last edit by Mark January 22, 2016, 10:44 AM ] IP Logged
Quote

What opinions would you have liked him to change? Considering the opinions he is consistent on, I see that as an asset rather than a Corybn idealistic arrogance. I prefer a man with honourable consistency to an expert shape shifter controlled by big money but each to their own.

Ultimately he (Sanders) seems to lack realism, or pragmatism. Revolution rarely works - incremental change is usually the way to go, and I don't think Sanders is going to provide that. Also - and here's a big problem in the context of a US election - Sanders is an unabashed Socialist. Which is a dirty word for many Americans.

Quote
I know it's boring to hear but something really does need to happen in regards to the wealth gap and soon.

To play devil's advocate: why? Capitalism has been the single most effective weapon in the war against poverty (graph sourced from here).



It's really easy to make the mistake of assuming that wealth inequality is the same thing as standards of living.

The Oxfam report that was published this week is a particularly egregious example:

Quote
Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Databook, Oxfam’s primary data source, uses so-called net wealth, defined as “marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts.” By that standard, an American with, say, a high salary and a large mortgage might—if the amount owed on the mortgage is greater than his assets—be counted as less wealthy than a subsistence farmer who doesn’t owe anything.

Who'd you like to be? An American "suffering" high levels of Wealth inequality, or a subsistence farmer who owns a bicycle?
[ Last edit by boogers January 22, 2016, 11:48 AM ] IP Logged
Quote

I was aware of those poverty stats but to me that isn't particularly relevant to the subject of the wealth gap but certainly is a relevant defence to capitalism which I am not attacking. Capitalism is the best thing out there, I'm just open to intervention to prevent it getting out of control. Hilary seems to agree, at least from what she's said in the debates. If the people and corporations at the top were taxed in a fairer way, I guess I wouldn't mind as much.

Interesting article. I'll need to do some more reading on that and see how my opinion evolves.
[ Last edit by Mark January 22, 2016, 01:11 PM ] IP Logged
Quote

Yeah, it's complicated.

In the UK for example, the top 3,000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million

A number of individuals in the Oxfam list (eg. Gates and Buffett) are actually incredible philanthropists.

Ultimately I guess what I'm saying is that the desire to close the wealth gap is often based on some vaguely defined sense of fairness, not on a hard nosed digestion of the facts.

Intervention is really hard to get right as well. Just look at the incredible clusterfuck that is Venezuela...
IP Logged
Quote

Encouraging news from the Iowa caucus. Trump pegged back losing narrowly to Cruz; Clinton neck-and- neck with Sanders probably edging it on a coin toss. Looks like normal service beginning to be resumed. Will be interesting to see hoes the various parties respond.
IP Logged
Joe
Quote

Encouraging news from the Iowa caucus. Trump pegged back losing narrowly to Cruz; Clinton neck-and- neck with Sanders probably edging it on a coin toss. Looks like normal service beginning to be resumed. Will be interesting to see hoes the various parties respond.

Normal service? For the 2016 Republicans I suppose. lol

Cruz is just as batshit mental as Trump. Believes in creationism, denies climate change, evangelical, pro-guns - all for starters. If I had to choose between them, it would be like choosing to be punched repeatedly in the face or the groin for 4 years. Frown
IP Logged
Quote

Normal service? For the 2016 Republicans I suppose. lol

Cruz is just as batshit mental as Trump. Believes in creationism, denies climate change, evangelical, pro-guns - all for starters. If I had to choose between them, it would be like choosing to be punched repeatedly in the face or the groin for 4 years. Frown
   All true - but probably what you'd expect in the Bible belt. The point is that the Trump triumph has stumbled at the first hurdle.
IP Logged
Quote

Yeah, but Trump's hair  shocking  is a crime against humanity for a start and I think there are other reasons I don't like him ......just having a think  Think
And as for Cruz's Cuban heels  yuk  a crime against fashion if ever there was one.  Rolling Eyes
As you say Joe, nothing to choose between them really innocent
IP Logged
Quote

Rubio will be the Republican nomination. The party machine hates Cruz. Which is good. Rubio vs Clinton is the likely outcome, and either one will be fine as far as we in Western Europe are concerned.
IP Logged
Quote

Rubio will be the Republican nomination. The party machine hates Cruz. Which is good. Rubio vs Clinton is the likely outcome, and either one will be fine as far as we in Western Europe are concerned.
  Uncharacteristically I agree with every word!
IP Logged
Quote

Rubio will be the Republican nomination. The party machine hates Cruz. Which is good. Rubio vs Clinton is the likely outcome, and either one will be fine as far as we in Western Europe are concerned.

I'm not so sure.

Historically, American voters don't go for the same type of President after 8 years of one - Rubio is the right wing, Tea Party, crazy version of Obama, and he's playing this younger, charismatic card right now when history suggests that's not what people will be looking for this time.

Now, I admit that Western society has changed hugely in the past 8 years, so there's a chance this won't be the case now, but I don't think Cruz or Trump can be so easily dismissed.
IP Logged
Quote

I'm not so sure.

Historically, American voters don't go for the same type of President after 8 years of one - Rubio is the right wing, Tea Party, crazy version of Obama, and he's playing this younger, charismatic card right now when history suggests that's not what people will be looking for this time.

Now, I admit that Western society has changed hugely in the past 8 years, so there's a chance this won't be the case now, but I don't think Cruz or Trump can be so easily dismissed.
   If Cruz or Trump get the nomination, the Democrats will walk it, unless Sanders has the Democrat ticket, in which case God help us all.
IP Logged
Quote

Trump certainly shouldn't be dismissed simply based on Iowa. Forecasts aside, it was my understanding that it wouldn't have made sense for him to do well there. Also, dropping out of the debate probably hurt him considering how the undecided played a big role in the result.
[ Last edit by Mark February 02, 2016, 07:54 PM ] IP Logged
Quote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2016-the-difference-between-clinton-and-sanders-in-one-chart-a6848841.html

Sanders seems unlikely to win, it seems to me.
IP Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Reply