2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

Had Carson said "Well Donald, I didn't realize you had Jenny McCarthy as part of your inner circle for intellectual reasons - you might want to look into that one a bit closer because you are dead wrong and doing a disservice to public health for perpetuating that ridiculous myth?"

The fact the whole exchange isn't mentioned anywhere baffles me, especially since it falls in line with the flat-earth republican BS.

Knowing Trump he prob would have said something along the lines of, "Well Jenny may or may not be in my inner circle, but we all know she'd never be in yours,... not with a face like that."

 

[FearTheBeard]

It was great hearing Fiorina saying how we "cant act like marijuana is the same as having a drink" yet she was going on and playing peoples emotions about her child that died. Her daughter died from alcohol and prescription pills but shes not speaking out about those. Paul was the only one with a decent response on marijuana and not locking people ip for something harmless.

This debate was hilarious honestly. Everyone wants to blow more money expanding military and bombing the hell out of the mid east.
Basically no talk on healthcare, the rising income inequality, or other legitimate problems. But they got in plenty about building walls and shipping mexicans home.

The best part was Trumps hilarious shot at Bush saying "your brother and his administration gave us Obama, because they were such a disaster the last 3 months that Abraham Lincoln couldnt get elected."

 

[tussin]

It was great hearing Fiorina saying how we "cant act like marijuana is the same as having a drink" yet she was going on and playing peoples emotions about her child that died. Her daughter died from alcohol and prescription pills but shes not speaking out about those. Paul was the only one with a decent response on marijuana and not locking people ip for something harmless.

Paul's answer was certainly the most concerned with the socioeconomic factors of petty drug crime. That being said, decriminalization of marijuana has largely shifted towards bipartisan support.

 

[GoIrish41]

Paul's answer was certainly the most concerned with the socioeconomic factors of petty drug crime. That being said, decriminalization of marijuana has largely shifted towards bipartisan support.

Did anyone tell the rest of the candidates? I missed this part of the debate last night, but the highlights I saw on it looked like Christie and Carli came out pretty strongly in opposiition to this idea. Not sure what anyone else said, but I like Paul's answer as you described it.

 

[tussin]

Did anyone tell the rest of the candidates? I missed this part of the debate last night, but the highlights I saw on it looked like Christie and Carli came out pretty strongly in opposiition to this idea. Not sure what anyone else said, but I like Paul's answer as you described it.

IIRC, no one took a hard stance for or against except Paul, Christie, and Fiorina.

I suspect most candidates are ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ towards marijuana use but no one wants to come out hard in support in a primary debate.

 

[Wild Bill]

It was great hearing Fiorina saying how we "cant act like marijuana is the same as having a drink" yet she was going on and playing peoples emotions about her child that died. Her daughter died from alcohol and prescription pills but shes not speaking out about those. Paul was the only one with a decent response on marijuana and not locking people ip for something harmless.

This debate was hilarious honestly. Everyone wants to blow more money expanding military and bombing the hell out of the mid east.
Basically no talk on healthcare, the rising income inequality, or other legitimate problems. But they got in plenty about building walls and shipping mexicans home.

The best part was Trumps hilarious shot at Bush saying "your brother and his administration gave us Obama, because they were such a disaster the last 3 months that Abraham Lincoln couldnt get elected."

Paul specifically said he was against boots on the ground. Carson wasn't as blunt but he did suggest we should use intellect to avoid boots on the ground if possible (or something similar).

 

[connor_in]

In fairness, there was a whole lot of stupid shit said last night ... Maybe too much for a single new cycle.

Is this why DWS doesn't want to expand the number of Dem debates even though Sanders & O'Malley want more?

 

[GoIrish41]

IIRC, no one took a hard stance for or against except Paul, Christie, and Fiorina.

I suspect most candidates are ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ towards marijuana use but no one wants to come out hard in support in a primary debate.

Thanks. I stepped away from the TV for a few moments last night and missed this section of the debate. I didn't record the debate, so I missued it and just looked up some highlights this morning. I have always thought this was an issue that the GOP could grab and run with. -- Taking government out of people's lives, tax it like cigarettes/alcohol, large revenue source (I think it would be enormous!), and creating a lot of new jobs (growers, distributors, storefronts, etc.). It would also bring about a HUGE dip in crime, if it was no longer against the law. If they are not behind it enough to talk about it publically, I am not sure they are really behind it, but legalized pot is on the horizon for sure.

 

[GoldenDome]

I wont speak for those in the military, so I hope someone in the service can verify, but what you tell your recruiter you want to do when you sign up and what they assign you to can often be drastically different.

My friend went into the Army wanting to go into surveying. He ended up on the ground in Afghanistan.

My friend served 2 tours in Afghanistan. He went in thinking he was going to shoot terrorists but in the end, 95% of the time he was picking up trash, guarding a gate, or sweeping mines for marines. He got two nice signing checks, bought lots of porn and chewing tobacco, and is now going to school for kinesiology. His intentions were to be infantry and even that was drastically different than what he envisioned.

My other friend is a career Marine and he is all fucked up in the head. He is constantly getting into fights because he thinks everyone is out to get him. His twin brother went to the Air Force and is fine.

IMO, if we institute the draft again, Repubs would have to drastically change their stance on boots on the ground. I would like to institute a law that mandates lawmakers who vote to go to war either volunteer themselves or their first child to serve. They are not sending their kids, they are fine sending other peoples kids to do their dirty work.

 

[GoIrish41]

Is this why DWS doesn't want to expand the number of Dem debates even though Sanders & O'Malley want more?

I'm all for more debates from the Dems. Hillary might not have thought she had much to gain from them, but I suspect she will come around to the idea when she continues to fall in the polls. Sanders will be great in the debates, i think, and can only further his brand with a good showing. Of course O'Malley wants more debates -- it will be the only exposure he gets on a big stage. His candidacy is going nowhere, I'm afraid.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would like to institute a law that mandates lawmakers who vote to go to war either volunteer themselves or their first child to serve. They are not sending their kids, they are fine sending other peoples kids to do their dirty work.

I don't think I could get on board with this ...

I would like to institute a law that mandates lawmakers who vote to go to war either volunteer themselves or their first child to serve. They are not sending their kids, they are fine sending other peoples kids to do their dirty work.

... but this is spot on.

 

[tussin]

Thanks. I stepped away from the TV for a few moments last night and missed this section of the debate. I didn't record the debate, so I missued it and just looked up some highlights this morning. I have always thought this was an issue that the GOP could grab and run with. -- Taking government out of people's lives, tax it like cigarettes/alcohol, large revenue source (I think it would be enormous!), and creating a lot of new jobs (growers, distributors, storefronts, etc.). It would also bring about a HUGE dip in crime, if it was no longer against the law. If they are not behind it enough to talk about it publically, I am not sure they are really behind it, but legalized pot is on the horizon for sure.

Yeah, it's a shame that stuff like this doesn't get complete buy-in from both parties as it's a pretty well established fact that everything you said above is true. The same logic largely applies to internet gambling (specifically poker) outlawed by the UIGEA.

Unfortunately, political policies on these issues are largely determined by donors and special interest groups. For example, UIGEA won't get overturned any time soon because Sheldon Adelson doesn't want it to be (which is a lol-level of hypocrisy).

 

[GoldenDome]

I don't think I could get on board with this ...

If they aren't willing to send their own kids, then they shouldn't be willing to send others kids.

Or am I just wrong in my thinking?

If they vote for ground troops, they should be willing to send their own or themselves.

 

[IrishLax]

Wooly, I get why this isn't crystal clear, but re-reading what I said I think the point I was making was apparent and accurate:

"And you can easily join a non-combat division of the military so I don't even know what you're talking about in the last sentence. Even if joining to military to get on the GI Bill was your only option in life (impossible... but let's play out the hypothetical) you could sign up to be a cook on a boat or a myriad of other roles besides combat infantry."

The point is that someone who enlists in the Air Force, Navy, Air Guard, Coast Guard, etc. with a preference to do XYZ role has effectively a 0% chance of ending up in a forward deployed combat infantry position without actively pursuing it. It is hypothetically possible, but I doubt there is a single example in the last decade of someone who signed up in a "safe" role for one of those branches ending up doing ground patrols in Fallujah.

You're right, if you enlist in the Army as a grunt intending to do whatever and they decide they need something else, its very possible to end up in a situation you didn't intend to be in.

 

[GoIrish41]

If they aren't willing to send their own kids, then they shouldn't be willing to send others kids.

Or am I just wrong in my thinking?

If they vote for ground troops, they should be willing to send their own or themselves.

No, you are 100% right in your thinking in principle BUT I believe the kids should decide, not the politician parent, if he or she will serve.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If they aren't willing to send their own kids, then they shouldn't be willing to send others kids.

Or am I just wrong in my thinking?

If they vote for ground troops, they should be willing to send their own or themselves.

Completely disagree. Fvck the poor!



and to a lesser degree fvck italics!

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think I could get on board with this ...



... but this is spot on.

1. Kids don't go to war. Adults go to war.

2. We have a voluntary military. Don't want to go to war? Don't sign up. Complaining about a soldier being sent to war is like complaining about a crab fisherman being "sent" to the Bering Sea or a police officer being "sent" to respond to a crime. Do you think people should only get police protection if they or a family member have been a police officer?

 

[connor_in]

So all you guys are advocating mandatory military service?

 

[GoIrish41]

1. Kids don't go to war. Adults go to war.

2. We have a voluntary military. Don't want to go to war? Don't sign up. Complaining about a soldier being sent to war is like complaining about a crab fisherman being "sent" to the Bering Sea or a police officer being "sent" to respond to a crime. Do you think people should only get police protection if they or a family member have been a police officer?

1. Adults also decide for themselves if they are going into the military. That is my point.

2. As I said in previous posts, there are varying degrees of volunteerism. Many have few options and none of this means that some nutjob should use the military willy nilly and put these young men in women in grave danger without good reason. I'm takin to you, W.

 

[GoIrish41]

Wooly, I get why this isn't crystal clear, but re-reading what I said I think the point I was making was apparent and accurate:

"And you can easily join a non-combat division of the military so I don't even know what you're talking about in the last sentence. Even if joining to military to get on the GI Bill was your only option in life (impossible... but let's play out the hypothetical) you could sign up to be a cook on a boat or a myriad of other roles besides combat infantry."

The point is that someone who enlists in the Air Force, Navy, Air Guard, Coast Guard, etc. with a preference to do XYZ role has effectively a 0% chance of ending up in a forward deployed combat infantry position without actively pursuing it. It is hypothetically possible, but I doubt there is a single example in the last decade of someone who signed up in a "safe" role for one of those branches ending up doing ground patrols in Fallujah.

You're right, if you enlist in the Army as a grunt intending to do whatever and they decide they need something else, its very possible to end up in a situation you didn't intend to be in.

This is just not true. One can be a medic in the Navy and serve in a Marine infantry unit. An army communications specialist can be on patrol in a war zone. Truck drivers travel through war zones to deliver supplies. If forward operating bases come under attack do you think the cooks hide or pick up a rifle? I'm not sure you understand how the military works, but in the 8 years I served in the military I don't recall having the option to say no to a lawful order. I know dozens of guys who are in a wide number of MOSs that have deployed 5, 6 or 7 times (not voluntarily) even though they were scheduled to be home with their families.

 

[IrishLax]

This is just not true. One can be a medic in the Navy and serve in a Marine infantry unit. An army communications specialist can be in patrol in a war zone. Truck drivers travel through war zones to deliver supplies. If forward operating bases come under attack do you think the cooks hide or pick up a rifle? I'm not sure you understand how the military works, but in the 8 years I served in the military I don't recall having the option to say no to a lawful order.

You're obviously hell bent on attacking a straw man so it's almost not worth responding. I never said that there weren't "dangerous" jobs where you could get KIA besides being in combat infantry. Of course you can be a truck driver, DAWG or DART in the Air Force, etc. in a forward deployed position and be in harms way. I never once said anything to the contrary. And I specifically said in the above post I am not talking about the army, nor obviously the marines.

The simple fact is everything I said is correct. There is no evidence of people in the Navy, Air Force, Air Guard, Coast Guard, etc. being put in an overly lethal situation. None. And the fatality rate in these groups is as low in these branches as many American industries, which reinforces everything I'm saying about how these people aren't being put in extremely hazardous situations.

There have been 3,700 deaths to hostile fire in Iraq to date. There have been a grand total of 40 casualties in the Air Force and 86 in the Navy. There has been 1 Cost Guard fatality. That averages out to roughly 3 Air Force and 6 Navy deaths a year, including all of the elective combat positions in the Combat Controllers, SEALs, etc., or being a pilot. The fatality rate for people who aren't in those roles that specifically take an application into a competitive selection process to put yourself in a high risk environment is even lower... almost negligible.

Compared to a dangerous civilian industry, such as logging, the fatality rates for Air Force and Navy -- including all roles -- were 10x lower than a civilian industry. So please get some facts, and save me the preachy bullshit. Everyone can fully educate themselves on all roles/risks when enlisting, and those risks in the Department of Navy and Department of Air Force are ultimately very low even including the combat roles.

 

[IrishLax]

Another fun fact... the fatality rate for an average American (including non-drivers, and non-car owners) in auto accidents is roughly 12 per 100,000 people per year.

The KIA hostile fire rate in the Navy/Air Force serving in Iraq is roughly 13 per 100,000.

So your odds of being killed by enemy action in Iraq if you're in the Navy/Air Force are basically equivalent to being killed by an automobile in the United States (or lower if you're a daily commuter with a decent drive). This is the point I was trying to make, and which I clarified in my response to Wooly. There is a "safe" way to be active duty in the military. Arguing otherwise defies facts and logic.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1) I didn't say legally, there is eminent domain. Some of it would involve essentially taking land from people against their will, including native Americans. The other side is that is quite difficult to build a 1900 mile walk through lakes, rivers and mountains. Especially when the worst part of illegal immigration (human trafficking, drugs, etc) are happening through tunnels anyway.

2) Why don't you do that first.

3) How do you know? I honestly don't believe that you have done any research on the true costs of immigration and you readily admit that you have no idea what a wall like this would cost or be feasible.

Let me add this up: I admit I don't know what a wall would cost, but the idea is WORTH exploring. You supposedly know everything about anything, but can't tell me which would cost more between building a wall vs long term illegal immigration.

Got it.

 

[Cackalacky]

1. Kids don't go to war. Adults go to war.

2. We have a voluntary military. Don't want to go to war? Don't sign up. Complaining about a soldier being sent to war is like complaining about a crab fisherman being "sent" to the Bering Sea or a police officer being "sent" to respond to a crime. Do you think people should only get police protection if they or a family member have been a police officer?

People agree to serve voluntarily. However, they do not get a choice in the wars they are conscripted. That is for the others to decide, primarily politicians. This is important because the rationale for going to war or taking military action is now a primarily based on a desire for police action or acquisition of resources. We aren't fighting justifiable wars recently. The justification of service matters. Sending 100,000 troops to ransack Iraq was flat out unnecessary and massively expensive and irresponsible. Putting our soldiers into harms way for shitty reasons is immoral and wasteful.This is far from being a crab fisherman in the Bering Sea trying to make a living or an oil derricks worker.

 

[MJ12666]

Unfortunately I cannot join in this discussion at work as doing so would be against company policy; but I am permitted to read these posts which I do during lunch and find them entertaining. I am curious regarding a Sanders policy and was hoping one or more of his supports might be able clarify exactly what his policy would be regarding alleviating the wealth disparity in the US.

In a speech this weekend he used the Walton family as an example stating that they own more wealth than the total of the bottom 40% of Americans. What I did not hear him say was how he would rectify this situation. Since most of the Walton family wealth is derived from owning shares in Walmart (which Sam Walton was the founder), does anyone know exactly how he proposes re-distributing this wealth?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Another fun fact... the fatality rate for an average American (including non-drivers, and non-car owners) in auto accidents is roughly 12 per 100,000 people per year.

The KIA hostile fire rate in the Navy/Air Force serving in Iraq is roughly 13 per 100,000.

So your odds of being killed by enemy action in Iraq if you're in the Navy/Air Force are basically equivalent to being killed by an automobile in the United States (or lower if you're a daily commuter with a decent drive). This is the point I was trying to make, and which I clarified in my response to Wooly. There is a "safe" way to be active duty in the military. Arguing otherwise defies facts and logic.

Honestly, if you exclude SEALs and other special operators/people attached to Army or Marine units, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of Air Force and Navy casualties come from training and other accidents. Those dudes operate a lot of big heavy machinery that is built for performance>safety.

That being said, while being in the Navy or Air Force may not be particularly dangerous in current conflicts, the story changes in a state on state war. So there's risk involved that goes well beyond workplace accidents in joining those two services.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Unfortunately I cannot join in this discussion at work as doing so would be against company policy; but I am permitted to read these posts which I do during lunch and find them entertaining. I am curious regarding a Sanders policy and was hoping one or more of his supports might be able clarify exactly what his policy would be regarding alleviating the wealth disparity in the US.

In a speech this weekend he used the Walton family as an example stating that they own more wealth than the total of the bottom 40% of Americans. What I did not hear him say was how he would rectify this situation. Since most of the Walton family wealth is derived from owning shares in Walmart (which Sam Walton was the founder), does anyone know exactly how he proposes re-distributing this wealth?

I assume cap gains and inheritance taxes would go up under a Sanders presidency. Add to that things like increased minimum wages and a more robust healthcare system, and you start to narrow the gap between the Waltons and their employees. Not by much, granted, but it's something.

 

[IrishLax]

Honestly, if you exclude SEALs and other special operators/people attached to Army or Marine units, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of Air Force and Navy casualties come from training and other accidents. Those dudes operate a lot of big heavy machinery that is built for performance>safety.

That being said, while being in the Navy or Air Force may not be particularly dangerous in current conflicts, the story changes in a state on state war. So there's risk involved that goes well beyond workplace accidents in joining those two services.

Absolutely. We were specifically talking about the Iraq conflict. Should shit hit the fan at any given moment, the paradigm completely changes.

 

[wizards8507]

I assume cap gains and inheritance taxes would go up under a Sanders presidency. Add to that things like increased minimum wages and a more robust healthcare system, and you start to narrow the gap between the Waltons and their employees. Not by much, granted, but it's something.

And that's Bernie's idea of economic prosperity. People earning minimum wage are a tad better off (if at all once inflation kicks in). How about pro-growth policies so that less people are stuck on minimum wage in the first place?

 

[GoIrish41]

And that's Bernie's idea of economic prosperity. People earning minimum wage are a tad better off (if at all once inflation kicks in). How about pro-growth policies so that less people are stuck on minimum wage in the first place?

Why not. It has worked great for the past three decades. Why try something new?