2016 Election

Quote: kewlj

I'll tell you, in my own case, this issue was front and center for most of my adult life, which is why I aligned myself with democrats. In June, I figured this issue was put to bed and I could now embrace issues lean more conservative and at least consider if not embrace republicans. In this very early part of the election cycle, I find myself interested in more republican candidates than democratic candidates. But, now in recent weeks it looks as if the republicans want to re-fight this fight that they have already lost and continue to be the exclusive private club that they have become. This may end up driving me right back to the democrats instead of looking for a candidate that better matches all my values.

Bingo. The ship should have sailed on abortion a long time ago. And on gay marriage, that ship should also be sailing. I'm Christian myself. Homosexuality is a sin. We are all sinners however. I don't expect my church ever to perform a same-sex marriage based on religious freedom. I do expect the government however to give the same benefits to same-sex partners as to heterosexual ones.

That in a nutshell is a problem with the GOP. They are representing two different broad spectrums of society. There is the far right who want their government to take back values and rights from individuals that the GOP has to appease, and then there's a center right spectrum as well who KNOW that their economic and some social beliefs align well with GOP values but can't accept the far right. This creates a faction. The left does not have this problem.

I think it was quadrupled, but I read the first three.
Good reading each time ;-)

Easy to be on the left? No. There are plenty of people on the left (such as myself) who are concerned about the fiscal future of the country, who understand that handouts cost money and need to be funded. I am happy to give money to welfare recipients, teachers, universities, socialized medicine, and those who are genuinely on the outs and happy to pay my share of taxes to do so, as long as it is not wasted.

There of course is a segment of society who will vote along with the handouts. The Conservative government tried that up here (general election next month) by giving more money to families with children. That tactic did not garner them anymore votes here. Our economy is flailing because in the rich days in the early 2000s the government did nothing to invest the surpluses in infrastructure. Now with low commodity prices (especially oil) our dollar is sucking and the economy had a recession in the first half. And the Liberal (our center party) is also flailing because the candidate is not trustworthy. People are seeing through his words of "tax the rich - give the middle class more" as it is not genuine. Our left party (the NDPs) are doing well mostly because of a solid candidate in Mulcair but he won't win either because he can't be trusted with the pursestrings.

The end result will be a minority government and another election in another year. Of course, elections here are no big deal.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I think it was quadrupled, but I read the first three.
Good reading each time ;-)

I agree.

After I vote for Bernie to accelerate the fall of the US, I plan to court RonC and boymimbo to my cabinet after my successful coup. They are shoe ins for my Ministry of Common Sense.

Quote: boymimbo

Easy to be on the left? No. There are plenty of people on the left (such as myself) who are concerned about the fiscal future of the country, who understand that handouts cost money and need to be funded. I am happy to give money to welfare recipients, teachers, universities, socialized medicine, and those who are genuinely on the outs and happy to pay my share of taxes to do so, as long as it is not wasted.

Actually, this is exactly what I am talking about. "Happy to give.....as long as it is not wasted." Even if it isn't "wasted" and that term is very loose, the fact is that it is not the government's money to give. The money you "give" to socialized medicine was taken from someone who had to expend labor or/and capital to get it. As a liberal it is easy to say, "good cause!" but as a conservative it is harder to say, "sorry, we don't have the money for that." Perhaps this is why liberals give less to charitable groups and claim they do not mind higher taxes ("claim" because they usually want taxes on someone else) while conservatives want slim government for social services but give more to a cause they believe in.

Quote:

There of course is a segment of society who will vote along with the handouts.

In the USA we call this "the 47%" but if you do you get called some kind of meanie...........

Quote: boymimbo

The illusion that politicians are looking after the public interest is gone. Corporations have bought out congress and the senate a long time ago, producing policies that for the most part benefits them and leaves the average consumer (who doesn't own large swaths of stock) in the middle ground watching their middle class shrink away.

The US currently issues 65,000 H1B visas to highly skilled foreign workers.

Instead of hiring them for unfilled positions, corportations such as Microsoft and Disney are firing long time workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign H1 B workers.

Disney

Cruz introduced legislation to increase the number of H1 B visas from 65,000 to 325,000.

Cruz

Rubio wants to increase it to 190,000

Rubio

Quote: doughboy11

Here's another poll for the Trump deniers to ignore. He leads Hillary by 5 in iowa

He's down by just 1 in New Hampshire

The only polls I consider are the ones right after the two conventions - if a candidate can't get a significant bounce in the days after that party's convention ends, then it's going to be hard for that candidate to win.

Well, that and the only "poll" that matters - the 51 taken in the voting booths (and the mail ballots) on election day.

Speaking of Iowa polls...how is "uncommitted" doing in the Iowa Democrats poll? I was watching the CNN series about the 1970s, and noticed that "uncommitted" won (if you define it by percentage of lowest-level votes) the Iowa Democratic Caucus that year.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Speaking of Iowa polls...how is "uncommitted" doing in the Iowa Democrats poll? I was watching the CNN series about the 1970s, and noticed that "uncommitted" won (if you define it by percentage of lowest-level votes) the Iowa Democratic Caucus that year.

We had an election in 1970?

Quote: AZDuffman

Perhaps this is why liberals give less to charitable groups and claim they do not mind higher taxes ("claim" because they usually want taxes on someone else) while conservatives want slim government for social services but give more to a cause they believe in.

I like a consistent system. Inconsistency, or giving just when you feel like it, works about as well as getting a Turkey on Thanksgiving, when you actually needed to eat in January, or July. Makes people feel good who give that way, but that's about it.

Plus, while government doesn't necessarily do a good job of screening people who really need something, I am not so sure your local charity does a great job either. Yes, I'd rather have a system supported by everyone giving a little than random people giving whenever or whatever they want. Charity is like having an army fight on donations and about good in the long term. The army shows up when it's paid. The enemy shows up when they aren't.

I've never heard liberals proclaim that rich liberals should be excluded from higher taxes, when they say they everyone should pay more. Show me the liberal/progressive running on that claim in any year or time frame?

Quote: rxwine

Plus, while government doesn't necessarily do a good job of screening people who really need something, I am not so sure your local charity does a great job either. Yes, I'd rather have a system supported by everyone giving a little than random people giving whenever or whatever they want. Charity is like having an army fight on donations and about good in the long term. The army shows up when it's paid. The enemy shows up when they aren't.

That is your take. I prefer being able to direct my funds. I don't want my money funding abortion or even more going to AIDS, which is already over funded. I don't want it going to bogus "job training" and midnight basketball. You may support any or all of these.

I would rather fiscal democracy where the government does little and we all help where we want. Kind of like crowd funding. Make your case to raise cash. Oh, and I really do not want funds going to pay grant writers to get more funds!

Quote:

I've never heard liberals proclaim that rich liberals should be excluded from higher taxes, when they say they everyone should pay more. Show me the liberal/progressive running on that claim in any year or time frame?

What I am saying is so many liberals say they are for higher taxes but on the wealthy or on the rich, etc. But since you brought it up, liberals from all over said they did not "need" the Bush tax cuts, yet not a one ever gave a nickel of it back. At the least they did not make it public that they did.