The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]

[TheGlyphstone]

Not quite.  He still needs the support of Congress.  See what's going on with Judge Garland?

We, of course, disagree.  I think he is seeking power to pursue his goal of implementing Socialism.  Now, I accept you think this is a laudable goal.  Can you accept I do not think it is a laudable goal?

Absolutely. I just disagree with your perspective that he is the standard-issue two-faced political animal. He's getting support because, for better or worse (worse from your POV), he's the very definition of an oxymoron, an honest politician.

It's also worth noting that 'true' socialists would consider Bernie to be very right-wing. In practical effect, he's a Democratic Socialist much like several current European governments; more 'left' than any previous politician the US has seen, but not approaching Lenin or Mao.

[Cycle]

Absolutely. I just disagree with your perspective that he is the standard-issue two-faced political animal.

Thank you.

I respect your (and others') right to advocate for Bernie.  I will, perhaps on occasion, advocate against him.  It is not personal.  We simply view the world (and Bernie) differently. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Well sure. I don't see any actual hard feelings being thrown around or intended.

I'm honestly actually curious who, on E, has voted for Trump and why they chose that. Them choosing to speak up is vanishingly unlikely because of our general left-wing population slant, but it'd be interesting to hear the 'whys' from someone who A) has made it into E's membership and B) honestly sees benefit for America in Trump's policies and leadership.

[HannibalBarca]

A Supreme Court judge is exactly that... a judge... and as such they need to have legal experience. Yes, the politics of the judges (and/or whether the way they interpret tends to support a certain political position) clearly comes into things and grabs the headlines but that all comes within a legal framework. Putting someone with no legal experience in that position would be a farce and lead the Supreme Court to ridicule.

While I agree that a background in the law is necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice, experience as a judge is not.  William Rehnquist, Salmon P. Chase, Earl Warren, Byron White, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, Roger Taney, and John Jay are among many Supreme Court Justices that had never served as a judge before being nominated to the highest court.

Though I do have to admit, suggesting Sanders as a SCOTUS nominee was more a bit of sarcasm than anything.

[Oniya]

Trump is backing away from his promise to pay legal fees for violent protesters.

Yet another 'I never said that' from Trump.

“I never said I was going to pay for fees,” Trump said as five key states held presidential nominating contests in the race for the 2016 Republican nomination.

At a Feb. 1 rally, Trump warned the crowd about protesters carrying tomatoes.

“So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell—  I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too.”

[Cassandra LeMay]

Trump is backing away from his promise to pay legal fees for violent protesters.

Yet another 'I never said that' from Trump.

Trump is like Pinocchio, only that his nose doesn't grow longer when he lies - his balls grow bigger.


On a more serious note, YouGov has some interesting polls on Trump.

Most interesting (IMO) is this poll result:


Given that "not politically correct" seems to be his main selling point it would appear to me he could just as well tune down the hateful rethoric a notch, or direct it against anyone but Mexicans and Muslims and still achieve the same success. If that is something to be even more concerned about as it might mean a lot of Americans will buy any message, as long as it is presented in the right tone, or if it is something good, as it might mean Americans are not as resentful of "the other" as Trump might make it look, I just can not decide.

[Cycle]

An interesting read about the impact of the top four candidate's tax plans.  To summarize:

[ReijiTabibito]

Numbers can be tricky things.  On the one hand, they are quite clear about what will happen.  On the other hand, there are things that can be left out of that so as to tell an incomplete story.

I'll take Sanders as an example, since he'd be the one of the 4 I'd vote for if I could pick.  Let's say I earn $55,000 a year.  According to the study done there, I would have a total change to my paycheck - for the year - of $3852.16.  Okay, so I'm taking home $4000 less every year in pay.

One of the things that Bernie has promised is free healthcare to all Americans.  No more needing to pay health insurance premiums, it would be (I imagine) a single-payer system (which is what we should have had instead of what we got) like the UK's NHS.  Right now, I pay about $370 a month for my break-your-arm insurance plan.  (And before you ask, no, it's not an Obamacare plan.)  So, if I don't have to pay that every month, that means I'm saved a cost of $4,440 a year.

So in that deal, I actually gain about $500 a year, even though I'm technically earning less, because I'm saved an expense.

Let's say Bernie isn't going for free healthcare, though.  BUT he promises free collegiate education to anyone who can get in.  According to College Data, the average cost in tuition and fees for someone in-state attending a public university is $9,410 a year, for a grand total of $37,640 for a 4-year education.  Let's say I have two kids to send to school - that number becomes $75,280.  Dividing this cost by the loss of money to my paycheck each year, I get a total of 19.5 years.  IE, the time it takes one of my kids to grow up.  So I basically pay in taxes for both of my kids to go to school.

But the difference?  When they walk out of college, degree in hand, there is no debt for either of them.  Student debt is over a trillion and a half dollars now - outstripping even credit card debt - and unlike most forms of debt, declaring bankruptcy doesn't absolve you of it.  On top of that, consider this - my example uses students attending a public school, in-state.  If my kids want to go to a private school, or to a public university out-of-state?  Then again, I actually save money.

Numbers are important.

But it's important to consider what you are getting...and what you are giving up in exchange for it.  I don't know specifically about the Donald, but I know Cruz wants to really cut back on government programs.  Are you willing to get that extra hundred dollars a month, if it means giving up food stamps?

[Cycle]

Numbers can be tricky things.  On the one hand, they are quite clear about what will happen.  On the other hand, there are things that can be left out of that so as to tell an incomplete story.

...

But it's important to consider what you are getting...and what you are giving up in exchange for it.

Oh, absolutely.  Your analysis is based on certain facts specific to you: you pay for insurance out of pocket, you have children that will go to college. 

Of course not everyone is in the same situation as you.  Not everyone pays for insurance out of pocket.  Nor does everyone has children--or has the means to send them to college even if tuition is "free."  (By the way, I don't follow what you mean by saying that you'd save more money under Bernie's plan if your children end up going to private schools.)

So whether anyone would be better or worse off under Bernie's plans (or Hillary's, or The Donald's) vary depending on their circumstance.  Some can be better off.  Others can be worse off.  Thus I agree that we should all consider what we are getting...and what we are giving up in exchange for it.

[ReijiTabibito]

I actually don't have children (though I want to), that was for the sake of the illustration.  Most families I know of have at least two kids, so it's not an unlikely scenario.

And no, some people have insurance provided to them through their workplace.  Union jobs are the only major source I'm aware of that that's the case for, and they pay dues in order to get access to those benefits.  Again, give up to get.

My saying more money involves a bit of maths, and even I had to sit down and think about what it actually meant for a minute before I came to the proper conclusion.

If it helps, let me try and use an illustration.  For a private school, the average cost of a 4-year education (for 1 person) is $129,620.  I lose $3850 a year in taxes (I dropped the $2 and change for ease of computation) under Bernie's plan.  Over 18 years, that's a total of $69,300.  My kid then goes to school - for free.  But I've only paid, in taxes, a little over half that cost.  The rest of the overall cost - the remaining ~$60,000 - is money I don't have to pony up over the next couple of years. Does that help clarify things a bit?

Of course, once my kid graduates and no longer is a student, then I don't get the benefit of it anymore, but I'm willing to let Uncle Sam have more of my money if it means others will be better off.

[Ryven]

So whether anyone would be better or worse off under Bernie's plans (or Hillary's, or The Donald's) vary depending on their circumstance.  Some can be better off.  Others can be worse off.  Thus I agree that we should all consider what we are getting...and what we are giving up in exchange for it.

I do not have kids and I never plan to.  I am willing to pay the extra taxes in order to have a more educated population as it will benefit everyone.  I realize that everyone doesn't see things this way, but just because someone doesn't actively make use of a program doesn't mean it wont affect them indirectly.

[Cycle]

And no, some people have insurance provided to them through their workplace.  Union jobs are the only major source I'm aware of that that's the case for, and they pay dues in order to get access to those benefits.  Again, give up to get.

Lots of private companies offer health insurance for employees.  The premiums for these plans are usually paid for by the company.  According to the United States Census Bureau, some 60% of Americans are covered through an employer, while about 9% purchase health insurance directly.

Also, did you check to see if your out of pocket insurance premiums are tax deductible?  If so, that may change your math.

If it helps, let me try and use an illustration.  For a private school, the average cost of a 4-year education (for 1 person) is $129,620.  I lose $3850 a year in taxes (I dropped the $2 and change for ease of computation) under Bernie's plan.  Over 18 years, that's a total of $69,300.  My kid then goes to school - for free.  But I've only paid, in taxes, a little over half that cost.  The rest of the overall cost - the remaining ~$60,000 - is money I don't have to pony up over the next couple of years. Does that help clarify things a bit?

I think you may be operating under a (common) misconception of Bernie's plan.  He is not proposing free tuition for private colleges, only public ones:

“I am not proposing - and very often it gets misunderstood, I am not proposing free college for all.  What I am proposing is free tuition at public colleges and universities.  That is what I am proposing,” Sanders said during the CNN TV One Democratic presidential town hall in Ohio.

His site confirms he is only trying to make public colleges and universities tuition free.

[ReijiTabibito]

Lots of private companies offer health insurance for employees.  The premiums for these plans are usually paid for by the company.  According to the United States Census Bureau, some 60% of Americans are covered through an employer, while about 9% purchase health insurance directly.

Also, did you check to see if your out of pocket insurance premiums are tax deductible?  If so, that may change your math.

How come I always hear figures like that but I never actually get the benefit of it?  Also, I am a little bit suspicious of things like that, simply because you don't know whether or not they're discussing full-time employees, or just working people in general.  One of the major reasons for the rise of part-time employment is because you don't have to provide stuff like this to people who don't work 40+ hours a week.

And actually, I have.  Mine aren't deductible, for some reason (most likely because it's not an Obamacare plan).

I think you may be operating under a (common) misconception of Bernie's plan.  He is not proposing free tuition for private colleges, only public ones:

“I am not proposing - and very often it gets misunderstood, I am not proposing free college for all.  What I am proposing is free tuition at public colleges and universities.  That is what I am proposing,” Sanders said during the CNN TV One Democratic presidential town hall in Ohio.

His site confirms he is only trying to make public colleges and universities tuition free.

The fact that Bernie is only proposing it for public schools doesn't change my point, which is about the relative cost of sending my kids to college versus the taxes I have to pay into it.  If the cost of sending them to college is greater than the money I would have otherwise saved up from taxes, then I come out ahead.  It doesn't matter if it's an Ivy League school or Whassamatta U - if over 18 years, I would have saved $70,000 without taxes, but the cost I don't need to pay is $90,000, then that's extra money for me.

And don't be fooled, public universities get wickedly expensive if you go outside your state of residence.  According to College Data, the average cost of attending a public university, out-of-state, is $23,900 per year.  That's 2.5 times the average cost of public universities in-state.  That actually begs the question for me - is Bernie proposing universal coverage, or coverage for students for schools only within their state?

[Cycle]

How come I always hear figures like that but I never actually get the benefit of it?

I have no way to answer that question.  I personally know of a lot of people who have employer covered health insurance. 

Mine aren't deductible, for some reason (most likely because it's not an Obamacare plan).

Ah, I am sorry to hear that.

The fact that Bernie is only proposing it for public schools doesn't change my point, which is about the relative cost of sending my kids to college versus the taxes I have to pay into it.

But it does negate your point concerning the benefit you'd theoretically gain from sending your children to private universities.

That actually begs the question for me - is Bernie proposing universal coverage, or coverage for students for schools only within their state?

A very good question.  There are definitely more details I would like to know as well.

I do not have kids and I never plan to.  I am willing to pay the extra taxes in order to have a more educated population as it will benefit everyone.

Well, the goal of having a more educated population is a laudable one, in my opinion.  But not everyone agrees that Bernie's plan will necessarily result in a more educated population.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/17/466730455/fact-check-bernie-sanders-promises-free-college-will-it-work
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/05/27/why-bernie-sanders-free-public-college-plan-is-a-bad-idea
http://hechingerreport.org/californians-increasingly-cant-get-into-states-public-colleges/

[ReijiTabibito]

But it does negate your point concerning the benefit you'd theoretically gain from sending your children to private universities.

True, but my point was less about the nature of the institution and more about the cost of it.  Plus, 20 years from now when I would be sending my (theoretical) kids to college, I'd probably have to be a doctor or lawyer or hedge fund manager to be able to afford it.  Besides, the idea that a university is 'superior' simply because it is private is BS - I looked at plenty of private schools in my college search, still ended up graduating from a public university.  Why?  Because their science program was quite simply a lot better than the ones at those private schools.

Well, the goal of having a more educated population is a laudable one, in my opinion.  But not everyone agrees that Bernie's plan will necessarily result in a more educated population.

Agreed on that.  Bernie's plan has, financial bits aside, a major flaw.  His promise is for anyone who can get in to a university.  If you don't pass muster with the admit committee, no tax-fueled diploma for you.  That said, this could go horribly wrong in one of two major ways. 

Way #1 is (indirectly) what they talked about in that last link, there - a gap would form of students who want to go to college, but can't get into even the 'safety' schools of their choice.  Kids who have graduated from our pre-collegiate educational system but have failed to qualify for college.

Way #2 is what's happening in that educational system right now - standards would be sacrificed for that sweet, sweet federal funding.  Yeah, who cares if the kids don't really actually learn anything or their Dance Theory major is a crock, we're hooked up to the federal pipeline!

Edsource posted an article last fall about how half of all Cal State freshmen required remedial courses in English and math to bring them up to the basic college standards.  That shouldn't be.  If you can't meet the basic standards to get into the school, the school does not have the responsibility to make sure you can.  In essence, higher educational schools, schools which have admissions and selection committees and standards, should not offer remedial courses.

If Bernie's plan is to be as successful as he's pitching it, then we need to address the problems of our pre-collegiate educational system.  We need our own high schools producing kids who can get in to colleges.

[Cycle]

We need our own high schools producing kids who can get in to colleges.

Here here!  I'd very much support more resources invested in K-12 education, both in terms of facilities and benefits for teachers.  Indeed, I wish we paid our police, teachers, firefighters, and public program workers much, much better wages.  They contribute more to over overall well-being, imho, than a stock broker.

[ReijiTabibito]

Having nicer schools with better resources would be good.  And I'd REALLY like it if we paid teachers like stockbrokers and stockbrokers like teachers...but the problem we face in education, as a whole, isn't going to be solved by piling money on it.  We've been doing that since 2001 and not only has there been no discernible improvement, we've actually gone down since then.

To elaborate using my own personal experience (which is just a couple years, and I'm probably getting out of education, so make of it what you will).  I've been in several different school districts as part of studying to get my license, AND work in general.  And for the most part, I've found that the teachers we have in the classroom right now, for relatively equal levels of experience, teach about equally well.  Someone teaching for 20 years at an inner-city school does as well as someone who has taught for 20 at a suburban school.  And yet the numbers don't lie about how well these different schools do on mandated testing.

The problem is not bad teachers - oh, yes, we'll have them, just like we'll always have people who are racist or sexist.  For the most part, the last dozen years of changes in education has largely driven out people who did not feel committed to teaching.  The problems in education, quite simply, are ones that exist outside the school, but are brought into it on a daily basis.  And those problems are ones that the people in position to solve them don't want to.

But this thread isn't about that.

[Oniya]

Sanders supporters:  If you're looking for candidates on the state and local levels who support a progressive platform (including Congresspeople, state legislature etc.), a group called Expats for Bernie Sanders has helpfully set up a database of those candidates.

http://sandersdemocrats.com/

[Cassandra LeMay]

A very good question.  There are definitely more details I would like to know as well.

Have you considered asking him? I am fairly certain there must be some contact information on his campaign website. Granted, it might not get more of a reply than some pointers at some campaign promises, but it might be worth a shot.

[Mintprincess]

Peeks In  Not that I usually participate in these, because 99% of the time NONE of the candidates float my boat.... but I did this little I side with thing:

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2187895236?from=CdrDXNbnT

I side with Austin Petersen on most 2016 Presidential Election issues

Apparently, I'm a Libertarian.  Aka, the party that won't ever win.   :/

[TaintedAndDelish]

Well sure. I don't see any actual hard feelings being thrown around or intended.

I'm honestly actually curious who, on E, has voted for Trump and why they chose that. Them choosing to speak up is vanishingly unlikely because of our general left-wing population slant, but it'd be interesting to hear the 'whys' from someone who A) has made it into E's membership and B) honestly sees benefit for America in Trump's policies and leadership.

At the risk of getting shot up, I'll stick my hand up here.

Let's see.

A. I don't want socialism and do not think that Bernie's ideas would work without the support of congress. I certainly do not want another 4 years of having a president circumventing congress with executive orders.

B. I don't want Hillary because I do not believe a thing she says. This more or less my instinct talking to me and screaming "do not trust this one".

( That eliminates the democrats )

C. I see Cruz and Donald as being pretty shady in their own ways. They both have trouble with truth, but at least Donald has some success under his belt.

D. Currently, trump's focus on trying to improve the (US) economy is in line with what I want out of the next president. While he's got his issues like the rest of the candidates, he's more in line with what we currently need.

None of the candidates will ever be a perfect match, and they all have nasty flaws. I think the trick for me, is to try to find a viable candidate who matches more closely with the issues that I feel are most urgent.

[ReijiTabibito]

At the risk of getting shot up, I'll stick my hand up here.

Let's see.

A. I don't want socialism and do not think that Bernie's ideas would work without the support of congress. I certainly do not want another 4 years of having a president circumventing congress with executive orders.

B. I don't want Hillary because I do not believe a thing she says. This more or less my instinct talking to me and screaming "do not trust this one".

( That eliminates the democrats )

C. I see Cruz and Donald as being pretty shady in their own ways. They both have trouble with truth, but at least Donald has some success under his belt.

D. Currently, trump's focus on trying to improve the (US) economy is in line with what I want out of the next president. While he's got his issues like the rest of the candidates, he's more in line with what we currently need.

None of the candidates will ever be a perfect match, and they all have nasty flaws. I think the trick for me, is to try to find a viable candidate who matches more closely with the issues that I feel are most urgent.

Also, to be fair to the Donald, even though he's running as a Republican, the charge that 'he's not conservative' has more than a little truth to it.  He's certainly less conservative than Ted Cruz, who I actually would consider the nuclear button push that everyone's saying Trump is.  I'd probably rank him as less conservative than most of the mainstream Republican field (who have all given up by now).  I'm not sure where he stands in relation to Kasich, but Kasich has served as the governor of a swing state, so he's needed to go along to get along.

He also doesn't suffer from the chronic flaws of most career politicians - he isn't beholden to anyone, he has no corporate masters to serve (mainly because he is one), and he's not afraid to say outrageous things.  I was watching an interview on the Rubin Report yesterday - with a guy who supports Trump - and he's basically said that one of the big things about Trump is that he's decided that people are going to denounce whatever he says - no matter what - so he has no reason to filter, he's just going to say stuff and ignore the critics.

[TheGlyphstone]

At the risk of getting shot up, I'll stick my hand up here.

Let's see.

A. I don't want socialism and do not think that Bernie's ideas would work without the support of congress. I certainly do not want another 4 years of having a president circumventing congress with executive orders.

B. I don't want Hillary because I do not believe a thing she says. This more or less my instinct talking to me and screaming "do not trust this one".

( That eliminates the democrats )

C. I see Cruz and Donald as being pretty shady in their own ways. They both have trouble with truth, but at least Donald has some success under his belt.

D. Currently, trump's focus on trying to improve the (US) economy is in line with what I want out of the next president. While he's got his issues like the rest of the candidates, he's more in line with what we currently need.

None of the candidates will ever be a perfect match, and they all have nasty flaws. I think the trick for me, is to try to find a viable candidate who matches more closely with the issues that I feel are most urgent.

Okay, I can see that. For me, the character flaws he's exhibited concern me more than any benefit I think he can have, but I also did link an article upthread that points out how his supposed massive racism (against Hispanics/Muslims) is also aimed towards a political/economic goal (benefiting African-Americans), so he's got some strategic complexities that people overlook.

How do you think Trump, specifically, would do with foreign policy? The economy's a big deal, but the US's international reputation has taken quite a beating over the last few Presidencies, either from military action or diplomatic scandals. Would Trump's brash showmanship-style of negotiation, in your vision, help us or harm us?

[TaintedAndDelish]

How do you think Trump, specifically, would do with foreign policy? The economy's a big deal, but the US's international reputation has taken quite a beating over the last few Presidencies, either from military action or diplomatic scandals. Would Trump's brash showmanship-style of negotiation, in your vision, help us or harm us?

Well, that is scary.  I hope that if elected, he takes a more sober approach to diplomatic relations as a power play that might work well in business dealings might not work as well with foreign governments. He's a terrible public speaker - he'll say one thing, then refine his statements later on in ways that largely changed the meaning of what he originally said. This gives the impression that either he's very careless with the way he words things, or perhaps that he's deliberately doing this for rhetorical value.  On one hand, you don't want him instigating other leaders to the point of war, but on the other, we can't become a puppet nation that seeks to bend over and offer our ass to every foreign leader either. A certain degree of toughness is needed, but it needs to be tempered with caution.

To me right now, the most important issues that the US faces are: the national deficit, the job market, outsourcing, our relationship with foreign nations, and the loss of tax revenue from large businesses. When large businesses move to other countries to avoid paying taxes, the tax payer ends up paying that portion instead.

One of the other major issues that would like to see resolved is that of big money controlling the politicians that get elected into office. This is one area that I think either Bernie Sanders or Trump might be able to help with.  As we can see on the news now, there are special interest groups that are spending millions of dollars to try to force their choice of candidates to be elected. These are people and organizations who are not interested in seeing a candidate that everyone wants get elected. They want to place their own puppet in office for their own financial benefit despite what the rest of us think. I see Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio being the largest of the puppets ( the latter is no longer in the race ). Cruz, I don't know about but I dislike him for other reasons.

[Cassandra LeMay]

... These are people and organizations who are not interested in seeing a candidate that everyone wants get elected. They want to place their own puppet in office for their own financial benefit despite what the rest of us think. I see Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio being the largest of the puppets ( the latter is no longer in the race ). Cruz, I don't know about but I dislike him for other reasons.

Cruz has a few billionaires behind him as well: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-gop-mega-donors-of-the-2016-election-20160311?page=6