2016 Republican Primary

[kalm]

Why do you love monopolies and propaganda?

Uh, it's a duopoly. Seriously, it's not like the prefix is that complicated.

Meh...I've used that term before here...usually when I'm educating Ivytalk on the subject.

Monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly... does it really matter? When it comes to the status quo...entrenched power...the establishment, it's all pretty much right on for you, eh Ganny?

[89Hen]

[GannonFan]

Uh, it's a duopoly. Seriously, it's not like the prefix is that complicated.

Meh...I've used that term before here...usually when I'm educating Ivytalk on the subject.

Monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly... does it really matter? When it comes to the status quo...entrenched power...the establishment, it's all pretty much right on for you, eh Ganny?

Hardly, but good try. From your point of view I'm sure that's the case, but considering that your point of view holds no actual concrete solutions for improving our economic and political systems other than casting a fond gaze to the halcyon days of yesteryear then I'm not terribly concerned with that view. When you're ready to come to the table with something tangible great, until then keep yearning for Hawley-Smoot and an immediate post WWII world that just doesn't exist anymore no matter how many times you try to tap your ruby slippers.

[kalm]

Meh...I've used that term before here...usually when I'm educating Ivytalk on the subject.

Monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly... does it really matter? When it comes to the status quo...entrenched power...the establishment, it's all pretty much right on for you, eh Ganny?

Hardly, but good try. From your point of view I'm sure that's the case, but considering that your point of view holds no actual concrete solutions for improving our economic and political systems other than casting a fond gaze to the halcyon days of yesteryear then I'm not terribly concerned with that view. When you're ready to come to the table with something tangible great, until then keep yearning for Hawley-Smoot and an immediate post WWII world that just doesn't exist anymore no matter how many times you try to tap your ruby slippers.

Lol. It must be terrible for a supply sider such as yourself to have all these current examples of neo-liberal failure. I understand your butt hurt.

A couple of quick questions which I think I've asked before...

Does the rest of the world desire US markets and ingenuity?

Do we fully leverage that position to the betterment of our entire economy and the average American? If not, why?

Do we have a trade imbalance?

Do other country's play nice?

Should labor rights and environmental standards end at our border?

[GannonFan]

Hardly, but good try. From your point of view I'm sure that's the case, but considering that your point of view holds no actual concrete solutions for improving our economic and political systems other than casting a fond gaze to the halcyon days of yesteryear then I'm not terribly concerned with that view. When you're ready to come to the table with something tangible great, until then keep yearning for Hawley-Smoot and an immediate post WWII world that just doesn't exist anymore no matter how many times you try to tap your ruby slippers.

Lol. It must be terrible for a supply sider such as yourself to have all these current examples of neo-liberal failure. I understand your butt hurt.

Supply sider? Come on now, you can do better than that, surely your view of the economy isn't that pedestrian to sink to such cute little, simplified labels? Or is it?

A couple of quick questions which I think I've asked before...

Does the rest of the world desire US markets and ingenuity?

Of course, but we're not the sole market in the world nor the sole source of ingenuity either.

Do we fully leverage that position to the betterment of our entire economy and the average American? If not, why?

I'm not sure we could ever know if we are fully leveraging that, but one has to assume that we aren't perfect and can certainly do better. This, of course, is the question you never seem to have any answers for conveniently enough, i.e. how to effectively improve our leverage.

Do we have a trade imbalance?

Sure we do. We really like to buy a lot of stuff. We should stop buying so many things.

Do other country's play nice?

No. Do we?

Should labor rights and environmental standards end at our border?

Nope, but common sense shouldn't stop at our borders either. We've gone over this before, people who are desperate for their next meal to avoid hunger and death have a different perspective of labor and environmental standards than we do as we tuck into a 1,500 calorie meal at what ever restaurant millions of Americans go to for every meal. The Chinese are a great example, they finally raise their standard of living and not have to be desperate about where to find their next meal and suddenly they realize they live in a cesspool and all of a sudden they want to fix it. The best way to export our high standards of labor rights and environmental protection, and therefore really protect workers and our own environment, is to help lift the rest of the world out of sustenance-only living. Like I said, common sense.

[93henfan]

Trump now up 2.3 million in the popular vote with 21 million votes in. Just a dominating performance in such a large field of candidates.

The GOP will not look good if they rig this to deny him.

[Ibanez]

Trump now up 2.3 million in the popular vote with 21 million votes in. Just a dominating performance in such a large field of candidates.

The GOP will not look good if they rig this to deny him.

I thought Republicans weren't voting for him.

[kalm]

Lol. It must be terrible for a supply sider such as yourself to have all these current examples of neo-liberal failure. I understand your butt hurt.

Supply sider? Come on now, you can do better than that, surely your view of the economy isn't that pedestrian to sink to such cute little, simplified labels? Or is it?

A couple of quick questions which I think I've asked before...

Does the rest of the world desire US markets and ingenuity?

Of course, but we're not the sole market in the world nor the sole source of ingenuity either.

We are not, but we are a major dominant market that everyone wants.

Do we fully leverage that position to the betterment of our entire economy and the average American? If not, why?

I'm not sure we could ever know if we are fully leveraging that, but one has to assume that we aren't perfect and can certainly do better. This, of course, is the question you never seem to have any answers for conveniently enough, i.e. how to effectively improve our leverage.

Want a piece of our market, play by our rules. Want our natural resources, play by our rules. And we are not just competing for sales here, we (that's all of us represented by our government) should be competing for jobs. Along those lines, let's start with not signing treaties that reward bad actors.

Do we have a trade imbalance?

Sure we do. We really like to buy a lot of stuff. We should stop buying so many things.

We are resource rich. One of the best in the world (channeling my inner Trump). Again, other countries with minimal resources (other than lax regulations and cheap labor) have no business kicking our ass in trade. We've had the largest trade deficit in the world going back to the 1970's. That is a choice that benefits a fraction of the country. The same fraction that controls the levers of power. As I mentioned earlier, you're quite the fanboy of entrenched wealth and power.

Do other country's play nice?

No. Do we?

That's my point. We shouldn't either. Our trade policy is really good at benefiting large multinationals and of course that trickles down to their workers.

Should labor rights and environmental standards end at our border?

Nope, but common sense shouldn't stop at our borders either. We've gone over this before, people who are desperate for their next meal to avoid hunger and death have a different perspective of labor and environmental standards than we do as we tuck into a 1,500 calorie meal at what ever restaurant millions of Americans go to for every meal. The Chinese are a great example, they finally raise their standard of living and not have to be desperate about where to find their next meal and suddenly they realize they live in a cesspool and all of a sudden they want to fix it. The best way to export our high standards of labor rights and environmental protection, and therefore really protect workers and our own environment, is to help lift the rest of the world out of sustenance-only living. Like I said, common sense.

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

[Skjellyfetti]

Breaking: Ted Cruz releases early draft of concession speech

Spoiler: show

[Ivytalk]

Breaking: Ted Cruz releases early draft of concession speech

Spoiler: show

Is that an analjelly stab at humor?

[Ibanez]

Breaking: Ted Cruz releases early draft of concession speech

Spoiler: show

Is that the Zodiac Killer?

[Skjellyfetti]

I guess the "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" joke never made it here.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... ted%20cruz

[GannonFan]

Supply sider? Come on now, you can do better than that, surely your view of the economy isn't that pedestrian to sink to such cute little, simplified labels? Or is it?



Of course, but we're not the sole market in the world nor the sole source of ingenuity either.

We are not, but we are a major dominant market that everyone wants.



I'm not sure we could ever know if we are fully leveraging that, but one has to assume that we aren't perfect and can certainly do better. This, of course, is the question you never seem to have any answers for conveniently enough, i.e. how to effectively improve our leverage.

Want a piece of our market, play by our rules. Want our natural resources, play by our rules. And we are not just competing for sales here, we (that's all of us represented by our government) should be competing for jobs. Along those lines, let's start with not signing treaties that reward bad actors.

Sure we do. We really like to buy a lot of stuff. We should stop buying so many things.

We are resource rich. One of the best in the world (channeling my inner Trump). Again, other countries with minimal resources (other than lax regulations and cheap labor) have no business kicking our ass in trade. We've had the largest trade deficit in the world going back to the 1970's. That is a choice that benefits a fraction of the country. The same fraction that controls the levers of power. As I mentioned earlier, you're quite the fanboy of entrenched wealth and power.



No. Do we?

That's my point. We shouldn't either. Our trade policy is really good at benefiting large multinationals and of course that trickles down to their workers.



Nope, but common sense shouldn't stop at our borders either. We've gone over this before, people who are desperate for their next meal to avoid hunger and death have a different perspective of labor and environmental standards than we do as we tuck into a 1,500 calorie meal at what ever restaurant millions of Americans go to for every meal. The Chinese are a great example, they finally raise their standard of living and not have to be desperate about where to find their next meal and suddenly they realize they live in a cesspool and all of a sudden they want to fix it. The best way to export our high standards of labor rights and environmental protection, and therefore really protect workers and our own environment, is to help lift the rest of the world out of sustenance-only living. Like I said, common sense.

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

So out of all of that your position is to have people play by our rules that benefit mainly us? That's not an inner Trump, it basically is Trump, at least be honest with yourself. Again, how does enacting a Hawley Smoot barrier to trade work in this world when a similar tact failed so miserably in a world 70 years ago that wasn't as interconnected and developed? There are even more options for other countries than there was when we passed that horrible tariff and it didn't work then. What else ya got?

[YoUDeeMan]

Again, how does enacting a Hawley Smoot barrier to trade work in this world when a similar tact failed so miserably in a world 70 years ago that wasn't as interconnected and developed?

Did someone mention Hawley Smoot?


The Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Quite frankly we have no idea what this is, but we think it has a wonderful ring to it, and we just like to see it in large bold letters:

THE HAWLEY-SMOOT TARIFF

And yet, as the weeks dragged into months and the economy continued to founder, it soon became clear that some economic “medicine” even more potent than ...

THE HAWLEY-SMOOT TARIFF

would be needed to get the nation “back on its feet.” This paved the way for the historic election of 1932. The Republicans, showing the kind of sensitivity they are famous for, renominated President Hoover Dam, who pledged that, if elected, he would flee to the Bahamas. The Democrats countered by nominating Franklin Delanor Roosevelt—or, as he was affectionately known, “J.F.K.”—who ran under the slogan “Let’s Elect Another President Named “Roosevelt” and Confuse the Hell out of Future Generations of Students.” The voters responded overwhelmingly, and Roosevelt was elected in a mammoth landslide that unfortunately left him confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

Nevertheless he began immediately to Combat the Depression, implementing a series of bold and sweeping new programs that came to be known, collectively, as:

THE HAWLEY-SMOOT TARIFF

No! Sorry! We can’t control ourselves. The programs implemented by Roosevelt were of course called the “New Deal,” which consisted of the following:

1. Bank Protection—A major problem during the Depression was that people kept trying to get their money out of banks. To put a stop to this kind of thing, the government instituted modern banking regulations, under which:
The banks are never open when it might be convenient. The customer is never sure what his bank’s name is, since they keep changing it, usually from something like “The First Formal Federal National State Bank of Savings Loans and Of Course Trust” to something like
“InterContiBankAmeriTransWestSouthNorthCorp.” There are always stupid people in line ahead of you trying to cash checks from the Bank of Ye men and using underwear labels for identification.

2. Job Creation—The government instituted a massive program of public works, under which tens of thousands of men and women were put to work strewing barricades and traffic cones on all the major roads in America, then using red flags to give halfhearted and confusing signals to motorists and sometimes waving them directly into the path of oncoming traffic. These projects are still fully operational today.

3. The Infield Fly Rule—Under this program, when there is a runner on first or second base and there are fewer than two out, and the batter is the son of the runner’s first cousin, then the batter and the runner are legally considered “second Cousins.”

Not surprisingly, these programs had an immediate impact on the Great Depression. And although some members of Congress charged that Roosevelt was overstepping his legal authority, he was able to win them over by inviting them to the White House for a series of “Fireside Chats” (“Perhaps, Senator, You would understand these Policies better if Ernst and Victor moved you even closer to the fire?” “NO! PLEASE!”).
But even firm measures such as this did not prevent huge clouds of dust kicked up by ...

THE HAWLEY-SMOOT TARIFF

from covering entire states such as Oklahoma and turning them into a gigantic “Dust Bin,” forcing tens of thousands of people to pack up and head toward California, lured by the hope of finding jobs and a new life and maybe some decent sushi. This troubled era was chronicled brilliantly by John Steinbeck in his moving novel The Grapes of Wrath, part of a series that also includes The Pinto Beans of Lust and Bloodsucking Death Cabbages from Hell. And we could go on for days talking about the contributions being made during this period by women and minority groups.

But the bottom line was, things were still not going well. The only really positive aspect of the situation was that at least the nation was at peace. Yet at that very same moment, across the dark, brooding waters of the Atlantic, there was growing concern. “My God, look at those waters!” people were saying. “They’re brooding!” Clearly this did not bode well for the next chapter, which would see the outbreak of the most terrible and destructive event in the history of Mankind:

THE HAWLEY-SMOOT TARIFF

http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/7 ... _Here.html




Love me some Dave Barry history lessons.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump now up 2.3 million in the popular vote with 21 million votes in. Just a dominating performance in such a large field of candidates.

The GOP will not look good if they rig this to deny him.

I thought Republicans weren't voting for him.

Do you guys realize how ridiculous you're being? I actually think Hen did some kind of typo because Trump has about 38% of the Republican primary vote and 2.3 million out of 21 million is only about 11 percent.

But, in any case, we're going to go at least through the last day of the primaries before the Republican nomination is clinched. And it might go beyond that. It might be a contested convention and if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot things could get very dicey for him.

And you're saying he's having a "dominating" performance?

Oh, and MOST Republicans are NOT voting for him. New York is, so far, the single exception. Meanwhile, in the current Real Clear Politics averages, he's below 40% against either Clinton or Sanders.

He is unquestionably having the weakest performance as a Republican "front runner" at this point of my lifetime.

[Ibanez]

I thought Republicans weren't voting for him.

Do you guys realize how ridiculous you're being? I actually think Hen did some kind of typo because Trump has about 38% of the Republican primary vote and 2.3 million out of 21 million is only about 11 percent.

But, in any case, we're going to go at least through the last day of the primaries before the Republican nomination is clinched. And it might go beyond that. It might be a contested convention and if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot things could get very dicey for him.

And you're saying he's having a "dominating" performance?

Oh, and MOST Republicans are NOT voting for him. New York is, so far, the single exception. Meanwhile, in the current Real Clear Politics averages, he's below 40% against either Clinton or Sanders.

He is unquestionably having the weakest performance as a Republican "front runner" at this point of my lifetime.

For a man with a commanding delegate lead and over 2M more votes, it sure looks like he's got more Republican support. Cruz doesn't. Kasich doesn't.

Again, you never answer this question, if Republicans aren't voting for him then why are they getting out and voting for someone else?

[UNI88]

Do we have a trade imbalance?

Sure we do. We really like to buy a lot of stuff. We should stop buying so many things.

Do we really have a trade imbalance? By what measure? Do the statistics include services? What about the impact of currency and is foreign currency coming into the US a bad thing?

From IT's good buddy Steve Chapman with the Chicago Tribune (I know IT Steve was much more conservative at Harvard, but he's a pretty level headed conservative now which is why this jello mold likes his commentaries - ) ...

One fact that Trump and Bernie Sanders never mention is that our trade imbalance is all in goods. When it comes to services — such as travel, banking services, royalties, legal advice and education of foreign students — we export far more than we import. In each of the past five years, our surplus in services has exceeded $200 billion.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.html

[YoUDeeMan]

I thought Republicans weren't voting for him.

Do you guys realize how ridiculous you're being? I actually think Hen did some kind of typo because Trump has about 38% of the Republican primary vote and 2.3 million out of 21 million is only about 11 percent.

JSO...Trump is, "up" 2.3 million votes. That is, he leads by 2.3MM votes over . He doesn't have 2.3MM votes.

Not sure if these numbers include New York (looks as though they don't, since it only counts 20.3MM instead of 21MM), but here they are.

Overall vote
Republicans 20,375,925
Democrats 15,070,178

By candidate
Clinton 8,668,136
Trump 7,548,429
Sanders 6,131,951
Cruz 5,484,494
Rubio 3,394,134
Kasich 2,725,327
Carson 677,307
Bush 249,894
O'Malley 94,692

[kalm]

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

So out of all of that your position is to have people play by our rules that benefit mainly us? That's not an inner Trump, it basically is Trump, at least be honest with yourself. Again, how does enacting a Hawley Smoot barrier to trade work in this world when a similar tact failed so miserably in a world 70 years ago that wasn't as interconnected and developed? There are even more options for other countries than there was when we passed that horrible tariff and it didn't work then. What else ya got?

Yawn...I know you've got nothing when you whip out the Smoot Hawley trope.

All of our trading partners (competitors) understand trade deficits and they do something about them. When Mexico agreed to eliminate a tariff on imported goods from the U.S. they immediately enacted a 15% value added tax on U.S. imports. When the countries in the CAFTA agreement dropped their tariffs, most of these countries replaced the tariffs with a 12% consumption tax on imports. In fact, 148 of our trading partners have a value added tax (VAT) or goods and service tax (GST), and they range from 2% to 27%. These are a form of a consumption tax and they are levied in a number of different ways,

The U.S. has tried for many years to offset the VAT and GST by exempting our exporter’s income from U.S. taxes by up to 30%. In 1998, 2000, and 2004 the European Union appealed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming that the exemptions were tax subsidies and the WTO ruled against the U.S. all 3 times. The only way we can offset the VATs is to implement our own. But the multi-national corporations and the Republican Congress are against raising taxes of any type (so far).

The trade deficit is slowly hollowing out our economy and neither liberals nor conservatives seem to care. I thought that free enterprise conservatism would rise up against mercantilism and unfair trade. I mean, after all, isn’t conservatism about conserving, paying down debt, balancing budgets, and saving money for a rainy day?

I believe in the free enterprise system, open markets, reducing tariffs, eliminating VAT taxes, but free enterprise and free trade depend on open competition and a level playing field for all trading countries. I am sure that many people will cry that stopping currency manipulation or countering VAT taxes is protectionist and will cause a trade war. But we are already in a trade war and are losing decisively.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins ... 8ef3061524

[Ibanez]

Cruz: "America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat."

Like a whore?

Salon: “He painted a very strange — and probably more sexual than he intended — scene to describe America.”

Cosmopolitan: “Just when it seemed like Cruz was about to enter into a gross fantasy, he pulled himself out (sorry but not really) … ”

The New Republic: “Cruz should probably avoid comparing America to a supine, unconscious woman.”

The New York Daily News: “Cruz somehow managed to … use the worst metaphor ever for American perseverance … ”

New York: “Ted Cruz, now the official Republican loser of the New York primary, said something that pretty much elicits a string of ‘nononononononono’ from anyone who dares watch this on a Vine loop.”

Jezebel: “In case you needed to be reminded that Ted Cruz is ‘not’ the Zodiac Killer, here you go.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... at_so.html

[Skjellyfetti]

And, Trump's swing back to the center commences.....

Should endear him to JSO for sure.

Transgender people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, Donald Trump said Thursday.

"Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event on NBC's "Today."

Referring to comments from an unnamed commentator who on Wednesday said North Carolina should "leave it the way it is right now," Trump said he agreed.

"Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they're going through with all the business that's leaving, all of the strife -- and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is," he said, referring to companies that have canceled plans to move or expand businesses in the state as a result of the law, which bans transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth.

"There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump said. "There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic -- I mean, the economic punishment that they're taking."

Matt Lauer then asked whether Trump has any transgender people working for his company.

"I really don't know. I probably do. I really don't know," Trump said, answering that he would allow, say, transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower.

He added, "You know, there's a big move to create new bathrooms. Problem with that is for transgender, that would be—first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. That would be unbelievably expensive for businesses in the country. Leave it the way it is."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... oms-222257

[SDHornet]

And, Trump's swing back to the center commences.....

Should endear him to JSO for sure.

Transgender people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, Donald Trump said Thursday.

"Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event on NBC's "Today."

Referring to comments from an unnamed commentator who on Wednesday said North Carolina should "leave it the way it is right now," Trump said he agreed.

"Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they're going through with all the business that's leaving, all of the strife -- and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is," he said, referring to companies that have canceled plans to move or expand businesses in the state as a result of the law, which bans transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth.

"There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump said. "There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic -- I mean, the economic punishment that they're taking."

Matt Lauer then asked whether Trump has any transgender people working for his company.

"I really don't know. I probably do. I really don't know," Trump said, answering that he would allow, say, transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower.

He added, "You know, there's a big move to create new bathrooms. Problem with that is for transgender, that would be—first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. That would be unbelievably expensive for businesses in the country. Leave it the way it is."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... oms-222257

Donald has been all over the map for the last 30 years, but this (wise move) was more than expected. If he can add some actual substance to his platform (?) he might actually have a shot against hilldog.

[JohnStOnge]

I heard Peter King talking about Trump today on CNN and it' was more head shaking stuff. King is supporting him at this point. King said he's not bothered by the fact that Trump's guy said Trump has been faking it all this time in order to get the nomination and he's going to change for the general election. BUT...he said what worries him is that so far Trump hasn't acted as though he knows what he's talking about and he's going to have to sound like he knows what he's talking about in order to win the general election.

I kid you not. He said that Trump's going to have to start sounding like he knows what he's talking about and so far he hasn't and has been able to get by by being bombastic. So...you've got a guy who sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about and you're supporting him to be PRESIDENT while hoping he starts sounding like he knows what he's talking about in the future?

What the HELL is wrong with people?

And BTW it doesn't say a lot for the Republican electorate if a candidate is putting on the "persona" of a petulant 12 year old who lies just about every time he opens his mouth in order to get the nomination. And it REALLY doesn't say a lot for the Republican electorate when it works.

But don't worry. He's not REALLY a petulant nut job with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old who can't tell the truth. He's just ACTING like one to get the nomination. It's all good.

[93henfan]

He's not REALLY a petulant nut job with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old who can't tell the truth. He's just ACTING like one to get the nomination. It's all good.

It took you this long to figure this out?


Welcome aboard the Trump train! We have cookies.

[SDHornet]

He's not REALLY a petulant nut job with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old who can't tell the truth. He's just ACTING like one to get the nomination. It's all good.

It took you this long to figure this out?


Welcome aboard the Trump train! We have cookies.

And MILFs.