RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republican Presidential Candidates Debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19947



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/15 11:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
I talked to some of my Republican friends over the weekend. None of them like Trump as a candidate or as a person, but they all thought his presence in the race was a positive because of the extra media attention it brings. The record ratings that the debate got mean that the real candidates reached far more people than they would have otherwise. The media is constantly comparing and contrasting Trump with the real candidates, which again gives their positions more coverage.


That's an interesting perspective, but I think it's overly optimistic. Unlike, say, 2008, when the Obama-Clinton race was focused on how they differed on substance, nobody really is paying attention to the substantive differences here - it's all about how Trump and the other Republicans are trading insults.


Yeah, pilight, it's a sliver of something positive but even putting aside the fireworks going on between Trump and everyone else, you just can't turn yourself away from the fact that Trump is polling so far out in front of serious establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush. And that Trump's overall position in the polls hasn't changed... like ever! I would love to see where he was polling four years ago when he kinda sorta threw his hat into the Republican ring. Where can we get those old numbers? If I remember correctly he very briefly had his moment then too but then crashed and burned. It's hard to fathom why that didn't all quickly happen to him all over again. Like what is so different this time around? Confused



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 11:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As an aside, does anyone else always get Simon & Garfunkle's "Mrs. Robinson" in their head whenever they read the title to this thread? You're welcome. Wink
Quote:
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose

Where have you gone, Joe Di Maggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you woo woo woo
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
"Joltin Joe has left and gone away"
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey


Meanwhile, I thought this was a relevant response to the Trump kerfuffle with Megyn Kelly, by Clinton, though I didn't know whether to put it in this thread, or one that was more about Planned Parenthood and women's rights:

Nails It. Clinton Says Trump's Sexism Is Offensive, But Here's What's 'Outrageous'

There are a lot of good article links in here, including that one where that nun called out Christians (and I guess everyone) for being pro-life in name only.
Quote:
"They brag about slashing women's health care funding," Clinton told reporters. "They say they would force women who have been raped to carry their rapist's child, and we don't hear any of them supporting raising the minimum wage, paid leave for new parents, access to quality child care, equal pay for women or anything else that will help to give women a chance to get ahead."



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 12:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
What does it all mean, etc.? So Trump has zero chance of ever being president and traditionally that would indicate to anyone watching politics at this moment that whatever popularity he is enjoying it doesn't mean anything. Silly season, etc. He has probably a 1% chance of being the eventual Republican nominee. Still signifying nothing. Honestly, I think the chances are near single digits, ten percent at best, that Trump is running next year at this time as an independent and accepting a historic role as another Ross Perot. So again, overall, on any of the traditional bigger questions of success and results, Trump really isn't going to come out of this process as the product the process is designed to manufacture, i.e., a candidate.


I think the odds that Trump runs as an independent are higher, probably as high as 1 in 3. Whether he runs as an independent depends on two factors - (1) is he still getting any kind of poll numbers (say, north of 10%) and (2) does the Republican Party treat him as someone who deserves respect, say by giving him a prime time speaking role at the convention? If (1) is yes and (2) is no, I'd say the odds of him running as an independent go way up, and you maybe don't even need to have (1) for him to run if the RNC kicks him to the street dismissively enough. And, truth be told, if he takes 5% away from the Republicans in some states (and there's no way he draws evenly from the Dems and the Republicans), that's enough to make sure they can't win.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5743
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pre-debate to post-debate changes in seven different polls:



Carly the Laser is the true Muad'Dib. Watch her cut to the practical and economic heart of the so-called "climate change" (no longer called "global warming") issue.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ6t7m5RlnQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13344



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 4:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't know where you got that chart from or where they got their information, but it shows Trump dropping in the Ipsos poll when in reality:

"Trump led the party's 17-strong 2016 presidential field with the backing of 24 percent of Republican voters, unchanged from before Thursday's televised debate, the Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/11/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0QF1WL20150811

And since Fiorina only got 6% total in the post debate Reuters/Ipsos poll, it's hard to understand how she could have gone up by 8%.


norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 4:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I get frustrated by this "innovation" not "regulation" argument. There will be no innovation. Businesses are in it for the profit. Now. If they are not required to do something that costs more, they won't. Meanwhile, we all pay the price in lower health, high health care costs (due to more sickness), dirtier environments, and a climate change issue that may have no resolution.

The US refuses to enter into an international accord to limit gases, because they feel it's unfair to ask us to do so much, when others aren't asked the same.

So Fiorina can spout some pablem about "lost jobs" out of one side of her mouth, and not worry because she'll be dead, her ancestors can pull themselves out of the water by their boot straps, and we'll never act globally because no one wants to be the first.

This is again probably too off topic. Mad



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59889
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 4:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
I get frustrated by this "innovation" not "regulation" argument. There will be no innovation. Businesses are in it for the profit. Now. If they are not required to do something that costs more, they won't. Meanwhile, we all pay the price in lower health, high health care costs (due to more sickness), dirtier environments, and a climate change issue that may have no resolution.


You're taking the wrong line of attack here. You should be trying to show that innovation and regulation are not mutually exclusive.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
norwester wrote:
I get frustrated by this "innovation" not "regulation" argument. There will be no innovation. Businesses are in it for the profit. Now. If they are not required to do something that costs more, they won't. Meanwhile, we all pay the price in lower health, high health care costs (due to more sickness), dirtier environments, and a climate change issue that may have no resolution.


You're taking the wrong line of attack here. You should be trying to show that innovation and regulation are not mutually exclusive.

Well, that's true too. I thought that at first and forgot to type it in. Embarassed My opening statement is meant to convey that without regulation there is no impetus to innovation.

Meanwhile, by staying moribund because: JOBS actually puts us further behind in the long run. Places like Germany jumped on the wind turbine thing, and now manufacture most of those you see in the world. With research dollars and motivation, imagine the jobs we could create! Smile

(better? Wink)



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19947



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 7:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:


I think the odds that Trump runs as an independent are higher, probably as high as 1 in 3. .


It's funny you should say that, I was thinking about it overnight and actually downgraded significantly my thoughts on the chances of that happening to about 3%. Shocked

I think this is just something completely new. I'm starting to wonder if this is really going to play out in any predictable way with the stakes being so high. What I mean is that I think the Republican establishment and Donald Trump are likely to work things out somehow. I do think Trump's continued lead in the polls despite the really harsh takedowns by the Republican Party and then Fox News, the resilience in the poll numbers, I just don't think the Republicans can afford another one of these skirmishes with Trump, failed takedowns, etc. And I think this was the one that did it really. So I think there's something else going to happen and I don't think that it's likely to marginalize Trump or his base.

I think one thing that is likely to pull Trump down back to earth is just a narrowing of the field. Trump vs. one or two other viable candidates. But there's so many wacko egos at play here that it's hard to see how that is going to happen any time soon. If they can all play nice and let Trump have his extended moment, as candidates drop off once the caucuses and primaries begin... then I think Republican voters who are all over the place now will come home to an establishment candidate.

Now at that time if Trump can't handle getting bested when American's start to vote... then maybe. But I think he's more likely to accept the will of the voters and not place himself in a position to be a spoiler for the party he was seeking the nomination of.

Now, again, if one of these superpacs come after him now and start running really horrible attack ads on the Donald? That is going to be a fun moment which could come back to bite them next year when the Donald is left bitter and vindictive. Because the people who make under 50K a year and who didn't go to college, they're going to continue to support Trump. You aren't going to pry them off this rock for love or money. And Trump will himself become more pissed off and that will really be something to see as they all go after each other some more. Wink




_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
myt



Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 3923
Location: California


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 10:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
One thing that really is the like juice driving the fascination. Is that this is ALL. SO. REAL. There is a silly season in politics. This is silly season. And yet... lol... this is NOT SILLY. It's one of the most fractious and deadly serious moments we have ever seen in the fortunes of the modern Republican Party and Right Wing and their all important right wing media machine empire. This is crazy! How long it can go on LIKE THIS is anybody's guess. Enjoy it while you can.


It's the gift that keeps on giving Wink Razz



_________________
SuziQ wrote:
ima say this only once, and I'm never gonna say it again. Parker's damn good.
myt



Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 3923
Location: California


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/12/15 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Please take note that Democrats have gone dead silent on Trump.


It's the oldest rule in politics. Don't commit political murder when your opponent is busy committing political suicide.



X ____________


Just sit back with the popcorn and watch it unfold Wink



_________________
SuziQ wrote:
ima say this only once, and I'm never gonna say it again. Parker's damn good.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7486



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 12:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ6t7m5RlnQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Carly Fiorina went in front of Congress and lobbied for exporting jobs and importing workers. So too late for her to be against any response to Climate Change because it "destroys lives and livelihoods". She not only advocated destroying lives and livelihoods, she practiced it - sending HP jobs to India and China and importing Indian H1-B workers and asking Congress for the capability to import more.

At least some of what a fossil fuel advocating business person or one of their followers will refer to as "California's response to Climate Change" weren't started because of that and really don't exist because of that. The push for electric and low-emission vehicles was a follow on to the smog check program and designed to reduce air pollution/smog (although they now will mention Climate Change in their regulation documents), which hit the LA area particularly hard, and also put a haze above the hills of the Bay Area. And with California's aggressive population growth goals/expectations, it would only get worse without changing auto emissions.




Last edited by tfan on 08/13/15 6:31 am; edited 5 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7486



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 1:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
and we don't hear any of them supporting raising the minimum wage


It's admirable for people to want low paid workers to make more. But it is a supply and demand issue and should be fixed that way. Left to a choice, companies will always give a bigger raise to the CEO than the factory workers. In fact, the percentage raises will decrease as you go down the corporate ladder year after year - creating income inequality. The only way to get them having higher wage increases is to alter the supply demand for them - make them in shorter supply. Then employers will have to pay more for them. Increase the number of jobs relative to workers and/or decrease the number of workers applying for existing jobs. In our case we do the reverse - exporting jobs and importing workers.

Or, if legislating wages, make a maximum wage. Make the maximum wage $200,000 and that will free up a lot of money for other workers. Reverse the income redistribution that has taken place over the last 35 years. If you legislate a minimum wage it likely has the affect of causing a decrease in low paying jobs, meaning there are more people without jobs.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19947



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 8:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I like it, tfan.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59889
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 8:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If you set a maximum wage, you'll see a lot of these companies move their entire operations out of the country.

If you want to address the supply/demand problem in the labor market then something like a guaranteed minimum income is the easiest answer. That would take workers out of the market for low wage jobs.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19947



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 8:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
If you set a maximum wage, you'll see a lot of these companies move their entire operations out of the country.


where there's a will there's a way. cuts both ways.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 11:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The United States salary cap! Cool
Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson!



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
... if legislating wages, make a maximum wage. Make the maximum wage $200,000 and that will free up a lot of money for other workers. Reverse the income redistribution that has taken place over the last 35 years. If you legislate a minimum wage it likely has the affect of causing a decrease in low paying jobs, meaning there are more people without jobs.


I don't believe a maximum wage should be legislated (at least not directly). But there should be a better way for the "average" stockholder to have a say. Right now, stockholder meetings are pretty much a joke. Large institutions and the companies officers themselves hold majority stock positions and proxy votes. They'll always approve their huge, un balanced salaries.

People like Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc who built up their empires from scratch deserve all they can get. But a CEO hired just to run the business? What could John Hammergren of McKesson possibly have contrubuted to warrant a $131M salary in 2014?

As companies are doing better, the execs are benefiting but the median income worker is not. The gape between CEO pay and worker pay is growing just as is the income gap between the rich and middle income. The rich are getting richer while middle america is frozen. I could possibly see some regulation that ties CEO/Sr officer salary to median worker salaries through some formula. CEO salaries are certainly NOT tied to performance. Shocked


norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 2:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
If you set a maximum wage, you'll see a lot of these companies move their entire operations out of the country.

If you want to address the supply/demand problem in the labor market then something like a guaranteed minimum income is the easiest answer. That would take workers out of the market for low wage jobs.

I'm interested in this thought. At first blush it seems like a no-brainer. But that's just from the executive officers. What about those owners who maybe don't answer to a board of directors and want to maximize the bottom line? Do they have to pay that much more for talent? Or given the non-cronie supply that actually exists could they start tapping into cheaper talent, and blame the Government if it doesn't work?

I know that there is a lot of consternation going around right now in regards to the CEO here in Seattle that created a minimum wage of $70K at his company, cutting his own pay to finance it, because he read somewhere that that was the amount necessary in the area to "be happy" or something.
What if the CEO and the Secretary Had the Same Salary?



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10465
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 2:36 pm    ::: Donald Trump is no Rosie O'Donnell Reply Reply with quote

After The Donald took another gratuitous cheap-shot at Rosie O'Donnell in last week's debates, here's an article defending Rosie.

Quote:
I am sure she will be grumpy at me for writing this. But watching Donald Trump disparage her once again during the Republican debate made me sick to my stomach. And so, I am going to spill the beans and tell you about a very private part of Rosie O'Donnell, a part that she steadfastly refuses to share.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-birch/donald-trump-s-no-rosie-o_1_b_7960184.html



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 3:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump's view of Rosie is probably the only thing we agree on.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13344



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 3:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:


People like Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc who built up their empires from scratch deserve all they can get. But a CEO hired just to run the business?



Even for those guys, not through salary and bonus they don't . They benefit from the rise in the value of their equity stake in the company. That called "capatalism".

Good example is Bill Gates. He's super rich because his ownership interest in the company he founded has grown. But back when he was still more active, using 2004 as an example, both Gates and Ballmer each received a total of only $900,000 in salary and bonus.

TonyL222 wrote:


CEO salaries are certainly NOT tied to performance. Shocked


Prime example, in Fiorina's 6 years at HP, as the company's stock price fell by half and the company underperformed the market, the tech sector, and its chief competitors and peers, she took out over $100,000,000 in compensation (while thousands of HP employees got laid off).

Michael Eisner at Disney was another good example of a CEO robbing his shareholders blind.


norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 3:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Trump's view of Rosie is probably the only thing we agree on.

I think Rosie gets a bad rap just because she's blown up at male celebrities a couple of times in public. She's not perfect. She and I disagree on certain issues, but I like that she walks the walk (i.e. puts her own time and money into charitable works).



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13344



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 4:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:


I was a fan of Fiorina's before she went to HP. She'd had a great career at Lucent.


You might want to read this article from Fortune about the creative accounting that pumped up the Lucent stock. She bailed out before the house of cards collapsed.

Only surprising thing is that no one went to jail for accounting fraud.

http://fortune.com/2010/10/15/carly-fiorinas-troubling-telecom-past/


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19947



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 4:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This from The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart.

Why the Rise of Trump Means Death For the Republican Party

The hate-fueled self-immolation of the GOP would be a laugh riot were the consequences no so dire. Our democracy depends on a thriving two-party system where competing parties and the voices within each vigorously debate ideas and then reach the reasonable compromises needed to govern.

Since 2010, the Republican Party has succumbed to its basest voices for short-term political gain. Compromise became a dirty world. Lies were peddled as truth and never corrected by those who know better. Invective was liberally employed against opponents no matter the party and without consequences. Trump's rise is further proof that plans for a more inclusive and welcoming GOP for 2016 are DOA.


Jonathan Capehart, for those who might not know, is a youngish Pulitzer Prize winning gay black man and fairly liberal face of the Washington Post. You want to know how screwed up this country is? In response to Trump's continued topping of Republican presidential polls a fairly liberal Pulitzer Prize winning youngish gay black man writing for the Washington Post pens this.

"Our democracy depends on a thriving two-party system where competing parties and the voices within each vigorously debate ideas and then reach the reasonable compromises needed to govern."

And he's compelled to write that because this 'base' out there in America somewhere continues to push Donald Trump to the top of the GOP polls. Coming from a black gay liberal ... I would say this is your hope for change exposed. Because this is really the Washington inside the beltway establishment talking now. Our democracy? What planet are these people living on? What is this about us all living happily ever before under this fairy tale two-party system where competing ideas led to reasonable compromises, uh, what? That's the way it was in America before 2010? lol. I must have missed that.

Vast regions of this country and millions of Americans have been left far far behind and before that could have ever happened they were disenfranchised by a political system and an elite media bought and paid for, NOT by the highest bidder, as you often hear, but by ALL bidders - if they bring enough money and influence TO or TO BEAR ON WASHINGTON. We've never fixed the great social challenges that we faced as a country when I was a kid. And then from there we really let it all go to hell.

I'm sorry what Trump AND Bernie Sanders means is going straight over the heads of some. But I don't think the Jonathan Capeharts of the world aren't getting it. Jonathan Capehart is fighting for the soul of the GOP now. That good old two-party system we all depend on for our 'democracy.' It's important to Jonathan Capehart that the beltway equilibrium is soon restored. Oh never mind that Trump is probably one of the most liberal persons on the Republican list of candidates right now.

All you people out there polling a thumbs up for Trump are just some creepy base. The Washington establishment is tired of hearing from you. Tired of kowtowing TO you. You're getting your pushback now by everyone from Fox News to liberal voices like Jonathan Capehart. Let's get back to that nice productive era we had going before 2010 came along. Shocked

* personal note.

I'm going to have to fire up the blog if I keep going like this. Cool



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin