Election 2016 Thread

[pErvinalia]

Could Obama serve as VP after being Prez? I think that would be funny.

[Forty Two]

My problem with the illegal immigrant thing re Trump is the demonising language. I don't have any problem with a country having control over it's borders. I've always found the US situation weird and been of the view that illegal immigration is tolerated as it allows a cheap labour force. That is, it fits the neoliberal ethos and is essentially a way to offshore more jobs, but by "inshoring" instead.

Well, what language, specifically? We'll build a nice wall, with a big, beautiful welcoming front door (through which people will legally apply for entry)?

The rapists and murderers thing.

Well, he said that the Mexican government sends criminals to the US, and they do. He never suggested most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers or criminals. However, it is not controversial that criminals will leave Mexico and enter the US, and they are sent to the US so Mexico can get rid of them. Like the Cuban boat lift in 1980, when Castro got rid of a bunch of criminals by sending them to the US with the legitimate refugees. It didn't mean that most of the Mariel boat lift were criminals, but that Cuba got rid of criminals by dumping them on the US. That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

And, to the extent that the hiring of illegals is allowing employers to hire undocumented workers, it absolutely allows them to underpay, which is another good reason to control the border.

Unless you are part of the capitalist class and believe in supply-side economics.

Capitalism doesn't mean that you allow illegal immigrants to enter, such that employers can abuse them because the illegal immigrant has to be concerned about their immigration status. Crony capitalism means that, of course, but you and I both oppose crony capitalism, don't we?

[pErvinalia]

My problem with the illegal immigrant thing re Trump is the demonising language. I don't have any problem with a country having control over it's borders. I've always found the US situation weird and been of the view that illegal immigration is tolerated as it allows a cheap labour force. That is, it fits the neoliberal ethos and is essentially a way to offshore more jobs, but by "inshoring" instead.

Well, what language, specifically? We'll build a nice wall, with a big, beautiful welcoming front door (through which people will legally apply for entry)?

The rapists and murderers thing.

Well, he said that the Mexican government sends criminals to the US, and they do.

Really? Got any proof of this?

He never suggested most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers or criminals.

I never suggested he suggested that.

That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

Perhaps you should read my words rather than simply making shit up.

And, to the extent that the hiring of illegals is allowing employers to hire undocumented workers, it absolutely allows them to underpay, which is another good reason to control the border.

Unless you are part of the capitalist class and believe in supply-side economics.

Capitalism doesn't mean that you allow illegal immigrants to enter, such that employers can abuse them because the illegal immigrant has to be concerned about their immigration status. Crony capitalism means that, of course, but you and I both oppose crony capitalism, don't we?

If you believe in supply-side economics, which the majority of capitalists do, then cheaper labour is a good thing.

[Forty Two]

Could Obama serve as VP after being Prez? I think that would be funny.

I think so, but it's a thorny issue. The issue in the difference between the word "elected" and "serving" as President. The 22nd amendment bars someone from being "elected" president a third time. It doesn't say that a person already elected twice is barred from SERVING as President a third time.

Let's say Obama got hit by a bus and Biden became President today. He could then run for President in November, and win, and then he would have only been "elected" once, and so he should be able to run a second time, and be elected a second time. Then he would be twice-elected, and barred from being elected again. US Const. Amendment 22.

A person who is "ineligible" to serve as Prez is also ineligible to serve as VP, under the 12th amendment, but that doesn't say that a VP who was previously President twice can't succeed to the presidency. The only explicit eligibility factors are: natural born citizen, aged 35 or older, and living in the US for at least 14 years. Nothing says a person elected twice is now ineligible to be Prez.

That allows a Speaker of the House who was previously elected twice to the Presidency to succeed to the Presidency if both the Prez and VP are hit by buses. So, the question in my mind is, why can't the VP who was previously elected P twice "succeed" to the Presidency? I think the provisions can reasonably read to allow it. After all, he'll be succeeding to complete the dead P's term, and he can then run for election again. He has to step down. So, there is built in end point. And, I would think it would make sense to the drafters that in the case of a dead President it would actually make good sense to allow someone who formerly held the job twice to finish off the unexpectedly demised President's term.

[Forty Two]

My problem with the illegal immigrant thing re Trump is the demonising language. I don't have any problem with a country having control over it's borders. I've always found the US situation weird and been of the view that illegal immigration is tolerated as it allows a cheap labour force. That is, it fits the neoliberal ethos and is essentially a way to offshore more jobs, but by "inshoring" instead.

Well, what language, specifically? We'll build a nice wall, with a big, beautiful welcoming front door (through which people will legally apply for entry)?

The rapists and murderers thing.

Well, he said that the Mexican government sends criminals to the US, and they do.

Really? Got any proof of this?

Proof that he said it in reference to the Mexican government and not in reference to Mexicans generally? Yes. Proof that he is right about the Mexican government? No.

Proof that illegal immigrants from Mexico commit a lot of crime -- http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... s-n2021225

He never suggested most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers or criminals.

I never suggested he suggested that.

Good, then we agree, but that appears to be what people complain about. If you admit that all he's saying is that SOME illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, or that illegals commit more crimes than legal immigrants and US citizens, then we are in agreement, and there is nothing wrong with his statement, except, perhaps, accusing the Mexican government of dumping criminals on us without evidence. Sullying the name of the Mexican government, however, is not, to me, a big deal.

That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

Perhaps you should read my words rather than simply making shit up.

I didn't make anything up. If we're in agreement, great. If not, say so and explain.

And, to the extent that the hiring of illegals is allowing employers to hire undocumented workers, it absolutely allows them to underpay, which is another good reason to control the border.

Unless you are part of the capitalist class and believe in supply-side economics.

Capitalism doesn't mean that you allow illegal immigrants to enter, such that employers can abuse them because the illegal immigrant has to be concerned about their immigration status. Crony capitalism means that, of course, but you and I both oppose crony capitalism, don't we?

If you believe in supply-side economics, which the majority of capitalists do, then cheaper labour is a good thing.

that's not what supply-side economics means. Supply side means that economic growth is most effectively created by investing in capital and in lowering barriers to entry and production. Artificially lowering wages with a wink and a nod is not lowering a barrier to entry, it's creating a loophole or unleveling the playing field so that some producers (those willing to break the law) are given an unfair advantage. That's nothing to do with supply side economics.

[pErvinalia]

Well, what language, specifically? We'll build a nice wall, with a big, beautiful welcoming front door (through which people will legally apply for entry)?

The rapists and murderers thing.

Well, he said that the Mexican government sends criminals to the US, and they do.

Really? Got any proof of this?

...Proof that he is right about the Mexican government? No.

Then why did you say "and they do", if you have no proof?

That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

Perhaps you should read my words rather than simply making shit up.

I didn't make anything up.

Yes yes, black is white. You said I "declare[d] that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers". I declared no such thing. You were making shit up.

And, to the extent that the hiring of illegals is allowing employers to hire undocumented workers, it absolutely allows them to underpay, which is another good reason to control the border.

Unless you are part of the capitalist class and believe in supply-side economics.

Capitalism doesn't mean that you allow illegal immigrants to enter, such that employers can abuse them because the illegal immigrant has to be concerned about their immigration status. Crony capitalism means that, of course, but you and I both oppose crony capitalism, don't we?

If you believe in supply-side economics, which the majority of capitalists do, then cheaper labour is a good thing.

that's not what supply-side economics means. Supply side means that economic growth is most effectively created by investing in capital and in lowering barriers to entry and production.

It fits the ethos of supply-side economics because it repudiates demand-side economics. Cutting wages in demand-side economics is generally seen as a negative as it reduces consumer demand.

Artificially lowering wages with a wink and a nod is not lowering a barrier to entry, it's creating a loophole or unleveling the playing field so that some producers (those willing to break the law) are given an unfair advantage. That's nothing to do with supply side economics.

Well, it does, and even more importantly, it fits the ethos of capitalism perfectly.

[Forty Two]

The rapists and murderers thing.

Well, he said that the Mexican government sends criminals to the US, and they do.[/quote]

Really? Got any proof of this?[/quote]

...Proof that he is right about the Mexican government? No.[/quote]

Then why did you say "and they do", if you have no proof?[/quote]

I mistyped about Mexico. It's proven as to Cuba, as far as I can tell. Trump claimed he had proof, but I haven't seen it yet. I strongly suspect Mexico does, but they would hardly make it explicit, and it may simply be a wink and a nod, like letting Los Zetas gang members out near the border. But, admittedly, I have no real evidence of it.

That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

Perhaps you should read my words rather than simply making shit up.

I didn't make anything up.

Yes yes, black is white. You said I "declare[d] that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers". I declared no such thing. You were making shit up.

Well, I misunderstood you the. You just typed "the rapist and murderer thing" -- if you'e going to post the equivalent of bumper stickers, it's hard to discuss what you "really mean." Try, for once, to clearly state your position and evidence, without equivocation and ambiguity. You often play that game.

And, to the extent that the hiring of illegals is allowing employers to hire undocumented workers, it absolutely allows them to underpay, which is another good reason to control the border.

Unless you are part of the capitalist class and believe in supply-side economics.

Capitalism doesn't mean that you allow illegal immigrants to enter, such that employers can abuse them because the illegal immigrant has to be concerned about their immigration status. Crony capitalism means that, of course, but you and I both oppose crony capitalism, don't we?[/quote]

If you believe in supply-side economics, which the majority of capitalists do, then cheaper labour is a good thing.[/quote]

that's not what supply-side economics means. Supply side means that economic growth is most effectively created by investing in capital and in lowering barriers to entry and production.[/quote]

It fits the ethos of supply-side economics because it repudiates demand-side economics. Cutting wages in demand-side economics is generally seen as a negative as it reduces consumer demand.[/quote]

That's not true, since demand side economics merely posits that the main factor affecting overall economic activity and causing short term fluctuation is the demand for goods and services. It doesn't suggest that higher wages = good. Buying power involves an interaction between price and ability to pay, not just ability to pay.

Artificially lowering wages with a wink and a nod is not lowering a barrier to entry, it's creating a loophole or unleveling the playing field so that some producers (those willing to break the law) are given an unfair advantage. That's nothing to do with supply side economics.

Well, it does, and even more importantly, it fits the ethos of capitalism perfectly.

Demand side economics is not something other than capitalism. LOL.

[pErvinalia]

That's what Trump is saying, if you read his words rather than simply declare that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

Perhaps you should read my words rather than simply making shit up.

I didn't make anything up.

Yes yes, black is white. You said I "declare[d] that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers". I declared no such thing. You were making shit up.

Well, I misunderstood you the. You just typed "the rapist and murderer thing" -- if you'e going to post the equivalent of bumper stickers, it's hard to discuss what you "really mean." Try, for once, to clearly state your position and evidence, without equivocation and ambiguity. You often play that game.

Oh of course. Silly me. It's my fault you make shit up.

Artificially lowering wages with a wink and a nod is not lowering a barrier to entry, it's creating a loophole or unleveling the playing field so that some producers (those willing to break the law) are given an unfair advantage. That's nothing to do with supply side economics.

Well, it does, and even more importantly, it fits the ethos of capitalism perfectly.

Demand side economics is not something other than capitalism. LOL.

Are you making shit up again? I never said it was. Capitalism is primarily about making a profit. And the best way to make a profit in the short-term, at least, is to engage in dishonest behaviour. That's not to say all capitalists do that, as they are people and some even have morals.

[pErvinalia]

So who do we think are going to be the respective running mates? Will Trump be able to find another person willing to destroy their reputation enough to be his running mate? Maybe Sarah Palin is the only person who is as mental as him and who likewise seems to have no self awareness.

And I think Hillary should pick Obama for VP. Just to see the Republicans totally rage quit America...

[Scot Dutchy]

So who do we think are going to be the respective running mates? Will Trump be able to find another person willing to destroy their reputation enough to be his running mate? Maybe Sarah Palin is the only person who is as mental as him and who likewise seems to have no self awareness.

And I think Hillary should pick Obama for VP. Just to see the Republicans totally rage quit America...

The answer is not clear Ad. 22 does not disallow it but then Ad 12 does not but not directly.
Apparently it would have to go the Supreme Court.
https://www.quora.com/Could-Barack-Obam ... nt-in-2016

Palin would be great alongside Trump.

[Forty Two]

Oh of course. Silly me. It's my fault you make shit up.

No, it's your fault you write like a three year old.

"the rape and murder thing" LOL

How could anyone misunderstand you? Your point was so clearly made.

Artificially lowering wages with a wink and a nod is not lowering a barrier to entry, it's creating a loophole or unleveling the playing field so that some producers (those willing to break the law) are given an unfair advantage. That's nothing to do with supply side economics.

Well, it does, and even more importantly, it fits the ethos of capitalism perfectly.

Demand side economics is not something other than capitalism. LOL.

Are you making shit up again? I never said it was.

You implied it. Keynesian economics/demand side economics fits the ethos of capitalism too. It's a fucking stupid non sequitur, implying that reducing wages is fitting of the ethos of capitalism perfectly. You just fucking got through taking the position that demand side economics, also within the ethos of capitalism, is all in favor of INCREASING wages. So, supposedly increasing wages is ALSO within the ethos of capitalism.

Capitalism is primarily about making a profit.

Sure, that would be the only reason to put one's own money at risk, if it makes more sense to put it at risk or keep it. Socialism, of course, is based on eliminating profit (which is why in true socialist countries profit is made illegal -- that's the "ethos" of socialism).

Is there anything per se wrong with making an honest profit within the law?

And the best way to make a profit in the short-term, at least, is to engage in dishonest behaviour. That's not to say all capitalists do that, as they are people and some even have morals.

You can surely present evidence that the best way to make short term profits is to engage in dishonest behavior?

And, what does that have to do with raising or lowering prices or wages? Is that dishonest behavior or something?

[pErvinalia]

VW etc cheating emissions tests.

Nurofen lying on it's packaging.

"And, what does that have to do with raising or lowering prices or wages? Is that dishonest behavior or something?"
Try and keep up, will you. Supply-side economics dominates capitalism these days. Cutting wages (and/or taxes) frees up capital to be invested in the business (or other businesses). That drives economic growth under the supply-side model. Regarding dishonest behaviour, that was in response to your point about artificially reducing wages gives unfair advantage. Since when did fairness have anything to do with capitalism?

[pErvinalia]

Oh of course. Silly me. It's my fault you make shit up.

No, it's your fault you write like a three year old.

"the rape and murder thing" LOL

How could anyone misunderstand you? Your point was so clearly made.

You really are a piece of work. You've been busted repeatedly making shit up, and you just can't take responsibility for it. You have to blame someone else. Pathetic.

[Forty Two]

So who do we think are going to be the respective running mates? Will Trump be able to find another person willing to destroy their reputation enough to be his running mate? Maybe Sarah Palin is the only person who is as mental as him and who likewise seems to have no self awareness.

And I think Hillary should pick Obama for VP. Just to see the Republicans totally rage quit America...

The answer is not clear Ad. 22 does not disallow it but then Ad 12 does not but not directly.
Apparently it would have to go the Supreme Court.
https://www.quora.com/Could-Barack-Obam ... nt-in-2016

Palin would be great alongside Trump.

It would only go to the Supreme Court if someone filed a lawsuit.

However, Amendment 12 states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So, is a person who has been elected twice "ineligible" to the office of Prez?

Eligibility is in Section 2 -- 35 years old, living in the US for 14 years, and natural born citizen.

Does Amendment 22 add an "eligibiity" requirement? It states --"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. "

Elected. Elected. Elected.

So, can Obama be a Congressman. Sure. Can he be speaker of the House? Sure. If the Prez and VP die in a tragic limo accident, can Speaker of the House Obama succeed to the presidency? He's not being "elected" again. He's succeeding.

If twice elected means one is "ineligible" then an Obama Speaker of the House would not succeed to the Presidency. He would have to defer to the Secretary of State.

Anyway - I think that there is a clear distinction between what it means to be elected to an office and what it means to "succeed" to an office by operation of law. The writers of Amendment 22 could easily have written "no person shall serve as President more than twice..." But, they chose "elected", knowing full well that Presidents succeed to the office. Amendment 22 was ratified less than 2 years after four-term President Franklin Roosevelt, who died in office and was succeeded by Harry S Truman. So, the Congressmen reviewing the amendment were fully aware that Truman had not been "elected." They even put in there that if a person succeeded to the office, he couldn't be elected more than once. I fail to see how the legislature wouldn't be expected to know the difference between succeeding to office and being elected to it.

[Forty Two]

Oh of course. Silly me. It's my fault you make shit up.

No, it's your fault you write like a three year old.

"the rape and murder thing" LOL

How could anyone misunderstand you? Your point was so clearly made.

You really are a piece of work. You've been busted repeatedly making shit up, and you just can't take responsibility for it. You have to blame someone else. Pathetic.

I haven't made anything up. Your assertions to the contrary are unfounded, and you are, quite simply, full of shit. You do this shit all the time -- it's your way of diverting the conversation.

Look - just state your fucking view in clear terms, and stop being such a fucking little mealy-mouthed equivocator. Take a position. I can only do my best at interpreting what you mean when you say "that rapist and murderer thing..." If my response to you did not correctly state your intent, then stop bitching like a little SJW, and state your position in clear terms and not a sentence fragment.