If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[rb]

Damn straight. But hey, don't forget about the beer and the baby backs. That's really the trifecta for a great Friday night.

[Liberty]

Weird Al moderating the debate:

 

[DooDiligence]

I wish Stephen Colbert and/or Jimmy Kimmel would have actually moderated.

 

(2 guys who are very good hi-lighting absurdity...)

[vox]

Thank you for checking the information.  That is right - it is not xenophobics that brought in the discussion of trade sanctions.  The original discussion on this started when I posted stagnating wages. One poster here challenged me to give one policy of Trump that could help in wages.  Then I posted this - theft of IP and over 2 million high paying jobs that are lost.  So, who is better a different discussion.  The point is people are not xenophobics when they say certain things.  They are not against trade.  But does not mean one has to just sit and watch when 400 billion dollars worth of theft is happening each year.

 

I think Trump needs to be given a chance.  This theft is not new.  The IP commision linked below said in May 2013 - I presume the data is of 2012 or earlier.  So its been happening for a while.  Obama/HC had their chance to fix it.

 

IP Commission report: Co-chair: Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command

Co-chair: Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” (Emphasis in bold added)

 

Obama/Clinton had at least four years to fix it.

 

http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf

 

I never accused you of being xenophobic. I also never had a discussion with you about stagnating wages. The genesis of this conversation was your reply that free trade or as you insist on calling it "fair trade" was not supported by a majority of Americans.

 

You're obviously making the claim that Donald Trump would be better at resolving the issue, otherwise it's a complete non sequitur in the 'which presidential candidate will you vote for?' thread. You also tried to do so here.

 

3. Donald Trump's corporate espionage and cyber security plan does not differ from Hillary Clinton's plan other than that he wants to escalate and use offensive cyber attacks. This doesn't seem like a great idea when the U.S. has the most intellectual property to lose in a cyber war.

Trump proposal is to use Tariffs.

 

The White House has been confronting the issue by researching the origins of the crime, initiating indictments against the perpetrators, and passing legislation and issuing executive orders to provide remedies for the damages.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-announce-first-criminal-charges-against-foreign-country-for-cyberspying/2014/05/19/586c9992-df45-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html

[Liberty]

I have no idea who Terry Tate is, but that had a funny twist:

 

[Investor20]

Thank you for checking the information.  That is right - it is not xenophobics that brought in the discussion of trade sanctions.  The original discussion on this started when I posted stagnating wages. One poster here challenged me to give one policy of Trump that could help in wages.  Then I posted this - theft of IP and over 2 million high paying jobs that are lost.  So, who is better a different discussion.  The point is people are not xenophobics when they say certain things.  They are not against trade.  But does not mean one has to just sit and watch when 400 billion dollars worth of theft is happening each year.

 

I think Trump needs to be given a chance.  This theft is not new.  The IP commision linked below said in May 2013 - I presume the data is of 2012 or earlier.  So its been happening for a while.  Obama/HC had their chance to fix it.

 

IP Commission report: Co-chair: Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command

Co-chair: Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” (Emphasis in bold added)

 

Obama/Clinton had at least four years to fix it.

 

http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf

 

I never accused you of being xenophobic. I also never had a discussion with you about stagnating wages. The genesis of this conversation was your reply that free trade or as you insist on calling it "fair trade" was not supported by a majority of Americans.

 

You're obviously making the claim that Donald Trump would be better at resolving the issue, otherwise it's a complete non sequitur in the 'which presidential candidate will you vote for?' thread. You also tried to do so here.

 

3. Donald Trump's corporate espionage and cyber security plan does not differ from Hillary Clinton's plan other than that he wants to escalate and use offensive cyber attacks. This doesn't seem like a great idea when the U.S. has the most intellectual property to lose in a cyber war.

Trump proposal is to use Tariffs.

 

The White House has been confronting the issue by researching the origins of the crime, initiating indictments against the perpetrators, and passing legislation and issuing executive orders to provide remedies for the damages.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-announce-first-criminal-charges-against-foreign-country-for-cyberspying/2014/05/19/586c9992-df45-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html

 

I did not say you said xenophobe, but I started discussing this with another poster about stagnating wages when this started. You picked it up later in the discussion.

 

Coming back to the IP theft, it is only getting worse or at least did not get better since 2012 when the NSA called it "greatest wealth transfer ever in history. That is Obama should have known since at least 2011 this problem and had 5 years to fix it. Why should I not give a chance to Trump at this point?

 

NSA Chief: "That’s our future disappearing in front of us" July 2012.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/09/nsa-chief-cybercrime-constitutes-the-greatest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history/

 

 

[muscleman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009

 

 

For you leftists who supported Hillary so strongly, here is what she thinks of you.

 

"which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”

 

 

 

I've long wondered how Hillary could unite the support from both Muslims AND liberals, who are completely incompatible. Now it seems like she is just using the leftists to vote for her.

 

When she said Trump's supporters are deplorable, leftists say, yeah, they indeed are.

When she said Sanders supporters are basement dwellers, Sanders said, yeah, they are.

 

Now she says leftists are freaks who need to get a life, what would you say?

 

Personally, despite our disagreements on political views, I've always respected leftists and never thought any of them as freaks who need to get a life. I think of leftists as decent people who just have a different view

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vox]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009

 

 

For you leftists who supported Hillary so strongly, here is what she thinks of you.

 

"which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”

 

 

 

I've long wondered how Hillary could unite the support from both Muslims AND liberals, who are completely incompatible. Now it seems like she is just using the leftists to vote for her.

 

When she said Trump's supporters are deplorable, leftists say, yeah, they indeed are.

When she said Sanders supporters are basement dwellers, Sanders said, yeah, they are.

 

Now she says leftists are freaks who need to get a life, what would you say?

 

Personally, despite our disagreements on political views, I've always respected leftists and never thought any of them as freaks who need to get a life. I think of leftists as decent people who just have a different view

 

I have not seen anybody on this forum who disavows Hillary Clinton because her policies are too conservative. What do you think Paul Ryan's staff feels about the House Freedom Caucus?

[Liberty]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009

 

 

For you leftists who supported Hillary so strongly, here is what she thinks of you.

 

"which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”

 

I'm not a leftist, but I think you might be looking at things out of context, just the way some people want you to. Have you looked at each of those words in the context in which it was written (and by who it was said if not Hillary, and do you know that she automatically agrees with that person)?

 

And wouldn't you agree that on all sides in politics some people and causes are puritanical, pompous, naive, radical, dumb, and there are some freaks who need to get a life? Seems pretty self-evident and uncontroversial to me.

 

Not saying she never said bad things about people, but this sounds a lot like "gotcha" journalism... And wouldn't you like to know what Trump has been saying and writing in private? We've just got one tape and it's bragging about sexual assault...

[rb]

Basically I'm not offended either. Let me elaborate a bit here so maybe people like muscleman get a better understanding of "the leftists".

 

Like Liberty said some of those were taken out of context and is gotcha journalism and when you look at them in context it's not offensive at all i.e. the basement dweller stuff. However others are true and deserved. You see on the left there are puritanical, pompous and naive people who need to get a life. Basically the worst caricature of the left. The thing is that is what the right thinks that all "the leftists" are like that. In reality they are a small part of the left.

 

We are not offended by such talk because we know it's not directed at the left but at our puritanical and pompous members. We also identify these people, keep them in line, and keep discipline in the ranks. That is the right thing to do. We don't let our extremists run all over the place starting fires and cause all sorts of trouble. Wouldn't have been nice if the right did the same thing?  Maybe then you wouldn't have an orange clown take a massive dump on your political organization. But that horse left the barn long ago.

 

Btw, just like Liberty said getting an email dump from the right would make for a very entertaining read. Not just Paul Ryan, but say Reince Priebus or even Kellyanne Conway.

[Jurgis]

I have some friends on the real left. And yeah, they don't like Hillary Clinton. And maybe they will vote for Jill Stein, especially in non-battleground states. That's their choice. I disagree with them in some cases and I think some of the real left policies are naive or unworkable. I don't think I would vote for Jill Stein - although I only saw John Oliver's critique on her, so I know very little.

 

And - like pretty much everyone said on this thread - Hillary Clinton is not a saint and some of her policies and plans are not great. And I would not be surprised if she doesn't like the real left either. So ... what else is new?

[Cardboard]

"We don't let our extremists run all over the place starting fires and cause all sorts of trouble. Wouldn't have been nice if the right did the same thing?"

 

Yeah and that is called super delegates. Democracy my ...

 

Cardboard

[vox]

"We don't let our extremists run all over the place starting fires and cause all sorts of trouble. Wouldn't have been nice if the right did the same thing?"

 

Yeah and that is called super delegates. Democracy my ...

 

Cardboard

 

By any measure, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and pledged delegates from the Democratic primaries. One could make the argument that the Democratic primaries are more democratic since pledged delegates are assigned by proportion of the popular vote, and not winner-take-all like in many Republican primaries. Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept of superdelegates as they are the people who have actually worked with the candidates. They have a view of the organizational, relationship building, and leadership skills that even the most informed outsiders do not.

[Cardboard]

"Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept of superdelegates as they are the people who have actually worked with the candidates."

 

So you don't have a problem with some who make the decision for other people? That would be anti-democratic, no?

 

Here is the problem. If people perceive that voting for Sanders is a lost cause then it will influence the polls. And if polls are influenced then popular voting is also impacted.

 

By the way, I actually much prefer Hillary to Saunders.

 

Cardboard

[vox]

"Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept of superdelegates as they are the people who have actually worked with the candidates."

 

So you don't have a problem with some who make the decision for other people? That would be anti-democratic, no?

 

Here is the problem. If people perceive that voting for Sanders is a lost cause then it will influence the polls. And if polls are influenced then popular voting is also impacted.

 

By the way, I actually much prefer Hillary to Saunders.

 

Cardboard

 

The Supreme Court is also anti-democratic, the U.S. government is based on a system of checks and balances. I have no problem with reducing the number of superdelegates so that it excludes some members of the DNC or asking them to wait until X days before their state's primary to endorse a candidate.

[Liberty]

It's all compromises. The senate is also super anti-democratic in many ways... but it also protects the smaller states from the bigger ones. The U.S. is a messy republic, not a messy direct democracy. I think the idea should be to keep refining the system and fixing the obvious problems (like partisan gerrymandering, or tacking on unrelated laws to big omnibus bills to pass them without scrutiny/debate) and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[vox]

It's all compromises. The senate is also super anti-democratic in many ways... but it also protects the smaller states from the bigger ones. The U.S. is a messy republic, not a messy direct democracy. I think the idea should be to keep refining the system and fixing the obvious problems (like partisan gerrymandering, or tacking on unrelated laws to big omnibus bills to pass them without scrutiny/debate) and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

I agree that gerrymandering of political districts is a problem, but I think legislative riders fall within the purview of political compromise. I am sympathetic to the argument that's been floated that ending earmarks has contributed to the current environment of political partisanship.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-frost-earmark-spending-20150209-story.html

[rb]

A democracy means that the population gets to elect the leader of the country. It doesn't mean that it gets to elect the leaders of private organizations which the political parties are. The parties choose their leaders. if you don't like them you are free not to vote for them. If you do not like the parties you are free to start your own. Most everywhere in the world's democracies that is how it works.

[DooDiligence]

Btw, just like Liberty said getting an email dump from the right would make for a very entertaining read. Not just Paul Ryan, but say Reince Priebus or even Kellyanne Conway.

 

They kinda got that directly from the GOP presidential frontrunners gob instead of from an email.

 

Someone else said it on here (Liberty I think) & I have felt & said the exact same numerous times over the years "I'm financially conservative & socially liberal."

 

Not sure if the 2 can always reconcile with each other in the real world but it's worked pretty well in mine!

[DooDiligence]

I saw this on PBS recently & found it very interesting in regards to the 2 party system & its role in the business of getting legislation done.

 

http://millercenter.org/american_forum/episode/what-made-our-politics-so-insane

[Packer16]

I find the rationale that Hillary is being taken out of context is only being applied to her and not Trump also.  Trump will say it in front of everyone else unpolished in contrast to Clinton who says it in e-mails and says in public a polished version of the subject.  Folks appear to think what Trump says is the final answer rather than a part of the conversation.  I am sympathetic to this approach because this is the way I think and reason.  I have made mistakes in judgement and changed my thoughts on subjects in front of CoBF members.  I do not have polished theses that are bulletproof.    Examples of this is the Muslims ban to the extreme vetting of immigrants and forcing all illegal immigrants to leave to removing the felons.  Folks using Trump's anchor as his final position vs. a starting point.  You also have to remember that Clinton & the Democrats are experts at identity politics using it to divide and in the process creating "enemies" that are treating you unfairly versus trying to find solutions to all of our problems.  I think this creating "enemies" is closer to Hilter and other despots than anything Trump has done (not said) to date.  Unfortunately all this leaves as a result is more hurt and insulted people that someone else has to deal with.  Trump is the first Republican in awhile to use identity politics to the same extent as the Democrats,an approach I disagree with BTW.  I also have an aversion to being manipulated and from what I see most of the manipulation is coming from Clinton not Trump even to the extent that Clinton can dodge accountability by discrediting the source.     

 

Are not any of the Clinton supporters concerned about how she is being enabled to divert attention from the content of what she said to the source & no one is holding her accountable?  This is setting up a dangerous pattern where she can say & do what she wants as long as leaker is our "enemy".  I truly believe with her attitude and approach she will be baited by Putin et. al and get us into a war.  Trump may say outrageous things (part of his Hollywood persona) and do much less.  Clinton will think crazy things say them in e-mails act on them and say much less.  I would rather have the guy that says too much and does less than the other way around.

 

Packer   

[Liberty]

One more :

 

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/jessica-drake-donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-1201897982/

 

I believe that's number 11 now, I wonder how many more there are that just don't dare come forward  because of all the negative attention. 

[DooDiligence]

Interesting argument Packer but I'll pass...

[shalab]

Current odds of control of whitehouse and senate:

 

538 blog:

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

 

Princeton Election Consortium:

 

http://election.princeton.edu/

 

 

 

[Investor20]

Thank you for checking the information.  That is right - it is not xenophobics that brought in the discussion of trade sanctions.  The original discussion on this started when I posted stagnating wages. One poster here challenged me to give one policy of Trump that could help in wages.  Then I posted this - theft of IP and over 2 million high paying jobs that are lost.  So, who is better a different discussion.  The point is people are not xenophobics when they say certain things.  They are not against trade.  But does not mean one has to just sit and watch when 400 billion dollars worth of theft is happening each year.

 

I think Trump needs to be given a chance.  This theft is not new.  The IP commision linked below said in May 2013 - I presume the data is of 2012 or earlier.  So its been happening for a while.  Obama/HC had their chance to fix it.

 

IP Commission report: Co-chair: Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command

Co-chair: Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” (Emphasis in bold added)

 

Obama/Clinton had at least four years to fix it.

 

http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf

 

I never accused you of being xenophobic. I also never had a discussion with you about stagnating wages. The genesis of this conversation was your reply that free trade or as you insist on calling it "fair trade" was not supported by a majority of Americans.

 

You're obviously making the claim that Donald Trump would be better at resolving the issue, otherwise it's a complete non sequitur in the 'which presidential candidate will you vote for?' thread. You also tried to do so here.

 

3. Donald Trump's corporate espionage and cyber security plan does not differ from Hillary Clinton's plan other than that he wants to escalate and use offensive cyber attacks. This doesn't seem like a great idea when the U.S. has the most intellectual property to lose in a cyber war.

Trump proposal is to use Tariffs.

 

The White House has been confronting the issue by researching the origins of the crime, initiating indictments against the perpetrators, and passing legislation and issuing executive orders to provide remedies for the damages.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-announce-first-criminal-charges-against-foreign-country-for-cyberspying/2014/05/19/586c9992-df45-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html

 

I did not say you said xenophobe, but I started discussing this with another poster about stagnating wages when this started. You picked it up later in the discussion.

 

Coming back to the IP theft, it is only getting worse or at least did not get better since 2012 when the NSA called it "greatest wealth transfer ever in history. That is Obama should have known since at least 2011 this problem and had 5 years to fix it. Why should I not give a chance to Trump at this point?

 

NSA Chief: "That’s our future disappearing in front of us" July 2012.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/09/nsa-chief-cybercrime-constitutes-the-greatest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history/

 

I was looking for when the problem is first recognized and I found an interesting WhiteHouse document:

 

"It's been estimated that last year alone cyber criminals stole intellectual property from businesses worldwide worth up to $1 trillion.

In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity."

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-on-Cybersecurity#transcript

May 2009