Election Time Poll v3

[Collinsworthington]

Now that we are past Iowa we've seen what America is really thinking, so now that you've seen more information or if your sleeper has withdrawn, who will or would you vote for?

Could a mod be a doll and move this to ROTW

you got it -Emerald Dream

[West Coast Sheriff]

My absolute favorite Candidate was Bobby Jindal but, he was around 15th in national polls and sadly dropped out a month or two ago. I do like Carson a lot and have a Ben Carson 2016 sticker on my car but, I think I'm changing over to Rubio. I won't be old enough when primaries happen anyways so, I will probably throw my vote behind whoever wins the GOP nomination unless it's Trump. I'd vote Sanders over Trump. If it's Hillary vs Trump, I'll sadly throw my vote away and stay home on Election Day.

Because Sanders appeals to young people, you will probably see around 60-70% of people on this poll support Sanders. He's a smart guy that ignites a much needed passion in the American people. Technically, so does Trump. I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Bern defeats Hillary.

[Kahn]

Leaning towards Sanders.

[ImCoolBeans]

I'm currently leaning towards Sanders. I dislike all of the Republican candidates, and to be frank I'm not a big fan of Hillary either. I think it's time to end the dynasties. Only one election since 1980 has not featured a Clinton or Bush, and during that one election, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Something about that doesn't sit right with me.

[Collinsworthington]

I'm currently leaning towards Sanders. I dislike all of the Republican candidates, and to be frank I'm not a big fan of Hillary either. I think it's time to end the dynasties. Only one election since 1980 has not featured a Clinton or Bush, and during that one election, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Something about that doesn't sit right with me.

I'm a big Bernie fan but the more I think about it, While bill Clinton was not the most family oriented guy to ever live, he was a damn good politician and basically his presidency was him and Hillary both making decisions, they used to call them billary since she had such a close presence in decisions. so while I don't like her, it would not be to bad. But for rn FEEL THE BERN

[curryjacket]

I'm a big Bernie fan but the more I think about it, While bill Clinton was not the most family oriented guy to ever live, he was a damn good politician and basically his presidency was him and Hillary both making decisions, they used to call them billary since she had such a close presence in decisions. so while I don't like her, it would not be to bad. But for rn FEEL THE BERN


I feel the same way. I'm voting for Bernie in the primary and if Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for her.

[Stronk Serb]

I read some tax analysis, if Bernie implemented his policies, national expenses would climb by trillions and taxes would go a lot higher meaning corporations fire workers. An estimated 6 million Americans would lose their jobs.

[Vlerchan]

I read some tax analysis, if Bernie implemented his policies, national expenses would climb by trillions and taxes would go a lot higher meaning corporations fire workers. An estimated 6 million Americans would lose their jobs.
I'm suspecting Heritage Foundation - but I'd still appreciate a source.

[Collinsworthington]

I read some tax analysis, if Bernie implemented his policies, national expenses would climb by trillions and taxes would go a lot higher meaning corporations fire workers. An estimated 6 million Americans would lose their jobs.

Actually, while the initial expenses of his plans would cost 1-3 trillion dollars depending on how congress acts, by 2020 over 6 trillion dollars would be saved by buisnesses not having to pay workers health care and benefits and what not, which in turn would allow more hiring, he also plans to end the trans pacific partnership, and limit outsourcing. Even if your unrealistic number of 6 million jobs were to be lost, by 2020 over 15 million jobs will be created by small buisnesses and corporations alike. Also these jobs will be able to pay a living wage of 12-15 dollars and not break the bank

[Vlerchan]

Actually, while the initial expenses of his plans would cost 1-3 trillion dollars depending on how congress acts, by 2020 over 6 trillion dollars would be saved by buisnesses not having to pay workers health care and benefits and what not, which in turn would allow more hiring, he also plans to end the trans pacific partnership, and limit outsourcing. Even if your unrealistic number of 6 million jobs were to be lost, by 2020 over 15 million jobs will be created by small buisnesses and corporations alike. Also these jobs will be able to pay a living wage of 12-15 dollars and not break the bank
Would you mind sourcing this with reference to the actual proposals and independent fiscal analysis? Thank you.

---

I'll also add that I'm the single voter for Clinton - once again.

[West Coast Sheriff]

I'm currently leaning towards Sanders. I dislike all of the Republican candidates, and to be frank I'm not a big fan of Hillary either. I think it's time to end the dynasties. Only one election since 1980 has not featured a Clinton or Bush, and during that one election, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Something about that doesn't sit right with me.

Reguarding the Clinton-Bush dynasties, the last name has worked to her favor. Jeb Bush's last name has actually hurt him I think just because George wasn't all that good of a president. I'm definitely not for Hillary. I think she has too many ties to big banks, corporate industries and pharmaceutical companies.

[Collinsworthington]

Would you mind sourcing this with reference to the actual proposals and independent fiscal analysis? Thank you.

---

I'll also add that I'm the single voter for Clinton - once again.


A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive. We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war.

From Sanders website. He goes more in depth if u go on there. Also they went pretty into depth on cnn on caucus night. Also if you watch the debate tonight he has said he will discuss most of his finances.

[Chapperz16]

Whilst Hilary does have a number of ties towards both the banks and corporations, from someone who lives in England Sander's just seems to be somewhat lacking in charisma and strategy unlike Clinton.

[Vlerchan]

A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive.
In other words he plans on creating 13 million short-term jobs.

I also have no doubt that the investment will provide good returns if it's done intelligently. I've posted before on this forum about infrastructural projects having positive long-term impacts on growth.

I can get behind these projects if Sanders can find the fiscal space.

---

Out of interest by the way when Sanders introduced this as the Rebuild America Act (2015) did it even make it to committee level?

From Sanders website. He goes more in depth if u go on there. Also they went pretty into depth on cnn on caucus night. Also if you watch the debate tonight he has said he will discuss most of his finances.
I asked for an independent analysis because when someone is dependent on an idea seeming good it tends to make them that bit less impartial than I like.

[...] he also plans to end the trans pacific partnership, and limit outsourcing.
I'll also mention that this is one of the main reasons I wouldn't vote for him.

This alongside his incomprehension of modern monetary policy and the fact that I don't believe he's ever managed to forge bipartisan consensus in his career.

[...] big banks, corporate industries and pharmaceutical companies.
Rubio receives major backing from investment-finance which is less that ideal. I imagine contributes to him wanting to tear down Dodd-Frank.

[DriveAlive]

Trump has also called for more investment in infrastructure projects...

[Chapperz16]

Trump has also called for more investment in infrastructure projects...


Trump cannot seriously be considered a runner for the US presidency... If he is the nominee then Clinton may as well be granted the presidency now..

[Vlerchan]

Trump has also called for more investment in infrastructure projects...
Hitler did that too though.

[Chapperz16]

Hitler did that too though.

Nice comparison:yes:

[West Coast Sheriff]

Trump cannot seriously be considered a runner for the US presidency... If he is the nominee then Clinton may as well be granted the presidency now..

The GOP needs someone who can beat Hillary. He can't. I could be fine with any president so long as it isn't Donald or Hillary. But let's face it, he can't win.

[Chapperz16]

The GOP needs someone who can beat Hillary. He can't. I could be fine with any president so long as it isn't Donald or Hillary. But let's face it, he can't win.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the Republican party is without a chance due to Trump leading the party to where it does not want to go causing Cruz to have to try and rally a ton of support; which to be fair is unlikely to happen. On the democratic side of things, Hilary is able to bring in a lot of support and money but also experience to the job and whilst in my opinion Sanders is not what America needs, I cannot see him gaining enough votes to undermine Clinton's lead.

[Collinsworthington]

Donald wont win... Even if he does get the nomination he would lose in a landslide. If he does not, the democrat nominee cant basically walk in... he threatens to go independent which would split the party and give the gop 20-30 percent and give trump 20-30 percent XD

[Stronk Serb]

Here you go Vlerchan & Collinsworthington


http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/bernie-sanders-tax-plan-would-kill-6-million-jobs-analysis/

[tovaris]

I once alredy stated tis:
As boys we always plaied solders/postapocaliptic world. Vote Trump, make your chieldhood ply a realety. *

*also hes maried to a Slovenian, so he must be smart

[Vlerchan]

Here you go Vlerchan & Collinsworthington


http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/bernie-sanders-tax-plan-would-kill-6-million-jobs-analysis/
Tax Foundation didn't report on what the outcomes of Sander's spending that revenue would be. That's a rather important consideration.

I would also have appreciate if the models used where printed though it's a reputable think-tank so I willing to presume the best.

---

I'm also quite willing to admit that some of the taxes are poorly targeted.

[phuckphace]

Trump has also called for more investment in infrastructure projects... Hitler did that too though.

:D

can you explain for the economically retarded what's wrong with DT's tax plan? from reading your other posts on economics I get the impression you favor lower taxes as fostering growth and expansion, and by going off that a simpleton such as myself would assume his plan would be, like, a market bonanza or something.

[Chapperz16]

Can I just argue the point that an economical system relies heavily on taxes due to the amount of money going both into and out of the system which can then be spent on improving infrastructure. Any candidate who argues that they would lower taxes does not have my vote at all.

[Collinsworthington]

I'll also mention that this is one of the main reasons I wouldn't vote for him.

This alongside his incomprehension of modern monetary policy and the fact that I don't believe he's ever managed to forge bipartisan consensus in his career.


Actually last night he talked about how he had to work with everyones favorite right wing politician john mcain on a veterans bill. While of course he couldn't persuade them to take the bill without changes, as no bill can, he passed it and helped hundreds of thousands of vets

[Vlerchan]

can you explain for the economically retarded what's wrong with DT's tax plan?
The big problem is that there's not the fiscal space for it. I mean that the national debt would increase about 50% inside the next decade if it was implemented this afternoon. I imagine more since higher interest rates would stunt the benefits. That's because when the national debt rises it sends warning signals to investors that reduce purchases of US debt and thus it would be higher. His claim that it "wouldn't add to the deficit" is a lie.

The big issue is that for the most part the reduction on taxation rates is targeted at the highest earners that produce the highest number of tax-returns. It might seem like he's offering a free lunch to the working class but those pay a quite negligible amount of tax at both an individual and net level. If you care about income inequality it's going to starkly contribute to that.

I'm down with reducing corporation taxation though. It's impact is reduced-revenue about 1.5 trillion over the next decade but it would have a significant impact on growth and wages.

I've become impartial on the reduced estate taxation. If it was possible I'd be taxing at a much higher rate than current but I'm sceptical it does much more at higher levels than just increase demand for financial accountants. I'd still rather it wasn't abolished nonetheless.

from reading your other posts on economics I get the impression you favor lower taxes as fostering growth and expansion, and by going off that a simpleton such as myself would assume his plan would be, like, a market bonanza or something.
If it's unsustainable: it's unsustainable. I actually just prefer to tax through alternative channels though. Like land and consumption.

Actually last night he talked about how he had to work with everyones favorite right wing politician john mcain on a veterans bill.
I'll concede that I guess. I'm still sceptical he'll make headway in an incredibly polarised Congress.

[Katie96xox]

Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Kasich, i don't care. Just as long as it's not Bernie, Hillary, or the Donald. Cruz is my favourite candidate but Rubio is the only one who I think can defeat Hillary so I will throw my support behind him.

[Thunderstorm]

I 'm not big on posting in ROTW but I just have to say Bernie is the most ideal candidate. Emphasis on the word IDEAL. Clinton is the most pragmatic. That being said, I am all for Bernie but I will always vote along party lines because I do not agree with many of the Republican Party's policies. When they get over the fact that same-sex marriage is legal, that cutting taxes for the wealthy won't work and that social security is a necessity for the elderly, maybe then we can start talking Republican.
Until then, I'll view Republicans as backwards and morally wrong, as does most of the world. Much of the world is aching to see Bernie as president. If that doesn't say something then I don't know what does.

(BTW Trump is actually a Democrat, he was a registered Democrat until 2009, and many of his policies are liberal...he just wouldn't win as a Democrat though, which says something about the education level of both parties.)

[Judean Zealot]

Much of the world is aching to see Bernie as president.

I'm not sure how keen the world is about America adopting a protectionist trade policy.

[Thunderstorm]

I'm not sure how keen the world is about America adopting a protectionist trade policy.

As if most countries don't have protectionist economics in place already? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, The Netherlands, these countries are among the happiest in the world. They also embody what Bernie is getting at.

[Judean Zealot]

As if most countries don't have protectionist economics in place already? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, The Netherlands, these countries are among the happiest in the world. They also embody what Bernie is getting at.

Regardless, they remain far from the majority. The EU is actually working real hard to get a Free Trade Agreement with America (TTIP).

[Vlerchan]

As if most countries don't have protectionist economics in place already? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, The Netherlands, these countries are among the happiest in the world. They also embody what Bernie is getting at.
Just for reference the countries listed all exist inside the largest Free Trade zone in the world.

[Thunderstorm]

Regardless, they remain far from the majority. The EU is actually working real hard to get a Free Trade Agreement with America (TTIP).

Just for reference the countries listed all exist inside the largest Free Trade zone in the world.

Is that the reason that Denmark's balance of trade has decreased rapidly in recent years, and why Sweden has made the fewest commitments to liberalized trade policies in the EU?

[Judean Zealot]

Is that the reason that Denmark's balance of trade has decreased rapidly in recent years, and why Sweden has made the fewest commitments to liberalized trade policies in the EU?

The shift in the Balance of Trade is far from the most significant economic factor involved in FTAs, especially when we consider that the exports and investment remain within the FT zone. FTAs ensure intellectual rights, improve goods quality through creation of competition, expand markets for domestic production, and increase corporate accountability.

[Vlerchan]

Is that the reason that Denmark's balance of trade has decreased rapidly in recent years, and why Sweden has made the fewest commitments to liberalized trade policies in the EU?
Would you mind explaining to me the reason you think that the Danish balance of trade is significant in and of itself.

I also checked the data for Denmark. You'll need to get more specific than 'recent years'. In the last 10 years it's balance of trade has increased significantly. In the last 5 - as states around recovered and became more competitive it's fallen. Though most of the fall stems from a sudden slump in exports from last March. I presume you have an all encompassing explanation nonetheless.

Being a member of the EU [EUCU to be exact] Sweden doesn't have an independent trade policy. It recent years it's also signed into effect trade agreements with both Canada and Korea.

---

I'll add that I don't believe this demonstrates much about free trade agreements. The actual support for free trade comes from the mountain of empirical evidence that has been collected since the 1980s.

[Thunderstorm]

Would you mind explaining to me the reason you think that the Danish balance of trade is significant in and of itself.

I also checked the data for Denmark. You'll need to get more specific than 'recent years'. In the last 10 years it's balance of trade has increased significantly. In the last 5 - as states around recovered and became more competitive it's fallen. Though most of the fall stems from a sudden slump in exports from last March. I presume you have an all encompassing explanation nonetheless.

Being a member of the EU [EUCU to be exact] Sweden doesn't have an independent trade policy. It recent years it's also signed into effect trade agreements with both Canada and Korea.

---

I'll add that I don't believe this demonstrates much about free trade agreements. The actual support for free trade comes from the mountain of empirical evidence that has been collected since the 1980s.

Even if Denmark's Balance of trade has increased in the past decade, the Danish have been reluctant in giving up their opt-out rights. The Danish have traditionally been very reluctant when it comes to integration with the EU.

Sweden ranks at the bottom of the EU in terms of the liberalization of trade. Sweden's service sector is heavily regulated and protected, in comparison with the rest of the EU.

Sweden was once a leader among FTA's in the EU. Not anymore.

[Vlerchan]

Even if Denmark's Balance of trade has increased in the past decade, the Danish have been reluctant in giving up their opt-out rights.
The single one of these opt-outs that are relevant is the one on the Euro. First of all I don't support the Euro. Second of all the Danes pegged the Krone to the Euro and it's central bank follows the same schema as the ECB.

The fixed-exchange-rate policy means that Denmark's monetary policy is aimed at keeping the krone stable against the euro.

http://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/monetarypolicy/implementation/Pages/Default.aspx

Having an independent central bank really doesn't matter to much when "monetary-policy interest rates are reserved for managing the exchange rate (ibid)".

Sweden ranks at the bottom of the EU in terms of the liberalization of trade.
The ICC (2015) (http://www.iccwbo.org/global-influence/g20/reports-and-products/open-markets-index/) ranks Sweden 12th in terms of trade openness. It's behind just 6 states in the EU and 8 states in the EFTA.

Sweden's service sector is heavily regulated and protected, in comparison with the rest of the EU.
I'm not sure if you're talking about it's internal market or free trade. Please be more specific. Thank you.

Sweden was once a leader among FTA's in the EU. Not anymore.
Like I said. Being in a customs union means that Sweden doesn't have an independent trade policy. I'm not sure where you're getting this statistics but - if it's true - it's not meaningful.

[Sailor Mars]

Please refrain from going off topic.

[phuckphace]

When [Republicans] get over the fact that same-sex marriage is legal[...]

they don't actually care, most GOP pols are closeted homos or, if not gay, are nevertheless about as personally immoral as their opponents across the aisle. the loud noises they make about culture war pet issues like gay marriage and abortion are just cynical political theater to keep their voters, who are by and large a bunch of easily bamboozled rubes - Ted Cruz is one such seasoned puppetmaster.

as I've said before, conservatives targeting the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage are wasting their time, because social changes always precede legal changes, thus the social changes that made gay marriage acceptable to begin with are what they should be targeting (but won't because they're idiots.) same applies to abortion which they think can be reduced or eliminated by overturning Roe vs. Wade. I call these people "pseudo-cons".

one of the reasons I like Donald Trump is that he's not wasting his time on retarded culture-war pandering (the president can't reverse SCOTUS decisions anyway) but instead focusing on the real issue at hand - namely, the fact that we won't have a country to care about in a couple more decades if we don't close the fucking borders and bring back jobs. pseudo-cons, by contrast, believe that "we just gotta follow the Constitution" and, even funnier, that it will still mean anything once we're Los Estados Unidos de Aztlán.

[...]and that social security is a necessity for the elderly[...]

neither party will touch Social Security, it's political suicide to do so.

Until then, I'll view Republicans as backwards and morally wrong, as does most of the world.

"if only the party that purports to be conservative would completely reinvent itself to be the Democratic party with a different name, I might deign to cast my enlightened vote for them!"

not to worry bro, it'll happen soon enough.

[Thunderstorm]

they don't actually care, most GOP pols are closeted homos or, if not gay, are nevertheless about as personally immoral as their opponents across the aisle. the loud noises they make about culture war pet issues like gay marriage and abortion are just cynical political theater to keep their voters, who are by and large a bunch of easily bamboozled rubes - Ted Cruz is one such seasoned puppetmaster.

as I've said before, conservatives targeting the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage are wasting their time, because social changes always precede legal changes, thus the social changes that made gay marriage acceptable to begin with are what they should be targeting (but won't because they're idiots.) same applies to abortion which they think can be reduced or eliminated by overturning Roe vs. Wade. I call these people "pseudo-cons".

one of the reasons I like Donald Trump is that he's not wasting his time on retarded culture-war pandering (the president can't reverse SCOTUS decisions anyway) but instead focusing on the real issue at hand - namely, the fact that we won't have a country to care about in a couple more decades if we don't close the fucking borders and bring back jobs. pseudo-cons, by contrast, believe that "we just gotta follow the Constitution" and, even funnier, that it will still mean anything once we're Los Estados Unidos de Aztlán.



neither party will touch Social Security, it's political suicide to do so.



"if only the party that purports to be conservative would completely reinvent itself to be the Democratic party with a different name, I might deign to cast my enlightened vote for them!"

not to worry bro, it'll happen soon enough.

Yeah I agree on everything. I've heard the thing about closeted gay Republicans. It's just sad because most of the modern world (Europe, Australia, Urban South America, etc.) is much more progressive than we are in their social and economic ideals.

I'm just happy that it's constitutionally impossible for Ted Cruz to become president. He believes in a "living Constitution", and many Republicans believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution as well. It's ironic though because if they really believe in what our Founding Fathers meant, they wanted "naturally born citizens" as the only ones eligible for the Presidency. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and despite being naturalized, he was not "naturally born" in the US. Washington, Hamilton and Madison were concerned about the infiltration of a [foreign-born] monarchy, so they made sure the Constitution included "naturally born" criteria. If, Cruz is to get the nomination, there will not only be uproar among Democrats but many Republicans. It isn't a huge topic yet but it will be.

[Judean Zealot]

Yeah I agree on everything. I've heard the thing about closeted gay Republicans. It's just sad because most of the modern world (Europe, Australia, Urban South America, etc.) is much more progressive than we are in their social and economic ideals.

I'm just happy that it's constitutionally impossible for Ted Cruz to become president. He believes in a "living Constitution", and many Republicans believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution as well. It's ironic though because if they really believe in what our Founding Fathers meant, they wanted "naturally born citizens" as the only ones eligible for the Presidency. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and despite being naturalized, he was not "naturally born" in the US. Washington, Hamilton and Madison were concerned about the infiltration of a [foreign-born] monarchy, so they made sure the Constitution included "naturally born" criteria. If, Cruz is to get the nomination, there will not only be uproar among Democrats but many Republicans. It isn't a huge topic yet but it will be.

So far as I'm aware the overwhelming legal consensus is that 'naturally born' includes an American citizen on foreign soil, even on an 'original intent' account, considering as naturalisation is itself a definition that the constitution allows for subsequent legislative clarification.

[phuckphace]

Ted Cruz not being a citizen is at the very end of the long list of reasons to oppose him, which starts with being a pandering gnome-faced pseudocon hack

[Thunderstorm]

So far as I'm aware the overwhelming legal consensus is that 'naturally born' includes an American citizen on foreign soil, even on an 'original intent' account, considering as naturalisation is itself a definition that the constitution allows for subsequent legislative clarification.

No, that's not the legal consensus among Republicans, and it would just go against everything they believe in. He won't get the nomination.

[Judean Zealot]

No, that's not the legal consensus among Republicans, and it would just go against everything they believe in. He won't get the nomination.

It is amongst those who know anything about Constitutional law, and quite frankly, what the rest of the Jimbobs think is irrelevant.

A child who has the vote is 'naturally born', and nobody disputes these peoples' right to vote. This whole thing is a non-issue caused by a certain loud and boorish ignoramus with too much hair. The fact that people listen to him strengthens my position that only those with a somewhat competent background in law (among other academic qualifiers) should have the franchise.

[Vlerchan]

It's worth noting that Cruz being eligible could even be deemed non-justiciable.

Republican legal scholars also form a negligible portion of legal academia in the US.

---

I also agree with phuckphace: Him being eligible not should be last on people's lost of reasons to not vote for him.