It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[Cecilie1200]

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.

So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

^I agree with a great deal of that. However:

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services.

What about government dicking with it that has the opposite effect - i.e., giving some industries or some players in those industries special advantages that have a negative impact on fairness?

I'm thinking of legislation that denied consumers the right to shop for health insurance across state borders, for example, tax breaks to the oil industry, overturning Glass-Steagall to allowing big banks to merge with other big banks, creating virtual monopolies that would have given Teddy Roosevelt apoplexy and effectively caused the crash of '08.

It seems to me if you want the government to stay out of a competitive marketplace, that should apply across the board.

People not being able to shop across state lines for health insurance was/is a big problem and a good example of what I meant, i.e., government dicking around with private enterprise.

As far as mergers, it isn't a monopoly if there is competition. The size of the bank isn't the problem, creating virtual money and making a bunch of loans that can't be payed back was.

Furthermore, a true monopoly - and a true problem - requires there to be no possibility for competition . . . which means it requires government connivance.

There have been lots of occasions when people got their shorts wadded about some "monopoly" simply because the business got big, only to have it collapse and be overtaken by competitors because of one misstep or misjudgement of the marketplace.

A&P stores used to be a "monopoly". They were the first grocery store chain in the US, the world's largest retailer, and utterly dominated the market for 60 years . . . until they missed out on the massive shift from urban to suburban, as well as modern store upgrades being demanded by shoppers, and got overrun by other stores (including WalMart). They vanished from the scene, and most people today have never heard of them.

Just an example.

 

[Cecilie1200]

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You have yet to understand that no one is interested in your blank, generalized assertions of your beliefs as fact. Why don't you tell us WHY a "well-functioning capitalist society" - as if you'd recognize one if you fell over it - would not have large disparities of wealth. And no, "because I say so", "because I think it's logical", and "because I want it to be that way" are not acceptable answers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

it isn't "time". the election is a year away.

ted cruz is far too smart to believe the stupid things he says... which explains why those stupid things make sense to someone like you.

I didn't say it was time to vote for someone, you ignorant twat. Try to understand English.

I said it's time to discuss who you're leaning toward, because we've seen enough to start having definite preferences. I ALSO said that these preferences might change as time passes, and we should discuss that too.

Do you need me to draw a picture, or might you possibly fire up both of your brain cells and get them working on comprehending this?

Third option: continue to object to thread and fucking leave, because your opinion is almost as valueless as your objections.

I have no doubt you'll be voting for Hillary. Irrelevant hags should stick together.

 

[Cecilie1200]

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

without government involvement in the market place there really could be no market place. That said it can be unfair or unwise involvement.

I think it is just common sense that competition in markets tends to even out incomes.

"I want to believe it's that way, so that means it IS. Common sense is agreeing with me no matter what!"

 

[dcraelin]

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

without government involvement in the market place there really could be no market place. That said it can be unfair or unwise involvement.

I think it is just common sense that competition in markets tends to even out incomes.

We've gone over this many times in the 'unfettered capitalism' thread. Capitalism needs a stable marketplace so of course we need laws. No laws mean anarchy. anarchy means someone can simply kill you and steal your shit.

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services. Competition is what sets the bar. It doesn't mean 2nd, 3rd or whatever place has no niche though. Some people might prefer those for any number of reasons. It's called choice.

I think you just said what I i in a slightly different way

 

[dcraelin]

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.

So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.

well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.

So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.

well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.

This might pass for meaningful if my memory was too short to recall where the goalposts actually are.

But thank you so much for wasting my time championing an argument no one was having.

 

[dcraelin]

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.

So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.

well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.

This might pass for meaningful if my memory was too short to recall where the goalposts actually are.

But thank you so much for wasting my time championing an argument no one was having.

WTF...it is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT WE WERE HAVING

 

[Arianrhod]

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.

So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.

well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.

This might pass for meaningful if my memory was too short to recall where the goalposts actually are.

But thank you so much for wasting my time championing an argument no one was having.

WTF...it is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT WE WERE HAVING

You misunderstand. While it was the argument the rest of us were having, it was not the argument Cecilie1200 was having and, as the Center of the Universe, she gets to decide.

If you have any doubt, watch how she responds to this.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue the conversation. We don't need her permission.

 

[SAYIT]

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?

No, sadly, he's just a stupid - but very real - person.

Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.

It's like watching a train wreak.

"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." - Ronald Reagan

 

[Arianrhod]

Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.

And you'll now either present some facts to support your opinion, or self-identify as "loony left."

Think carefully now.

 

[SAYIT]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

it isn't "time". the election is a year away.

ted cruz is far too smart to believe the stupid things he says... which explains why those stupid things make sense to someone like you.

I didn't say it was time to vote for someone, you ignorant twat. Try to understand English.

I said it's time to discuss who you're leaning toward, because we've seen enough to start having definite preferences. I ALSO said that these preferences might change as time passes, and we should discuss that too.

Do you need me to draw a picture, or might you possibly fire up both of your brain cells and get them working on comprehending this?

Third option: continue to object to thread and fucking leave, because your opinion is almost as valueless as your objections.

I have no doubt you'll be voting for Hillary. Irrelevant hags should stick together.

So getting back to the thread subject, I consider defeating the Dems in this election to be almost as important as which Repub is elected.
As such I think a moderate, smart, well-spoken, youthful, Hispanic Floridian to be a real threat to Dems in that swing state (Florida) and if paired with the right demographic (black, female) and/or geographic (Ohio, another large swing state) VP candidate could win.

Yeah ... I'm talkin' Rubio/Fiorino,Kasich,Carson.

 

[SAYIT]

Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.

And you'll now either present some facts to support your opinion, or self-identify as "loony left."

Think carefully now.

Yeah ... that must be it! I'm a loony leftist!

Damn you people are stupid. Simply read any of DCRAELIN's posts and if you don't shoot your warm milk out of your nose, you're a loony leftist.

 

[Arianrhod]

Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.

And you'll now either present some facts to support your opinion, or self-identify as "loony left."

Think carefully now.

Yeah ... that must be it! I'm a loony leftist!

Still no facts to go with your opinion? QED.

 

[SAYIT]

Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.

And you'll now either present some facts to support your opinion, or self-identify as "loony left."

Think carefully now.

Yeah ... that must be it! I'm a loony leftist!

Damn you people are stupid. Simply read any of DCRAELIN's posts and if you don't shoot your warm milk out of your nose, you're a loony leftist.

Still no facts to go with your opinion? QED.

You need me to read them to you? DOA.

 

[Arianrhod]

You need me to read them to you?

State them.

 

[Iceweasel]

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

without government involvement in the market place there really could be no market place. That said it can be unfair or unwise involvement.

I think it is just common sense that competition in markets tends to even out incomes.

We've gone over this many times in the 'unfettered capitalism' thread. Capitalism needs a stable marketplace so of course we need laws. No laws mean anarchy. anarchy means someone can simply kill you and steal your shit.

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services. Competition is what sets the bar. It doesn't mean 2nd, 3rd or whatever place has no niche though. Some people might prefer those for any number of reasons. It's called choice.

I think you just said what I i in a slightly different way

You are dense if you think so, I said the opposite. You claim competition evens out wealth, my point was it leads to inequality because people and business are unequal.

There is something wrong with the thought process you guys have going on, something has taken over your minds.

 

[Iceweasel]

^I agree with a great deal of that. However:

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services.

What about government dicking with it that has the opposite effect - i.e., giving some industries or some players in those industries special advantages that have a negative impact on fairness?

I'm thinking of legislation that denied consumers the right to shop for health insurance across state borders, for example, tax breaks to the oil industry, overturning Glass-Steagall to allowing big banks to merge with other big banks, creating virtual monopolies that would have given Teddy Roosevelt apoplexy and effectively caused the crash of '08.

It seems to me if you want the government to stay out of a competitive marketplace, that should apply across the board.

People not being able to shop across state lines for health insurance was/is a big problem and a good example of what I meant, i.e., government dicking around with private enterprise.

As far as mergers, it isn't a monopoly if there is competition. The size of the bank isn't the problem, creating virtual money and making a bunch of loans that can't be payed back was.

Fair enough, but Citigroup and Chase wouldn't have been allowed to bundle those loans under Glass-Steagall. No subprime bundles, no Recession of '08.

Link?

 

[Stephanie]

I just ran across this: and I think it's another reason to vote in a Republican in 2016. My vote to see this happen would be on Ted Cruz and Lee somewhere in his administration. we have had 1000's of new boots on our neck regulations under OBama. some so ridiculous a small business would have to go out of business because of them.

snip:

By Nicholas Ballasy November 23, 2015


Mike Lee: Roll Back ‘Oppressive’ $2 Trillion ‘Compliance’ Costs

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told PJM the Republican presidential candidates should speak more about the need to roll back federal regulations that cost the economy $2 trillion annually.

Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Republicans must remind the American people that the $2 trillion in regulatory compliance costs is not only paid for by the rich.

“That’s not paid for just by wealthy Americans or by big blue-chip corporations, that’s paid for by hard-working, poor, middle-class Americans who find that everything they buy, every good, every service is more expensive as a result of these regulations,” he said at the National Press Club Book Fair, where he was promoting his book Our Lost Constitution. “Once that gets understood, then the American people are going to start pushing back and saying, ‘We need relief. We’re being crushed by oppressive regulatory costs.’”

Lee is a co-sponsor of the REINS Act, which was introduced by Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The bill would require congressional approval for the implementation of major rules and regulations. Republican presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also co-sponsored the legislation. The bill has passed the Republican-controlled House but the Republican-controlled Senate has not voted on the bill.

PJM asked Lee how he is going to pick between the three senators in the race for the GOP nomination.

“They are all fantastic, they all three support the REINS Act. In fact, Rand Paul is the lead sponsor of the REINS Act in the Senate. I could support any one of them if they became president,” he said.

Asked when he will make an endorsement, Lee said, “We’ll see.”

As Congress debates whether or not to pause the Syrian refugee program after the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, Lee said the U.S. does not need to take in refugees from every country.

“No matter what we need to pause before we admit refugees from Syria, knowing as we now know that at least one of the attackers in the Paris attacks last week was in fact a refugee from Syria – that ought to give us some concern about admitting Syrian refugees here,” said Lee, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“So I understand this is about compassion; that’s why we have a refugee program. Our first obligation as a Congress is one that involves compassion about those we represent – for the American citizens, for the American people who need to be safe. And we need to make sure we are not making them unsafe by virtue of who we are bringing in.”

The House passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015 on Thursday in a 289-137 vote. The legislation would not allow any refugees from Iraq or Syria into the U.S. unless the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security, and the director of National Intelligence certify "the background investigation of each refugee.”

A Bloomberg Politics national poll revealed that most Americans think the U.S. should not allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to resettle in the country.

all of it and a Video at:
Mike Lee: Roll Back ‘Oppressive’ $2 Trillion ‘Compliance’ Costs