2020 US Presidential Election

[Zugzug]

I think if you've had a family member who has been President, you should be disqualified from running. Otherwise, it's just a way to extend the term of the original President. Next thing you know, you have a cult/dynasty/monarchy on your hands.

Agree to disagree. I think it's case by case. I think Don Jr. should be allowed to run. If he wins, that speaks to a bigger problem with the moronic electorate.

There's also a correlation aspect when it comes to families who are good at things. If someone is really talented at something, there is a higher likelihood of their offspring being talented as well. This isn't always the case, of course. Bush Jr., for example, is propped up by legacy more than anything else.

But if a gift from God successfully became president, had a kid, maybe their kid would also be great. I wouldn't want to rule it out just because Melania and Don Jr. should never touch the white house. While I don't see Michelle Obama as the person to lead us forward, I don't mind her running. It could even add to the conversation.

 

[Tanni]

I'm assuming that you're excluding distant relatives from this criteria? Like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt? Just asking for clarification.

Erm... maybe? Apparently, Franklin Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents

I think that's why people gravitate to the likes of Obama and Trump -- they are 'outsiders', and didn't assume the presidency was their right because of family inheritance. Isn't that the American Dream -- building something from nothing instead of inheriting it?

What do you think?

 

[FGG]

No, I really like Hillary too. She's very qualified to be President.

But if you take the line that anyone who has been married to/is related to a President now has a claim to be the President themselves by proxy, you open it up to people who aren't qualified -- like George W Bush Jr, Michelle Obama, Melania(??) etc.

I think if you've had a family member who has been President, you should be disqualified from running. Otherwise, it's just a way to extend the term of the original President. Next thing you know, you have a cult/dynasty/monarchy on your hands.

That's just my opinion, anyway. We had it here in the UK many years ago and it worked out well actually, but we haven't had it since and it wouldn't happen now I don't think.

I agree with this. It may not seem fair in some ways but there is huge potential for abuse. Imagine a situation where a spouse is encouraged to run simply (as you have said) to bypass term limits and have the family back in office.

Taking the Trump family for instance, it's clear Donald would still be running things if his wife (who is ineligible but still) or sons (+/- Ivanka not sure) held office.

I would say immediate family should be disqualified even if it is technically unfair to a few individuals, it's better for the country imo.

 

[FGG]

Erm... maybe? Apparently, Franklin Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents

I think that's why people gravitate to the likes of Obama and Trump -- they are 'outsiders', and didn't assume the presidency was their right because of family inheritance. Isn't that the American Dream -- building something from nothing instead of inheriting it?

What do you think?

Funnily enough, Obama is a distant cousin to the Bush family on his mom's side.

 

[aot]

Apparently, Franklin Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents

None were as badass as Teddy, though.

What do you think?

To me, it doesn't really matter. You can come from the trashiest family in existence and I'd vote for you if I like your policies. Same if you come from a political, presidential family. However, you make a good point about it just being a way to extend terms.

Maybe "Family term limits?" Like maybe a certain gap in between is required. Like if Don Jr (god forbid) decides to run, he can't do so for another two or three presidents or something.

 

[just1morething]

Did you see Trump try to drink that water?

Could be a tremor IDK? Essential tremors are somewhat common, probably more so as people age.

 

[Tanni]

Funnily enough, Obama is a distant cousin to the Bush family on his mom's side.

Interesting! Had a look, and apparently such a distant link is 'meaningless' but fascinating nonetheless (sorry for UK link):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/26/barackobama.hillaryclinton

Hillary Clinton is more closely related to Angeline Jolie, which is pretty surprising

 

[Christiaan]

Another interesting story from @Tanni's favourite newspaper

Biden indicates he could run for second term if he beats Trump in November

''Biden has said he sees himself as a transitional figure, leading many to predict he will serve only four years if elected. If he ran and won in 2024 he would be 82 on inauguration day. On handing over power, he would be 86.''

(...)

''Asked if he was "leaving open the possibility you'll serve eight years if elected", Biden said: "Absolutely."

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/23/joe-biden-november-election-second-term

 

[just1morething]

Maybe it's just my spike induced frustration speaking, but Trump is going to win this thing, isn't he? He's going to cheat he's way to victory and we're all fucked?

How about all his funny nicknames for people? Maybe they are getting old? He does have a different personality than most long time politicians. Some people may like his outspoken business type personality, others not.

 

[Zugzug]

Another interesting story from @Tanni's favourite newspaper

Biden indicates he could run for second term if he beats Trump in November

''Biden has said he sees himself as a transitional figure, leading many to predict he will serve only four years if elected. If he ran and won in 2024 he would be 82 on inauguration day. On handing over power, he would be 86.''

(...)

''Asked if he was "leaving open the possibility you'll serve eight years if elected", Biden said: "Absolutely."

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/23/joe-biden-november-election-second-term

He's just saying that over optics. There's no way he goes 8 years.

 

[Juan]

GDP per capita is an average. Averages are notoriously bad at hiding the actual state of affairs. Just because a billionaire enters the room of a bunch of minimum wage workers doesn't mean that everyone suddenly makes the average. What's better at determining desperation and the state of affairs of a country is the GINI coefficient, which has been getting worse in America for awhile.

As for your position that it's just Americans fault, glad to see you've eaten the line that the 1% want you to take. It's not that they're hoarding the results of productivity improvements of the nation, it's that it's the people, making too many risky chances. Personal responsibility. Oh, except when they crash the banking system, or their companies. Then someone has to bail them out. How could they have foreseen the economy slowing down?

Sorry, just annoyed with how that always happens. Are Americans taking on more debt? Yeah, they are, but it's because they've slowly been squeezed our of more of their purchasing power over the years. There is a standard that Americans got used to living, and every generation expects the next to attain, but due to the way wealth is being spread in this country, it's not as attainable as the old guard seems to think anymore. Every time the American family has encountered that slipping of purchasing power, they've adapted to maintain the standard of a house, two kids, and white picket fence. As much as everyone wants to say that women getting more involved in the workforce was just them wanting to, it was also to boost the average families purchasing power, which had been slipping.When it slipped more, they moved to credit. So long as the 1% can convince you to blame others and not them, and their tax evading, wage hoarding friends, they can get away with anything. Now, you can say that the next generations will have to just accept less, but you can't say that and not look at the variables that led them to have to do that in the first place, and the lack of any fight put up by the previous generations for their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities as them.

But there's a way to squeeze the 1% too: not buying their products, not using their services, electing politicians that can draft legislation to limit the damage monopoly companies are doing. And I don't see Americans not buying on Amazon, or not subscribing to Netflix TV, or not using Uber. People dig their own holes and then complain about it.

In America there is also this custom of calling the Facebook executives to testify before Congress or at some commission, to give explanations, and they just seem plain dumb, because they never provide answers or fix anything. It's just a pathetic show.

 

[WillBeNimble]

But there's a way to squeeze the 1% too: not buying their products, not using their services, electing politicians that can draft legislation to limit the damage monopoly companies are doing. And I don't see Americans not buying on Amazon, or not subscribing to Netflix TV, or not using Uber. People dig their own holes and then complain about it.

In America there is also this custom of calling the Facebook executives to testify before Congress or at some commission, to give explanations, and they just seem plain dumb, because they never provide answers or fix anything. It's just a pathetic show.

Dude, that's not how markets work. If someone has a monopoly on something you want/need, you're not just going to go "Guess I won't buy here." Normally, cause it's cheaper. That's what markets are meant to do. Further, this is the same "individual responsibility" talk corps use on climate change or plastics. "It's your responsibility~ Not ours. If you all come together, you can send a message." Every modern boycott has not done diddly squat. Also, say you stop buying from Amazon, where are you gonna go? Walmart? Giant Eagle? J.C. Penny's? Those are owned by people of the same class as Amazon, if only the actual 1% and not 0.1%. Withholding money doesn't work unless you can get everyone on board and organizing, but middle class organization in the US has been labeled as anti-democratic and heavily discouraged. Saying people dig their own holes is completely missing how those who make these companies and have the capital to do so had it to start with normally. I'll admit, there's a few that did it all by themselves, but the vast majority at the top? No, they didn't do it by themselves. And they'll play the successes of the ones that did over and over again, because people won't notice the bodies littering the road of success, the dreams crushed, the families cast into the churning waters if they keep your eyes on the ones that made it.

Yeah, our Congress is dumb. What a shock, a body of terribly partisan hacks, without real accountability to the populace because of the incumbency effect, combined with the overall apathy and lack of information from the voting populace lets them get off scot-free doesn't actually help. Color me surprised. The same people that take donations and money from the tech billionaires not doing anything to regulate them? Gasp. It is a pathetic. What do you suggest we do to stop it quickly? Cause I can tell you the only thing that would is violence, and I'd rather avoid that. So we're stuck with slow, state by state passing of ranked choice voting, making third parties more viable. Attempting to engage more on election day through making it a holiday. Trying to hand the reigns of the country back to the actual people.

 

[Zugzug]

And I don't see Americans not buying on Amazon, or not subscribing to Netflix TV

People actually subscribe to Netflix in order to save money by cutting cable. What are people supposed to do? Find no television, shows, sports, etc. of any kind to help with their mental health?

I know what you're saying to some degree, and I don't fully agree with the leftists here, but putting the shame on people buying Netflix subscriptions is an awful lot of catering to the rich who rob people blind.

 

[Contrast]

When are you libtards going to admit that high taxes and Government regulations do slow down the progress of biomedical sciences?

 

[FGG]

When are you libtards going to admit that high taxes and Government regulations do slow down the progress of biomedical sciences?

Government regulations are what keeps pharma companies from making unproven claims, though so they are necessary. Before 2019, India for instance had pretty lax standards and drugs produced there had less or potency than declared or sometimes were contaminated. They still have some issues but are improved.

As someone who rellies against scam companies, you can likely see the potential here. A biotech can claim anything works and because of the placebo effect many drugs will have some effect on about 30% of people so even forums won't be a good way to weed that out (plus that can be faked with reviewer farms).

I know one complaint you had was the NIH not giving enough to tinnitus research but if public tax payer money for basic sciences was cut, there would be even less funding.

To use a famous example: if the publicly funded human genome project didn't beat the private venture group (Celera), gene therapy research would be much more expensive and cost prohibitive because they planned to copyright the genome.

One thing that is looking to bring the cost of biomedical pre-clinical research way down is AI and equivalent cells/tissues on a chip. This means you will already have an idea of what a drug will do in the lab animals and don't have to repeat nearly as many trials.

All that being said, the FDA are aware that they could and should streamline the process to make it faster (and cheaper) and there is an internal movement to do that spearheaded by Janet Woodcock (and, hopefully now continued by her successor).

Edit: I should add that research itself is not limited by regulations (other than IACOC rules for lab animal treatment) and increased funding towards research would require more government funding up to the stage where a treatment researches the point of pre-clinical interest by a biotech. What's limited is FDA trials but a company can forgo these restrictions with compassionate/expanded use but the company is not required to offer it.

 

[WillBeNimble]

When are you libtards going to admit that high taxes and Government regulations do slow down the progress of biomedical sciences?

I'll agree that government regulation slows down biomedical science. That's not a liberal thing, that's an everyone thing, though. For example, stem cells. We have regulation there, and some want to go so far to prevent ALL stem cell research, not just research using abortions as a stem cell source, even though I'm pretty certain that's already illegal. That's not liberals, that's conservatives. The other regulations are meant to prevent snake oil salesman from getting out there. Granted, it doesn't work 100%, but it's better than the old days of someone coming in with a cart and spreading their bullshit cures. Would be nice if the FDA actually took itself seriously on that front, but it would need to have the funds to pay for such dedicated snake oil trappers.

Considering the public funds that go to colleges to research biomedical science, though, I'd say the jury's still out on how much it hurts it for taxes. We sure discovered a lot of medical research in the 50s to 80s, when the upper income tax bracket was an eye watering 90-70% for the upper income bracket. It's only 37% now.

 

[Juan]

People actually subscribe to Netflix in order to save money by cutting cable. What are people supposed to do? Find no television, shows, sports, etc. of any kind to help with their mental health?

I know what you're saying to some degree, and I don't fully agree with the leftists here, but putting the shame on people buying Netflix subscriptions is an awful lot of catering to the rich who rob people blind.

Don't get me wrong, I don't try to put shame on anyone. I am just reflecting about how the 1% that is squeezing the rest of people got there in the first place.

For instance, the intention of Uber is making all the other taxi companies go bankrupt, and then be a monopoly that sets very high prices. If that came to happen, people who used Uber in the first place have to take part of the responsibility.

Uber and Lyft have threatened to close their operation in California if their employees have to be actually considered "employees", even if that's what they are and have always been. However, Uber wants to pretend its employees are independent contractors, and judges in California are such cowards that do NOT enforce the law on Uber and Lyft.

 

[Juan]

Dude, that's not how markets work. If someone has a monopoly on something you want/need, you're not just going to go "Guess I won't buy here." Normally, cause it's cheaper. That's what markets are meant to do. Further, this is the same "individual responsibility" talk corps use on climate change or plastics. "It's your responsibility~ Not ours. If you all come together, you can send a message." Every modern boycott has not done diddly squat. Also, say you stop buying from Amazon, where are you gonna go? Walmart? Giant Eagle? J.C. Penny's? Those are owned by people of the same class as Amazon, if only the actual 1% and not 0.1%. Withholding money doesn't work unless you can get everyone on board and organizing, but middle class organization in the US has been labeled as anti-democratic and heavily discouraged. Saying people dig their own holes is completely missing how those who make these companies and have the capital to do so had it to start with normally. I'll admit, there's a few that did it all by themselves, but the vast majority at the top? No, they didn't do it by themselves. And they'll play the successes of the ones that did over and over again, because people won't notice the bodies littering the road of success, the dreams crushed, the families cast into the churning waters if they keep your eyes on the ones that made it.

Yeah, our Congress is dumb. What a shock, a body of terribly partisan hacks, without real accountability to the populace because of the incumbency effect, combined with the overall apathy and lack of information from the voting populace lets them get off scot-free doesn't actually help. Color me surprised. The same people that take donations and money from the tech billionaires not doing anything to regulate them? Gasp. It is a pathetic. What do you suggest we do to stop it quickly? Cause I can tell you the only thing that would is violence, and I'd rather avoid that. So we're stuck with slow, state by state passing of ranked choice voting, making third parties more viable. Attempting to engage more on election day through making it a holiday. Trying to hand the reigns of the country back to the actual people.

I think there are still ways to resist. For instance I don't use Facebook. What for? It is just useless crap... I don't have Netflix. I shop at my neighbourhood stores mostly, so I only used Amazon when I cannot find something, and this does not happen often.

I have never used Uber or Lyft. If I lived in California I would be really pissed off that the judges are such cowards that do not rule against Uber or Lyft in matters so obvious as their personnel being considered EMPLOYEES, which is what they are, employees as defined by law. I am shocked these companies may violate the law so blatantly and judges do not stop them. Because even if the company wants to shut down their operation that will happen only after they pay all they owe in taxes and penalties for breaking the law.

I have never bought any product by Apple.

For me this is acting responsibly, I try to abide by my principles and will not help these companies to be monopolies. But of course this is a personal choice, and other people may think different.

 

[Zugzug]

When are you libtards going to admit that high taxes and Government regulations do slow down the progress of biomedical sciences?

How do high taxes inherently slow down biomedical research? What if those tax dollars went towards more NSF, NIH grants and less towards bombastic military budgets (I support a big military budget, but it should be less than what it is)? To me, the bigger problem is a lack of prioritization of science as a whole. This has been mentioned before, but where do you think biotech researchers develop their skills? Many get advanced training at elite National labs with big names receiving top dollar grants. People don't just wake up as experts in medicine, ready for a venture capital operation.

Also, I find it slightly peculiar that you are so against fraud, scams, false claims, etc. and yet want the government to get out of the way for snake oil salesmen.

I will admit, my medical experiences have changed my opinions on compassionate use. I do think the individual should have more of a direct voice in this process, as opposed to being another number. If this is a liberal only problem, that is news to me.

 

[PeteJ]

When are you libtards going to admit that high taxes and Government regulations do slow down the progress of biomedical sciences?

High taxes just causes corporations to look for loopholes or move off shore or move production to another country.

Ross Perot among others pointed this out way back in '92. But, of course, the MSM and the two collusion parties mocked him and "shut his message down."

But, specifically biomedical science, if they have no more funds left from taxes and expenses, research allocation will be more limited.

Governments who give grants and handouts will only give them to their friends and this sort of relationship isn't ideal either.

 

[PeteJ]

I'll agree that government regulation slows down biomedical science. That's not a liberal thing, that's an everyone thing, though. For example, stem cells. We have regulation there, and some want to go so far to prevent ALL stem cell research, not just research using abortions as a stem cell source, even though I'm pretty certain that's already illegal. That's not liberals, that's conservatives. The other regulations are meant to prevent snake oil salesman from getting out there. Granted, it doesn't work 100%, but it's better than the old days of someone coming in with a cart and spreading their bullshit cures. Would be nice if the FDA actually took itself seriously on that front, but it would need to have the funds to pay for such dedicated snake oil trappers.

Considering the public funds that go to colleges to research biomedical science, though, I'd say the jury's still out on how much it hurts it for taxes. We sure discovered a lot of medical research in the 50s to 80s, when the upper income tax bracket was an eye watering 90-70% for the upper income bracket. It's only 37% now.

Many regulations impede progress in a number of ways. I am not an expert but they often slow progress by forcing companies to run through hoops before something gets to market or showing favoritism to one company over another. Or regulations are so costly, it is financially prohibitive so that causes limitations to investment, R&D etc.

 

[Carlos1]

We all need to stop name calling and stop playing 'teams' against each other and start realizing we are all Americans and deserve a government with or without party lines that work together towards the common good... for all of us.

 

[Christiaan]

The same goes for you, @Christiaan. Great discussion. To answer your question - yes, my background is in finance and economics. That's why I have a strong interest in politics. How about yourself?

I'm a firm believer that finance professionals should have a solid understanding of economics. In my experience, many finance students and even those within the industry just want to manage/invest money without examining the bigger picture. Understanding how markets work makes it easier to understand how the financial system works. After all, we don't want to end up with a mess like 2007-2008 again.

Well said. We share differing opinions, but we both want the best for society at the end of the day.

Well, it's slightly different than yours @Emgee: background in Political Science (but didn't finish my bachelor thesis) and student-teacher in English and French. I have also been politically active for a rightwing conservative party in my youth (VVD), but slowly moved to a liberal centrist party (D'66) and finally a left wing party (currently active for the Socialist Party) in my 20's due to experience and fair bit of research. So you could say I'm also deeply rooted in the political game

I agree with you about getting the bigger picture & as a way to find problems and address them. I find it frustrating that some economists think that the market is an amoral entity and therefore there's no need to discuss how a market ought to behave or work, but rather as a system that just simple exist by the mere transaction between individuals in order to satisfy their own desires. Yet the circumstances in which a transaction takes place, may only be facilitated on shared cultural and political values between actors and shaped in the form of rules by people who we have given a political mandate directly or indirectly. The recognition of a specific currency (why coins instead of shells for instance), the dominance of the English language as lingua franca in global institutions like the UN (e.g. partly due to historical dominance GB and US and trade + strong ties with non-English countries in the West), a set of regulations for fair play (against protectionism and trade dumping, etc.), mutual trust (e.g. paying off foreign loans) didn't exists out of thin air, but are deliberately used and formulated in policy to make that transaction possible.

 

[WillBeNimble]

I am shocked these companies may violate the law so blatantly and judges do not stop them.

Same. Really shocking how lackadaisical they are with holding corps to account. Certainly not how Teddy would have dealt with them.

I'd rather pull away from this discussion, though, as it's not really getting anywhere. Although I applaud your choices that support the local community, as the judges not holding Uber and Lyft to account should show, it takes more than a few individuals boycotting a service to really effect them. It's a nice gesture, and shows a heart that's in the right place, but it's not gonna stop them.

 

[all to gain]

Isn't that the American Dream -- building something from nothing instead of inheriting it?

What do you think?

I wonder what Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been like as president? He obviously wanted to stand but couldn't due to not being born in the US I think.

 

[PeteJ]

We all need to stop name calling and stop playing 'teams' against each other and start realizing we are all Americans and deserve a government with or without party lines that work together towards the common good... for all of us.

Nope. I am glad I am not in the USA because it's bad enough here.

The liberals here are my enemy and they support people that hate me. I feel sorry for the ordinary people in the USA who has to put up with those people. Those people ruin lives.

 

[Christiaan]

Who had the "Trump looks up to Putin" bingo card in this thread again?

Well, his flirtations with Russia (or women) didn't stop there

 

[PeteJ]

I wonder what Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been like as president? He obviously wanted to stand but couldn't due to not being born in the US I think.

He eventually sold out and became a liberal but he was part of the liberal status quo that destroyed California.

Many wealthy Hollywood elites are leaving California. They sell their mansions and move. Wasn't Arnold the only Republican governor in California in many years? The majority of mayors and governors in California have been Democrats and supposedly the state is broke. The shutdown only exacerbated an already deteriorating situation.

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/n...oks-like-orange-countys-before-going-bankrupt

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news...43-billion-deficit--signaling-deep-cuts-ahead

 

[FGG]

Well, his flirtations with Russia (or women) didn't stop there
View attachment 40352

Is that marker note for him (ie is this his copy?) or for someone else?

 

[Christiaan]

Is that marker note for him (ie is this his copy?) or for someone else?

It's his.