2016 U.S. Presidential Election

[pcm92]

Are you republicans for real

Yes. Speaking about politics is not a game.

Paying middle class and poor people a living wage for working 40+ hours a week is bad for the economy? Do you guys even know how an economy works?

Like I said before, most companies will be out of business because they can't afford to pay their employees. You also want to put U.S. jobs overseas. I think that's terrible for the economy. Not to mention the money the U.S. owes China.

You guys keep on voting for more corporate tax breaks, they continue to take their jobs out of this country and you attack when workers will get a pay raise? WTF Bizzaro world do you live in? Most companies have a TON of profit from people, yet whenever someone is like 'We should raise the minimum wage', everyone goes "NO NO WE WONT HAVE JOBS NO MORE". California already signed the law and Seattle has had great success. California will raise it slowly (which is the smart move) by .50 cents increments until 2023. Will it have be a success? Depending on how corporations act, yes. Th worse thing to come out of it is automation with robots, but that will happen REGARDLESS. Once middle class and poor people get more money in their pockets, I guarantee you it will be spent and boost the economy. 

Democrats don't give the GOP a chance and instead they have blamed the Republicans for tax-cutting proposals. They have already started to brand the plans from presidential candidates as handouts to the rich. They have also called it fiscally irresponsible. Democrats have a history of name calling. How can the economy be better if Sanders has proposed a 45% tariff on goods imported from China? Do you really want inflation to go up by that much? Do you want to pay 45% more for everything you buy? How about we make stuff in the U.S. instead? Sanders also wants the U.S. economy to be more like Scandinavian countries. I like the way the country is now. If I didn't, I would be living in a Scandinavian country. Republicans have not always went around saying you have to raise taxes on someone else to cut taxes for another set of people. During this election, Ted Cruz is the only one who wants the Republicans to go back to their roots and have a tax plan similar to Ronald Reagan's. He was the best president we ever had.

Now Feminism is a issue? God forbid we don't treat women like second class citizens, thats an issue!

He isn't giving 'free college' he is making PUBLIC COLLEGES free.

Again, research before you post and stop watching Fox News for a few days.

1. I didn't say feminism was an issue. Spock, who claims to be moderate said that.
2. Colleges are not ever meant to be free. If they were, there would be no purpose for student loans.
3. I don't have to do research, if I already know how the government is meant to work. You do because you clearly don't know a thing about how the U.S. should handle it's economic policies.

[Spock]

I once thought Ted Cruz would win in the  primaries. I now realize there is about a 90% chance Donald Trump will. He can't beat Hillary Clinton unless Suzanna Martinez is chosen as his vice president. I suppose that means conservative candidates will have to wait until 2020 to win. Hillary Clinton will be like the old white version of Barack Obama. Tom Cotton would beat her in 2020.

[Tad]

Bit off topic, but Obama keeps appearing on the news over here in the UK and telling us not to leave the EU.

No, Mr Obama, you do not get a say in this. Especially when we all know full well America would never dream of giving up sovereignty or opening your boarders freely.

[JRcade19]

What do you mean never giving up sovereignty? The US absolutely gave up a lot of Sovereignty alongside Canada and Mexico when it signed NAFTA.

It gave up some Sovereignty when it organized NATO. It doesn't matter what the Citizens think, the fact of the matter is if a NATO member were to be caught up in a hot conflict, Americans everywhere could decry fighting over in Europe, but the US would still deploy.

Same thing in East Asia with Mutual Defense Treaties with AUS, SK and JP. Signing those required the US to give up some sovereignty in the utility of its armed forces.

There's also institutions that the US, UK and others lent their hands to creating such as the UN, IMF, World Bank so on and so forth that added a lot of baggage into what even their creators could do bureaucratically. They actually just had a session discussing this a bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLWQ3WkOjE

Starts at about 59 minutes in an goes on till around 1:09

Finally it should be noted that he isn't really telling the UK to stay in. He offered an Opinion on why they should stay and gave his reasons, the same way other world leaders try to offer their "advice" to US voters on not pushing for Trump

Ultimately though, throughout that entire session he probably emphasises it 3 or 4 times that the Choice belongs to the British people alone since it is their country and he is offering his opinion because the workings of the UK are important to the US, and British influence as a whole is better for the EU.

You already have Visa free travel for example, but aren't forced to open borders because you have Shengen exemption.
You are part of the single market, yet do not have to tie yourself heavily to the euro necessarily in favor of Pounds.
The UK overall is a very special state in the whole of the EU with a ton of exemptions to it already, but whatever choice its people make should be respected.

[Tad]

That's not what I mean. Since the 70s, the UK and Europe has been getting closer which is fine. However, in the 80s, a new set of rules were put forward that would make everyone in the EU merge their policies into one which directly stops locally elected politicians and democracy in each respected country. The result? It was universally thrown out. So what did the EU do? They lied to people.

They pretended to throw those rules out and start a new set which were actually mostly the same only dressed up. They called it, the lisbon treaty and people bought it.

Since then, 70% of laws by each nation have been made by the EU regardless of the countries own views and it's only gotten worse as times gone on. Unelected representives, law makers etc. Especially with the addition of (no disrespect intended) weaker countries into the system. It's created a very unbalanced system that works against all the countries in different ways.

I'm not opposed to the idea of the EU, just the way this one is doing it. Yes, we should and will work together, but one rule for all is an absurd idea as we're all different countries with different needs.

As for the vote. The media and the "in" campaign has already decided to use project fear to win. I'm 99% certain the people have bought into this and the "in" campaigners have successfully shut down the debate before it began.

[Aki-at]

We vote for our European parliament. They aren't unelected.

Also Europe has done a lot more for our country than some of our elected governments including this one, which deems it required to advise a maximum of 10 years in prison for pirates. Astonishing work Dave and co.

Certainly there are issues with it but then there are issues with every single system including universal credit, public health care, state funded education etc.

And Obama has every right to tell us where we stand outside the EU, as much as everyone loved telling the Scots were they stood without England.

[Barry the Nomad]

Yeah, I wasn't really understanding why some of my British friends were so pissed off about Obama having an opinion on the EU thing. He's the president of the United States. The EU thing has huge implications with foreign trade and how we all interact globally. If you disagree with whatever he says, that's fine, but to say he has no right to weigh in is just ignorant.

[Tad]

@Aki-at There not the ones I'm talking about. There's many others above even them who weren't elected. Many say they're not law makers and are only there to suggest, but just as I have shown in my last post, they get their way eventually. Look at Ireland for example. They said no on a vote to join the EU. So what did the EU do? Force them to vote again...yeah.

@Barry. Don't think it's him there annoyed about, just the way Cameron's done it. Not saying he's not right or shouldn't have an opinion, but the way they've done it was deliberate and very much Cameron's style. He's scared stiff of being the PM with a bad legacy of the UK breaking up. We saw this in the Scottish referendum too. Sadly, our "main" party leaders are all pretty poor, so.

I should point out, I'm unsure on leaving (not made my mind up yet), but as stated above, the discussion seems to have been shut down before it even began.

[Spock]

Do you like David Cameron? Also, - since the Queen is so old - what is your opinion of Charles surpassing Queen Elizabeth when she dies?

[Tad]

Not particularly. I doubt he's a bad person as such, but as a prime minister he's shown himself up far too many times. The problem is, Labour's party is full of just as many poor politicians. They rely on shock PC tactics and offer little in terms of substance, and that's without mentioning their leader who beliefs in some silly things. He's also started to flip flop of certain things too like the EU.

I've never been too concerned with the royal family. They're slowly becoming irrelevant, which in a way is a shame mind. They're a big part of British culture. Also, I think Charles won't take the job. I think it'll go to William.

[Aki-at]

I've been out of the political shabang for a while so let me say holy moly at Dave saying Khan supports IS, what the bloody hell.

@Aki-at There not the ones I'm talking about. There's many others above even them who weren't elected. Many say they're not law makers and are only there to suggest, but just as I have shown in my last post, they get their way eventually. Look at Ireland for example. They said no on a vote to join the EU. So what did the EU do? Force them to vote again...yeah.

I'm not sure I'm following here Tad, the Republic of Ireland has only ever had one vote in joining the EU or not and that had an overwhelming majority in favour of joining the European communities.

Yeah, I wasn't really understanding why some of my British friends were so pissed off about Obama having an opinion on the EU thing. He's the president of the United States. The EU thing has huge implications with foreign trade and how we all interact globally. If you disagree with whatever he says, that's fine, but to say he has no right to weigh in is just ignorant.

The out campaign have been saying we could get a better deal with America if we were outside of the European Union so I would think we would want to hear what the man in charge of America has to say on the matter.

[Tad]

No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Libson treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.

[Aki-at]

No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Libson treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.

Eh but the Lisbon Treaty wasn't a in or out vote, what the Irish people voted for wasn't leaving the EU, they've been a member for decades.

Being "forced" to vote on the treaty again is a bit of a misunderstanding on what the treaty was or how the EU functions. They needed all member states to vote in favour of it or else it wouldn't go to pass, it's not unreasonable to suggest one country to rethink their position on the matter after the EU gave them certain concession.

What do you feel the Lisbon Treaty has done that undermines the EU?

And the leave campaign was the first to suggest our dealings will be easier with America outside of the EU, I don't like Cameron but he was absolutely in the right to bring Obama in.

[Team Andromeda]

No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Lisbon treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.

Well said.  The EU is a joke and the sooner we're out the better .  The EU isn't democratic at all. Btw it wasn't just the Irish but the French and the Dutch that voted to against the Lisbon. The EU does want it always does and just push on regardless.The EU didn't accept the elected governments of Greece either  and forced them back to the polls , till they got what they wanted .

So rich to see that Lame duck President tell us how to vote . No way inthe world . You the USA give sovereignty up to the EU, much less allow the Court of justice have  president over their Supreme court

[Barry the Nomad]

Obama can't give his opinion on the EU situation? What is up with some of you guys?