2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Knew what?

You know, those things that I said? In my post? With actual words? That you airily dismissed?

Tell me how does the deficit run up by the GOP compare to the truly massive debt run up by Barack Obama?

I believe I already did. Let me break it down a little more:

a) Debt are deficit are different things;
b) The deficit is the GOP's doing;
c) The GOP has blocked any feasible means of addressing their deficit;
d) The deficit causes the debt;
e) Thus, it is not "debt run up by Barack Obama".

Also, I recall the GOP lower chamber continually trying to address the massive spending and the budget, only to be thwarted by the Democrat controlled Senate.

"Trying to address" as in, ram through politically unacceptable spending cuts there's no popular mandate for, and refusing on a rigidly doctrinaire basis to address the revenue side. Including demanding the continuation of unfunded tax cuts, and indeed agitating for more such.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

You know, those things that I said? In my post? With actual words? That you airily dismissed?


I believe I already did. Let me break it down a little more:

a) Debt are deficit are different things;
b) The deficit is the GOP's doing;
c) The GOP has blocked any feasible means of addressing their deficit;
d) The deficit causes the debt;
e) Thus, it is not "debt run up by Barack Obama".



"Trying to address" as in, ram through politically unacceptable spending cuts there's no popular mandate for, and refusing on a rigidly doctrinaire basis to address the revenue side. Including demanding the continuation of unfunded tax cuts, and indeed agitating for more such.

Debt, deficit, whatever? How is Barack Obama spending $10 Trillion more than we have, responsible?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

If she was an "abject failure" tell us why.

Seems Carly Fiorina isn't afraid to tackle that one... “Titles Are Not Accomplishments,” and her ad takes the bull by the horns. Carly sure could make this election interesting.

arold10

Amerika wrote: »

I’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at. But when you talk about the mess left by Bush are you referring to the recession brought on by the democrat’s forcing banks to make risky home loans and lend to people who couldn’t afford to pay them, and the subsequent greed of the banking industry because of it?

I was on my bed about to do something else when I posted my answer, so I didn't really take enough time to write a thoughtful answer. Well, You can't just conclude entirely that the recession was caused by the Democrats that's kind of playing the blame game. The recession had a lot to do with George Bush's failed economic policies during that period. By the way, the financial crisis did not occur until September 2008 while the recession actually began in 2007.

matthew8

Whatever about George Bush the second, it's harsh to call the first Bush a disaster, and even harsher to tie Jeb to those two. What he is is a very capable politician who seems to be going about things the right way. As for Fiorina, I'll be stunned if she makes it to the Iowa caucus. Never held public office. There's being anti-establishment and liking outsiders, and then there's someone with absolutely no qualifications for the role.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Seems Carly Fiorina isn't afraid to tackle that one... “Titles Are Not Accomplishments,” and her ad takes the bull by the horns. Carly sure could make this election interesting.

I'll reply to you other post when I have time. But are you seriously using this fascetious nonsense to back up you argument?

OMG! Randomly selected people on the street didn't know what the Secretary of State achieved!

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I'll reply to you other post when I have time. But are you seriously using this fascetious nonsense to back up you argument?

It's a campaign ad. And represents what a lot of people feel about H Clinton

OMG! Randomly selected people on the street didn't know what the Secretary of State achieved!

They're called VOTERS.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

They're called VOTERS.

That's a rather strong and hasty assumption, in these days of Republican mass voter disenfranchisement. Sorry, I mean "vote fraud prevention".

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

It's a campaign ad. And represents what a lot of people feel about H Clinton

It represents what a lot of GOP supporters feel about Hilary. With zero balance or impartiality. It's not a quotable source to support your argument.

They're called VOTERS.

So why not show the voter who are aware her achievements while we're at it.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It represents what a lot of GOP supporters feel about Hilary. With zero balance or impartiality. It's not a quotable source to support your argument.

Since when was a campaign ad supposed to be impartial? Regardless, I’d say it represents more then just the GOP… like Independents and seemingly a lot of Democrats. In a lot of ways the ad targets Independents IMO.

And it seems even Hillary Clinton was unable to name a major accomplishment of hers, either.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cant-name-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/

And for you're reading enjoyment... Can't get much better than such glowing endorsements from top Democrats.
https://www.americarisingpac.org/lets-play-game-many-people-cant-name-hillary-clinton-accomplishment-state-department/

So why not show the voter who are aware her achievements while we're at it.

You’re not from around here, are you? You see that’s the problem... Nobody seems to be able to list any major accomplishments of hers. But it doesn’t matter. The American people will probably elect her simply because she is a woman. Proof in my books of the decline of America.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's a rather strong and hasty assumption, in these days of Republican mass voter disenfranchisement. Sorry, I mean "vote fraud prevention".

What "Republican mass voter disenfranchisement?"

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

What "Republican mass voter disenfranchisement?"

Start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States. Unless of course you've seen almost any Daily Show ep in the last six years.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States. Unless of course you've seen almost any Daily Show ep in the last six years.

All those things listed were done by Republicans?

Regardless, I now can see some voter suppression in the works.

Purging dead people off the rolls. Yes, the dead are being disenfranchised. Although I don’t think many of them are complaining.

Purging people who have moved off the rolls. Yeah, all those in a New York State Of Mind are being disenfranchised.

Purging felons off the rolls. Even though they aren’t allowed to vote, they are already paying a heavy debt to society, right?

Requiring Photo ID’s. You need photo ID’s for just about everything... like buying alcohol, opening a bank account, applying for food stamps, applying for welfare, applying for medicare and social security, applying for unemployment benefits, applying for a mortgage, driving a car, getting on an airplane, getting married, getting a hotel room, getting a cell phone. BUT TO VOTE! OMG... GRAB THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS AND LETS STORM GOP HEADQUARTERS!!!!.

(although it does make for good comedy on The Daily Show.)

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Regardless, I now can see some voter suppression in the works.

Well, indeed. So why the question, then? Just looking for a straight line for the usual Faux News talking points about OMG MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD clamp the heck down on this.

Evidence for the scale of the "problem"? The Post: "A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast." Not proven, mind. Credible.

Evidence of the scale of the problem with the "solution"? A million people just in Texas lack the form of ID that was proposed there. But sure, those people must not exist, because Amerika says so. Or at least, doesn't care about 'em.

Thus, generously, the rate of fraud is one in ten million. The rate of attempted disenfranchisement is closer to one in ten. The solution is, quite literally, a million times worse than the problem.

You might not have to a Republican to support such measures. But it certainly helps.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, indeed. So why the question, then? Just looking for a straight line for the usual Faux News talking points about OMG MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD clamp the heck down on this.

Evidence for the scale of the "problem"? The Post: "A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast." Not proven, mind. Credible.

Evidence of the scale of the problem with the "solution"? A million people just in Texas lack the form of ID that was proposed there. But sure, those people must not exist, because Amerika says so. Or at least, doesn't care about 'em.

Thus, generously, the rate of fraud is one in ten million. The rate of attempted disenfranchisement is closer to one in ten. The solution is, quite literally, a million times worse than the problem.

You might not have to a Republican to support such measures. But it certainly helps.

I think it's you who are into talking points with the Republican voter suppression nonsense.

Because voting is one of our most sacred of rights and needs to have it's integrity intact. Or should we eliminate Photo ID requirements from everything as they all disenfranchise someone? Or just the ones you non-Republicans decide upon?

bnt

Jeb Bush just threw his hat in the ring. Speech has the usual mix of "America is on the wrong path" and "I can fix it" rhetoric.

Thargor

bnt wrote: »

Jeb Bush just threw his hat in the ring. Speech has the usual mix of "America is on the wrong path" and "I can fix it" rhetoric.

A candidate thats ashamed of his own surname, thats a new one:

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

A candidate thats ashamed of his own surname, thats a new one:

Seems to be the standard these days.

Thargor

Clintons one is just branding though, you know Bush is actually trying to distance himself :P

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

Clintons one is just branding though, you know Bush is actually trying to distance himself :P

I’m really starting to like this Hillary brand.

I’m so tired of working, and don’t really feel like doing it any more.

Lucky me that Hillary has now proposed the GREAT SHARED PROSPERITY PROGRAM, She is going to see to it that the government gives me money because I deserve the same as all those people who educated and trained themselves in order to get good paying jobs. I now can sit home and watch television, go the store and gas station with my EBT card, and enjoy talking the day away with my fellow slackers... courtesy of a government provide free phone (Obamaphone)!

So, the only question is how fast will my SHARED PROSPERITY CARD come in the mail after she wins? I have lots of stuff I’d like to get at Walmart. (Hey, I won’t be shopping at Macy’s. because I do have some integrity, you know.)

PopePalpatine

Oh, not this Obamaphone bollocks again.

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh, not this Obamaphone bollocks again.

I honestly thought that was a typo for "Obamaphobe", the first three times I read it.

I think the eye just naturally sliiiiiides off the typical Amerika post, these days.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

I honestly thought that was a typo for "Obamaphobe", the first three times I read it.

I think the eye just naturally sliiiiiides off the typical Amerika post, these days.

But you keep getting back on that slide, I see. Three times, eh?

Carly Fiorina has been making the talk show rounds lately. I saw her on MSNBC this morning. Liking her more and more every day.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

But you keep getting back on that slide, I see. Three times, eh?

Well, I'm subscribed to the thread, and you're not on 'ignore' just yet, so it tends to... just happen.

Carly Fiorina has been making the talk show rounds lately. I saw her on MSNBC this morning. Liking her more and more every day.

What's the differential diagnosis here, if any? Mostly your take seems to just be "never saw a Republican candidate I didn't like, or a Democrat I did". Which is going to make for a distinctly dull season of primaries, from your angle.

Unless the GOP are in total meltdown and panic on the "OMG, cod-feminist Republicans are defecting en masse to Hillary, we need a woman! Even of any kind!" front, Fiorina is a complete non-starter. But who knows, maybe some slice of the electorate will buy the head-fake, and decide the party's not quite as woman-unfriendly as... well, it is, basically.

PopePalpatine

The "Obamaphone" urban legend sounds like classic "welfare queen" bollocks. There's a real whiff of "DEM DARKIES BE STEALIN MUH MONEY!!1!!" off it.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Lucky me that Hillary has now proposed the GREAT SHARED PROSPERITY PROGRAM, She is going to see to it that the government gives me money because I deserve the same as all those people who educated and trained themselves in order to get good paying jobs. I now can sit home and watch television, go the store and gas station with my EBT card, and enjoy talking the day away with my fellow slackers... courtesy of a government provide free phone (Obamaphone)!

So, the only question is how fast will my SHARED PROSPERITY CARD come in the mail after she wins? I have lots of stuff I’d like to get at Walmart. (Hey, I won’t be shopping at Macy’s. because I do have some integrity, you know.)

It's posts like this which just p*ss me off.

I'm not American, and I don't live there so I have nothing to gain from programs like these, but I find it baffling that you would live under this notion that the majority of those in poverty are there by choice, and rather than not being able to get a well-paying job, they choose to be lazy. This notion is complete bs and is why I've no time for the majority of conservatives in America, because they are either blind to the facts, or are so rich they have the potential to lose a lot of wealth under a welfare state.

If you don't believe me, look at the facts;(according to the Fed) the top 10% own 84.5% of assets in America, while the bottom 50% own a grand total of 0.8% of assets. There are far more statistics than this, but all show the disgusting state of the country insofar as the richest of the rich control almost all of the wealth in the country, and manage to get away with it by creating total bs notions that welfare programs would only cause laziness among the masses.

You can believe what you want to believe, and clearly you do that a lot, but I do hope that someday you'll open your eyes and realise that everything Karl Rove created was designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's posts like this which just p*ss me off.

I'm not American, and I don't live there so I have nothing to gain from programs like these, but I find it baffling that you would live under this notion that the majority of those in poverty are there by choice, and rather than not being able to get a well-paying job, they choose to be lazy. This notion is complete bs and is why I've no time for the majority of conservatives in America, because they are either blind to the facts, or are so rich they have the potential to lose a lot of wealth under a welfare state.

If you don't believe me, look at the facts;(according to the Fed) the top 10% own 84.5% of assets in America, while the bottom 50% own a grand total of 0.8% of assets. There are far more statistics than this, but all show the disgusting state of the country insofar as the richest of the rich control almost all of the wealth in the country, and manage to get away with it by creating total bs notions that welfare programs would only cause laziness among the masses.

You can believe what you want to believe, and clearly you do that a lot, but I do hope that someday you'll open your eyes and realise that everything Karl Rove created was designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

It is the classic blame the poor for being poor. It's their own fault as they are lazy. Not only do the wealthy control the significant majority of wealth in the US but the US system of governent is so broken and corrupted now by the flood of money since citizens united that means the congress is essentially bought and paid for by wealthy individuals and corporations. In many ways the US is an oligarchy now. The idea that the US is a meritocracy is a myth. The US has very poor socio-economic mibility compared to other developed countries. Lack of social mobility means many people lose any hope of ever being able to better themselves as they see no hope of being able to do so. Education is a massive factor in giving opportunity to people yet the US in many states is slashing its education budgets and teachers are being fired. This will only increase the lack of socio-economic mobility in the US as these educational cutbacks won't affect the wealthy but will hurt those who need the opportunities that education can provide the most. The rising costs of college is another factor.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

All those things listed were done by Republicans?

Regardless, I now can see some voter suppression in the works.

Purging dead people off the rolls. Yes, the dead are being disenfranchised. Although I don’t think many of them are complaining.

Purging people who have moved off the rolls. Yeah, all those in a New York State Of Mind are being disenfranchised.

Purging felons off the rolls. Even though they aren’t allowed to vote, they are already paying a heavy debt to society, right?

Requiring Photo ID’s. You need photo ID’s for just about everything... like buying alcohol, opening a bank account, applying for food stamps, applying for welfare, applying for medicare and social security, applying for unemployment benefits, applying for a mortgage, driving a car, getting on an airplane, getting married, getting a hotel room, getting a cell phone. BUT TO VOTE! OMG... GRAB THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS AND LETS STORM GOP HEADQUARTERS!!!!.

(although it does make for good comedy on The Daily Show.)

I have to agree. When I hear talk about voter suppression I just hear people wanting to make the system easier to swindle. Take for example people who need ID.

In Ireland, you HAVE to have ID to vote.

Personal identification
You must bring a valid form of personal identification, such as a passport or driving licence, with you when you go to vote.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/referenda/voting_in_a_referendum.html

Nobody has ever had a problem with this and I have never heard that requiring ID is one of the reasons why poorer Irish people are being disenfranchised. Even by those who have a soft Democractic bais in Ireland, yet they pull this stunt in an effort to show how 'evil' those republicans are...
If they are so concerned about this, then why not campaign for this in Ireland? Nah, don't think.

Of course people who cannot even organise an ID for themselves are exactly the type of voters Democratics want and exploit for pure political gains. Just look at Baltimore, a city run by Democrats for 50 years.... it must be paradise!

jank

Thargor wrote: »

Clintons one is just branding though, you know Bush is actually trying to distance himself :P

Not at all true. Hillary wants to distance herself from Bill, she is her own person, her own mind and all the dirty tricks regarding the 'Clinton' Foundation is in the past and not really her doing.....

Seems to be the race of the first name candidates, Jebb vs Hillary * cough* Bush vs Clinton Mark 3.0

To be honest, this is all getting boring, who will be the joker in the pack! It won't come from the Democrats, that is for sure. My guess is that Rubio could be it but can he win a national election? I do not think so, personally.

The Democrats seem more unified if not perhaps a little uninspired by another Clinton but the GOP seem scattered and divided. The irony of course is that I mentioned before (and came under fire for here but have been proven correct) is that Jebb will be arguably the most moderate GOP candidate, which 'could' do OK nationally but the base don't like him at all.

I am calling it, 48.5% Jebb vs 51.5% Clinton

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The "Obamaphone" urban legend sounds like classic "welfare queen" bollocks. There's a real whiff of "DEM DARKIES BE STEALIN MUH MONEY!!1!!" off it.

Its not bollocks if it actually happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor