2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

What is so hard to understand that the federal government is not constitutionally bound to provide it, as they are for the common defense. If we allow the federal government to overstep it's authority, then shame on us, as in Obamacare without a Constitutional Amendment. But the government cannot shirk it's responsibility to provide for our common defense.

So, what you're saying is there should be no Social Security? Or you think it should be at a state level? How could a state like Montana support that?

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

So, what you're saying is there should be no Social Security? Or you think it should be at a state level? How could a state like Montana support that?

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Social Security has made a contract with me, and owes me over $300,000 that I have paid into the system for over 40 years, not including any interest. That would be worth well over $2,500,000 if I were allowed to invest it for myself. Yet the government unilaterally keeps upping the age to start paying me back my own money in hopes I will die before they need to pay me anything, so they can steal it all, with non of it available to leave my family. I’d call that criminal... Socialists call it wonderful. Younger people here don’t realize there will be no Social Security left for them and yet are forced to pay into, for a system guaranteed to go bankrupt because politicians have continuously stolen from it. How is that a good thing?

Amerika

According to a poll conducted by Google Consumer Surveys for Independent Journal…. Carly Fiorina rocked the CNN GOP debate! As I expected she would. (of note is: polls are not always accurate, but they usually are good indicators)

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/carly-amongst-women-1024x512.jpg

Personally, I thought Fiorina won, with Rubio coming in second, then Kasich, Bush, Christie, Carson and Trump.

Thargor

Trump got bored half way through, you could see it, the guy is a spoiled man-child and this is just playtime for him. Maybe vaccines made him like this...

I do enjoy seeing him sticking it to Bush though, Bush always looks shocked when someone disrespects the dynasty.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I look forward to your providing the same treatment to her as you did Sanders with how much her changes will cost vs how much they'll take in. A penis measuring contest with Russia does sound worthwhile though.

Well, I’ve done some digging and believe Fiornia might have developed her military proposal from a study done by the Heritage Foundation, based on the ability to fight and win two major wars at the same time.

It is difficult to come up with a cost estimate for her proposal because of the wiggle room she provided in her numbers. By giving a range of 300 to 350 ships in her proposed Navy, and upgrading the country’s nuclear weapons, her proposals might be in line with what the Obama Administration is already doing. Also, with her troop numbers, the question remains if they are active duty personnel or a mixture of active duty and reserves, which would cause dramatically differences in price.

Ultimately if we take the highest amounts of her proposals and make all the troops active duty, then I believe we might be looking at a price tag of $500 Billion over ten years (and a far cry from Bernie Sanders $18 Trillion spending proposal).

I too would like to know how it will be paid for. If the economy improves then more revenues come in, but that leads to another problem. When the economy improves, so do wages, and the military would have to increase their pay scale in order to get the extra needed forces.

Then again we could save a lot of money by letting Europe stand on it’s own, and concentrating on other parts of world turmoil. Hey, Europe thinks the size of our military is too bloated already, right? We could still remain part of NATO, and if Putin continues his militaristic march to reshape Europe, we could fulfill our NATO commitments by providing blankets, right?

http://index.heritage.org/militarystrength/about/executive-summary/

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

and now your response tries to dodge the point of American arrogance and a shoot first ask question later attitude to insert a word unilaterally that I never used.


For instance after the invasion of Iraq based of course on lies and manipulation we have since seen a 600% increase in terrorism according to a recent study by Paul Cruickshank. According to the Guardian we have had a 5 fold increase in terrorism fatalities since the invasion.


America has real serious inequality and poverty issues at home. Maybe it needs a president more concerned about the welfare of its own people.

The Middle East was going to hell before our involvement in Iraq. There is no telling what the rise in terrorism would have been if we all would have left Iraq alone. But there is no denying that it might be even worse.

And what we need is a president that could deal with both domestic and international concerns. I don't see that ability coming from any of the Democratic candidates. Hell, I don't see any of the Democratic candidates being able to make a positive change in either one.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Is Obama running for a third term? Didnt think that was possible but he keeps getting brought up.

Having Hillary Clinton as POTUS would essentially afford us an Obama third term from many accounts. Or do you have some ultra secret information on how Hillary will be any different than Obama?

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

What is so hard to understand that the federal government is not constitutionally bound to provide it, as they are for the common defense. If we allow the federal government to overstep it's authority, then shame on us, as in Obamacare without a Constitutional Amendment. But the government cannot shirk it's responsibility to provide for our common defense.

IF?

You do realise that all treaties entered into are the supreme law of the land, don't you?
That's the 6th Amendment. Yet the federal government breaches it at the drop of a hat. Torture, war of aggression, collective punishment,

You do realise that the federal government reserves the right to read your email and tap your phone conversations and even raid your home without judicial oversight. That's the 4th Amendment.

So I guess.....yup, shame on you

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The US Constitution did not state the federal government was responsible for Social Security. It states the federal government is responsible in providing for the common defense.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - Preamble

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States - Article 1, Secton 8, Clause 1

furthermore,

A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I’ve done some digging and believe Fiornia might have developed her military proposal from a study done by the Heritage Foundation, based on the ability to fight and win two major wars at the same time.

It is difficult to come up with a cost estimate for her proposal because of the wiggle room she provided in her numbers. By giving a range of 300 to 350 ships in her proposed Navy, and upgrading the country’s nuclear weapons, her proposals might be in line with what the Obama Administration is already doing. Also, with her troop numbers, the question remains if they are active duty personnel or a mixture of active duty and reserves, which would cause dramatically differences in price.

Ultimately if we take the highest amounts of her proposals and make all the troops active duty, then I believe we might be looking at a price tag of $500 Billion over ten years (and a far cry from Bernie Sanders $18 Trillion spending proposal).

I too would like to know how it will be paid for. If the economy improves then more revenues come in, but that leads to another problem. When the economy improves, so do wages, and the military would have to increase their pay scale in order to get the extra needed forces.

Then again we could save a lot of money by letting Europe stand on it’s own, and concentrating on other parts of world turmoil. Hey, Europe thinks the size of our military is too bloated already, right? We could still remain part of NATO, and if Putin continues his militaristic march to reshape Europe, we could fulfill our NATO commitments by providing blankets, right?

http://index.heritage.org/militarystrength/about/executive-summary/

Considering the money spent already vs the rest of the world I dont see how much good more money will do. Obviously there's a problem with things now if the US is incapable of managing as it is.

I have yet to see how helping other countries keep their military spending low is better than improving things inside of their own country. Could probably end homelessness in the US for less than the cost of expanding the military. Saw 20 billion in one article for it. She sure has her priorities right.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I’ve done some digging and believe Fiornia might have developed her military proposal from a study done by the Heritage Foundation, based on the ability to fight and win two major wars at the same time.

Does this suggest that she will follow GW Bush and launch 2 wars during her administration (if elected)? In any case, beating the military drums as she has during her campaign should draw Military Industrial Complex funds to her PACs.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Does this suggest that she will follow GW Bush and launch 2 wars during her administration (if elected)? In any case, beating the military drums as she has during her campaign should draw Military Industrial Complex funds to her PACs.

Of course! Once she gets her hands on the nuclear football, she's bound to go all Dr. Strangelove on us. It's in our genes. Damn (R) chromosome.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - Preamble

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States - Article 1, Secton 8, Clause 1

furthermore,

Have you read any of the Founding Father's thoughts and writings on the general welfare clause?

MightyMandarin

So this Yale Professor seems to think that Fiorina's business record is atrocious and is one of the worst CEO's in America.

I can't see her as anything but a failure both in business and in politics.

"the worst because of her ruthless attack on the essence of this great company. ... She destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost $100 million in total payments for this destructive reign of terror."

This definitely sounds like a glowing recommendation.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So this Yale Professor seems to think that Fiorina's business record is atrocious and is one of the worst CEO's in America.

I can't see her as anything but a failure both in business and in politics.



This definitely sounds like a glowing recommendation.

"Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP's future growth"

"I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it."

--Tom Perkins, a member of the HP board during much of Fiorina's tenure and the founder of California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers.

Overheal

Perkins probably still got $20 million

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

The Middle East was going to hell before our involvement in Iraq. There is no telling what the rise in terrorism would have been if we all would have left Iraq alone. But there is no denying that it might be even worse.

And what we need is a president that could deal with both domestic and international concerns. I don't see that ability coming from any of the Democratic candidates. Hell, I don't see any of the Democratic candidates being able to make a positive change in either one.

Another post giving a perfect example of American exceptionalism aka american arrogance.


The middle east has had major issues going way back. But it was not going to hell until the US uncorked the bottle and opened pandora's box. Telling all sorts of lies to try and justify its invasion of Iraqi. There is plenty of denying the rise in terrorism would not have been worse at all. It is laughable that after the kind of fiasco that was and is American's invasion of Iraqi under false pretenses you even make that claim with no evidence to back it up. Despite the facts that after opening pandora's box the Americans then mis managed the post war situation to incredible levels with the results being a civil war and basically the complete colapse of the country know as Iraqi into different hostile groups never mind the introduction of genuine terrorists from outside into Iraqi that were not there before hand. Plus of course the facts of the massive upsurge in terrorism since the American invasion.


What we don't need is more American foreign policy that has an attitude of shoot first and ask questions later. We don't need an American president who thinks he can just kill his way to victory against terrorism beacuse all that mentality has done so far is make things worse.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

"Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP's future growth"

"I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it."

--Tom Perkins, a member of the HP board during much of Fiorina's tenure and the founder of California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers.

“I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded,”

~ Arianna Packard, the granddaughter of the Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard, wrote in a letter in 2010, when Mrs. Fiorina was a candidate in California for the United States Senate

MightyMandarin

'When can we get rid of Muslims?' asked one of Trumps supporters yesterday.

Nice to know that he didn't point out neither the blatant racism nor the idiocy of the man's 'question'. At least we can see the mindset of some of Trump's supporters and the ideologies he has tapped into.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

'When can we get rid of Muslims?' asked one of Trumps supporters yesterday.

Nice to know that he didn't point out neither the blatant racism nor the idiocy of the man's 'question'. At least we can see the mindset of some of Trump's supporters and the ideologies he has tapped into.

Infamous quote:

Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East."

Does Trump really believe what he says? If so, he is a racist that's appealing to the bigoted mob mentality that agrees with him.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

Does Trump really believe what he says? If so, he is a racist that's appealing to the bigoted mob mentality that agrees with him.

To be honest, I don't think he truly believes half the sh*t he says. Then again, I don't think the GOP candidates believe half the stuff they say.

Carly Fiorina went on a mad one in the debate talking a lot of nonsense about planned parenthood which was almost completely false. I think she knew what she was saying was crap, but had to say it in order to boost her 'conservative credentials'.

Ben Carson did this aswell. He disputed the 'vaccines cause autism' claim by Trump, but had to say that pediatricians realize need to cut down number and proximity of vaccines, which was complete nonsense.

While I don't like any of them all that much, I do feel sorry for a lot of the GOP candidates as they're forced to say and do a lot of stupid things in order to appeal to the 'base' of the GOP.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

While I don't like any of them all that much, I do feel sorry for a lot of the GOP candidates as they're forced to say and do a lot of stupid things in order to appeal to the 'base' of the GOP.

I don't care for any of the Republican or Democrat declared candidates for president (including the quasi-independent that typically votes with the Democrats). You would think that the world's Super Power would have Super Candidates, especially with over 300 million citizens to draw from? Thus far they are very disappointing.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

I don't care for any of the Republican or Democrat declared candidates for president (including the quasi-independent that typically votes with the Democrats). You would think that the world's Super Power would have Super Candidates, especially with over 300 million citizens to draw from? Thus far they are very disappointing.

Just out of curiosity, what do you want from a presidential candidate, and what do you not see in any of the declared candidates, particularly Sanders?

Personally, I like one with similar political, economic and social ideologies, who's articulate, trustworthy, has a good track record in political office and doesn't seem to be influenced by wealthy interest groups. In this cycle, the only one who comes close to this is Bernie imo.

The Randy Riverbeast

MightyMandarin wrote: »

While I don't like any of them all that much, I do feel sorry for a lot of the GOP candidates as they're forced to say and do a lot of stupid things in order to appeal to the 'base' of the GOP.

Reminds me of the Fox debate where they asked what god had told them what to do first as president? (and what about the veterans?)

They might as well asked what they thought of Clinton's hair if that was the level they were going for.

CompositeJohn

Amerika wrote: »

Did Reaganomics work? With 20 years of prosperity, and a rebuilt military, one would have to say yes. So, what has Obama’s $10 Trillion debt given us?

Ronald Reagan’s ideology working well here in Kansas! But I suppose its all Obamas fault....

http://kstreet607.com/2015/02/06/gov-sam-brownback-tried-to-turn-kansas-into-a-republican-utopia-and-the-results-are-laughably-bad/

EDIT: Needed to add this! http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6sn82w/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-sam-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment

and this haha http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5n7e4e/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-gopsters-paradise

DeadHand

MightyMandarin wrote: »

'When can we get rid of Muslims?' asked one of Trumps supporters yesterday.

Nice to know that he didn't point out neither the blatant racism nor the idiocy of the man's 'question'. At least we can see the mindset of some of Trump's supporters and the ideologies he has tapped into.

The question was idiotic but it was not racist as Islam isn't a race. Trump can hardly be expected to point out the "blatant racism" in a question that was not racist.

Amazing the amount of people who get this wrong.

MightyMandarin

DeadHand wrote: »

The question was idiotic but it was not racist as Islam isn't a race. Trump can hardly be expected to point out the "blatant racism" in a question that was not racist.

Amazing the amount of people who get this wrong.

Ugh, this nonsense argument again. Ok what he said wasn't 'racist' in the strict sense of the word, but it's discriminatory, bigoted and islamophobic.

Amazing the amount of people who use this as an excuse to lull themselves into a belief that they're not racists, bigots and just plain idiots.

DeadHand

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Ugh, this nonsense argument again. Ok what he said wasn't 'racist' in the strict sense of the word, but it's discriminatory, bigoted and islamophobic.

Amazing the amount of people who use this as an excuse to lull themselves into a belief that they're not racists, bigots and just plain idiots.

It's not a nonsense argument. It's the truth. What he said wasn't racist in any sense of the word.

So, you were wrong.

Funny how you manage to condemn the argument as "nonsense" and then concede it's right.

MightyMandarin

DeadHand wrote: »

It's not a nonsense argument. It's the truth. What he said wasn't racist in any sense of the word.

So, you were wrong.

Funny how you manage to condemn the argument as "nonsense" and then concede it's right.

It absolutely is a nonsense argument. This thread has nothing to do with Islam or Islamophobia and when I posted about the ridiculous question posed to Trump I had no intention of creating a debate on the matter.

DeadHand

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It absolutely is a nonsense argument. This thread has nothing to do with Islam or Islamophobia and when I posted about the ridiculous question posed to Trump I had no intention of creating a debate on the matter.

You just made a fundamental, common error that I pointed out.

You brought Islam into it (incorrectly).

Don't get vexed.

How can you simultaneously maintain it's a nonsense argument while conceding I'm right?