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



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 6, 2015)

No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 6, 2015)

Trump.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Pogo said:


> No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.



Then fuck off and don't discuss it.  I don't recall anyone sending you an engraved invitation, desperate to hear your opinions, anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Trump.



And the other half of the topic was "Why?"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 6, 2015)

If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.

There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.

I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Trump.
> ...



Honestly, because he isn't a politician. Also because he's rich already and not sucking up to billionaire donors doing their bidding. Every other GOP and Dem both are with the exception of Carson. But Carson's a religious crazy person.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.
> 
> There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.
> 
> I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.



I'm definitely curious about the "why" on this one.  How do you go from Bernie to Cruz as your first and second?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I don't worry a lot about donors as a rule.  I think it tells you a lot about a candidate to see which donors they align with, but as a general rule, I think ideology decides donors, rather than donors deciding ideology.

I am obviously looking for a conservative candidate, and I want someone who isn't chummy with the GOP establishment, but I'm very dubious about people who have no experience with the specific skill set of working in the government.  I think Obama has shown us how disastrous a complete neophyte can be.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.
> ...


Good question. Perhaps it is the order of honesty and integrity. Bernie has real issues. Most everyone else just does tired old talking points.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes, but aside from liking his issues, what do you think of his position on them?  And how do you go from liking Bernie to liking Cruz as a second choice, when their positions on the issues are so diametrically opposed?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 6, 2015)

For me it 'way early to throw my support behind any candidate.  A lot can happen between now and the convention.

That said, it can be well guaranteed that I will support whoever is not the Democrat candidate.  I only vote for Americans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> For me it 'way early to throw my support behind any candidate.  A lot can happen between now and the convention.
> 
> That said, it can be well guaranteed that I will support whoever is not the Democrat candidate.  I only vote for Americans.



Certainly a valid position.  I'm hoping this thread will continue and chronicle people's journey through the process and any changes in their leanings and focus.

That being said, do you have anyone in particular who's currently appealing?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > For me it 'way early to throw my support behind any candidate.  A lot can happen between now and the convention.
> ...



Rubio, Cruz and Carson all have points on the board. I am not convinced Trump is who he is trying to appear to be. I am ambivalent thus far to Fiorina. She might be fine in an attack-dog role. She's well-spoken but hasn't shown me nearly enough.

The others, pffft.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.



Totally agree with you about Cruz. He is  the best candidate for the next president. He will remove the regressive and destructive policies of the democrooks and the moonbat messiah. America will once again be a prosperous country, and we will have a CINC that commands respect from turd world despots. Our military will once again terrify nefarious actors, an it won't be used for social experiments by deviant libtard perverts. Illegals will be sent home, oxygen thieves will be motivated by hunger to be productive, and bed wetting parasites might even emigrate to Cuba.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 6, 2015)

I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.


----------



## BIG YANK BAL 1976 (Nov 6, 2015)

Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...

Repugs have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and next year will be 6 out of 7..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Carson is a good man, with good positions.  I'm still really dubious about the lack of applicable experience.  I want an outsider, but not an amateur.

Rubio utterly lost me on the subject of immigration, but I could definitely accept him as a VP.

Fiorina bores me, to be honest.  And Trump is all flash and bombast, and very likely to burn himself out as the campaign gets serious.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.



I think Cruz's campaign has been very strategically hanging back in the early stages and letting the "celebrity" candidates take the first hits while he positions himself for a later breakout.  That being said, I think he has a definite plan for appealing to moderates as well.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...
> 
> Repugs have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and next year will be 6 out of 7..



Well, that was utterly pointless and a waste of space.  Your belief that you had something to share was as funny as it was wrong.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.
> ...


Possum boy wants to be the center of attention in a discussion he doesn't belong in.


I'm still behind Marco Rubio. He has modified his immigratiin stance to where I can live with it and I think he can carry enough Conservatives into Congress along with him that the GOP would have 2 or maybe 4 years to fix a lot of what the current community organizer in chief has broken.

Let's get frank for a bit here. The Presidential election is nearly as much a beauty contest as a political rivalry.
It looks like the Democrats will end up with an old white guy from Vermont, or maybe what's her name, if she can stay out of jail long enough.
Beating either in a beauty contest isn't much of a challenge, but you gotta admit that Ted Cruz looks a lot like a grown up Eddie Munster. Kind of creepy... think Richard Nixon
Rubio is a good looking guy, very personable who I actually spent some time talking with back when he was running for the Senate.
He's got a cheerleader wife and cute kids.... John Kennedy

http://communitytable.parade.com/151898/galinaespinoza/at-home-with-marco-rubio/


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 6, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...
> 
> Repugs have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and next year will be 6 out of 7..


I see the brain transplant was unsuccessful. Sorry.


----------



## BIG YANK BAL 1976 (Nov 6, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...
> ...


Coming from some asshole that lives in a  toxic waste cesspool, and inbred territory that's a compliment, you country fried Southern hicks have been voting for the Repugs for 40 years now and still the poorest part of the country with the least amount of money, and most uninsured, and least educated, with the shortest lifespan, please keep voting for the same assholes that keep you poor..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> ...



We're trying to seriously discuss candidates here.  Get on board or go away.  No one's interested in your hateful partisan hackery derailing the thread.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 6, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> ...


Hmmmm, starts with calling a man with minimum 30 IQ points on him an asshole, blurts something about toxic waste, but offers nothing to substantiate THEN doubles down calling me inbred
I suggest you come on down here and find out what Southern living is all about. We'll sit you down and explain why we love it here and why you probably would too. 
I think I really should warn you though. My friends and neighbors are pretty serious about their heritage and 2nd amendment rights.
They REALLY hate being called "inbred". There are many like me that have 5 or 6 hundred acres of wooded land with predug holes.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 6, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Uhhmmm... you've got twice as many posts with umpteen times as many lines, most of which go into character assassination of present posters, so yeah tell us all about wanting to be a center of attention.

And you're right, I don't belong in this discussion.  My whole point was that nobody does, as its premise is invalid.  To wit: it's not "time" at all.

Carry on with the pointless wankitude.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Why are you still here, talking about a conversation you claim you don't want to take part in?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 6, 2015)

atm, I'm considering Fiorina, Rubio, or Cruz.  Having Fiorina in the mix in some way would be hugely beneficial, imo.  She's smart, savvy, doesn't take shit from people, and can take the heat of the boys club.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I'm not "still" here -- I left.  Ernie gave me a notification.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 6, 2015)

Pogo said:


> No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.



Or the Jerk Store. (no offense meant to OP, its a Seinfeld joke)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Aaaaand you're still talking.  I can only assume it's because leftists just can't bear the idea of people doing things they haven't personally approved.  God forbid they can't apply their own rhetoric:  if you don't like the debate, don't have it.  But don't try to prevent other people from doing so.

You're done.  Feel free to keep ranting and raving about "How dare you discuss this?!  NOBODY should be talking about this now!  Stop it!"  You get no more responses to your attempts to derail the thread.  Shoo, bug.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> atm, I'm considering Fiorina, Rubio, or Cruz.  Having Fiorina in the mix in some way would be hugely beneficial, imo.  She's smart, savvy, doesn't take shit from people, and can take the heat of the boys club.



I really can't think of anything Fiorina's offering that's standing out from the crowd to me.  I suppose she's smart enough, but most of the GOP candidates are.  She just feels kinda "meh" to me.  I dunno, maybe I'm just being affected by the fact that a lot of people seem very conscious of her being female.  Not something I react well to.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I have no reason to rant about that since it was never my point.  I challenged your premise; the one in the first two words of your title.  If you don't like it  --- tough titty.  Whatever.

Unsubscribing yet again.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 7, 2015)

So anyway, now that we've heard the obligatory, "I must derail the thread because REASONS!" posts, is there anyone who was leaning toward Ben Carson who's rethinking because of the West Point flap?  Or anyone who wasn't leaning that way who is now because of it?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Perhaps I spoke in haste. I am still in the process of elimination.

I like Fiorina and Kasich also.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.



I havent voted major party for president in years but here is my take.

Trade is one of the most important issues a president deals with, that and other foreign policy.  Our trade policy has been bought and manipulated by corporate whores.    

Trump at least pretends to be concerned about that.....
so in a way does Paul ...or at least his father did...saying it is not true free trade.

Cruz actually worked as a trade, something or other, in the Bush admin I believe, this immediately disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned...that and his wife worked for Goldman-Sachs.

Carson hasnt addressed it as far as I've heard 

Fiorina talks against the crony capitalism rampant in DC, 

on the other side I dont trust Hillary's new-found opposition to trade.
Sanders is also a critic of our trade policy.

so of the republicans probably Trump, Fiorina, Paul 
and the Democrats Sanders.


----------



## 320 Years of History (Nov 7, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> ...




....And thus why exists in the Alabaman vernacular the saying:  thank God for Mississippi.  LOL


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 7, 2015)

320 Years of History said:


> BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


So not even an attempt to address the subject. You have nothing to contribute here. Welcome to my ignore list. You've set a new record 6 days and I've deduced your total worthlessness.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 7, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Well, although I don't agree with you, I do have to say you're very clear on which issues matter to you and whose positions align with what you want, so that's certainly good.


----------



## 320 Years of History (Nov 7, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> 320 Years of History said:
> 
> 
> > BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> ...



Insofar as you even bothered to respond to that post, to say nothing of the immaturity with which you did respond, I think my being on your ignore list is best for us both.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 8, 2015)

Bernie sanders.

Of course, I don't agree with everything he stands for but I generally feel that he will fight for more infrastructure, science, r&d and higher wages.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Nov 8, 2015)

Bernie Sanders:

He keeps key issues front and center.

He knows the balance it will take.

He won't fight with congress.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 8, 2015)

A significant number of Americans – perhaps a majority – don't 'favor' any particular candidate; indeed, they don't vote 'for' someone, but against.

We vote against those whom we don't want to hold a given office, not 'for' someone whom we 'favor.'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 8, 2015)

Pogo said:


> No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.


Agree.

This nonsense of starting presidential campaigns almost two years before the GE is sheer idiocy; it's a disservice to both the voters and candidates to determine 'frontrunners' by subjective, errant opinion polls, political pundits, and inane 'debates' that really aren't debates.


----------



## Meathead (Nov 8, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Bernie Sanders:
> 
> 
> He won't fight with congress.


! Whew!


----------



## my2¢ (Nov 8, 2015)

I think there is something to be said about the ability to create 50 political organizations in each of the states and I fear Hillary has luxury of fine tuning hers in these next 12 months.  Thus I totally see those not being politicians as avenues to disaster for Republican chances a year from now.  My top tier choices are any of the following: Bush, Christy, Kasich, Rubio.  I'd put Cruz and Paul in the 2nd tier as I'm less hopeful of the success of Tea Party Republicans.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 8, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Bernie sanders.
> 
> Of course, I don't agree with everything he stands for but I generally feel that he will fight for more infrastructure, science, r&d and higher wages.


Predictable....
Hi Ho Silver! One trick pony rides again.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:


> Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...
> 
> Repugs have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and next year will be 6 out of 7..




Mindless bed wetters like this are the reason why I have given up even discussing things with libtards.

The republicrats haven't offered a decent POTUS candidate since 1984, and the media has made rock stars out of the democrook ones.

The moonbat messiah was the first president on the American Idiocracy.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I've noticed that Sander's uses talking points.  I actually find them to be old-school policy solutions, some debunked.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 8, 2015)

I go with Trump.  I can't vote for him in the primary.  Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I think Cruz's campaign has been very strategically hanging back in the early stages and letting the "celebrity" candidates take the first hits while he positions himself for a later breakout.  That being said, I think he has a definite plan for appealing to moderates as well.




Cruz's donations primarily come from small individual amounts,  not huge corporate grants. Cruz is very popular with voters. I don't see the "independents" as moderturds, they're mostly fiscal conservatives who could be called "socially liberal". Cruz will appeal to them by standing on the concept of the 10th Amendment. He will tell you what he believes, but will not use federal power to enforce his morality like the democrooks use it to enforce their lack of morality.

Moderturds are little more than democrooks who pretend to be republicrats and insist that independent voters are one mean word away from voting democrook. Trump has the so called "independent moderates" locked down at the moment, shining light on the moonbat lie.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

Programmer said:


> I've noticed that Sander's uses talking points.  I actually find them to be old-school policy solutions, some debunked.




All leftist policy has been debunked.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I really can't think of anything Fiorina's offering that's standing out from the crowd to me.  I suppose she's smart enough, but most of the GOP candidates are.  She just feels kinda "meh" to me.  I dunno, maybe I'm just being affected by the fact that a lot of people seem very conscious of her being female.  Not something I react well to.



The fact she neglected to pay the salaries of her senate campaign staff for 6 years have made her a no vote for me. That's the sort of thing elitist pig democrooks do.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Bernie Sanders:
> 
> He keeps key issues front and center.
> 
> ...




LMAO!!!!!!

Congress will fight him! The republicrats could entirely resign from all federal offices and the democrook party will redefine gridlock when that lunatic attempts soviet reform and the wall street donor class turns the screws on the party it owns. 

If Bernie is the nominee I will vote for him, (unless the republicrats nominate Ted Cruz) just to ensure the feds get nothing else accomplished.

When democrooks and republicrats get into bed, we the people get fucked.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A significant number of Americans – perhaps a majority – don't 'favor' any particular candidate; indeed, they don't vote 'for' someone, but against.
> 
> We vote against those whom we don't want to hold a given office, not 'for' someone whom we 'favor.'



Well, that's your little red wagon, and if that's how you want to vote, go on with yourself.

This thread is about discussing which candidates people favor.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 8, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton, or anyone that isn't a TEA MAGGOT, or a Repuke...
> ...



So to bring you back to the topic, who are you favoring so far and why?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 8, 2015)

Programmer said:


> I go with Trump.  I can't vote for him in the primary.  Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.



Your big interest in choosing a President is _excitement_?  You know this is the future of our nation, not entertainment, right?


----------



## BIG YANK BAL 1976 (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > BIG YANK BAL 1976 said:
> ...


I already made it clear in an earlier reply to this thread  it's Clinton for me, there is NO alternative..


----------



## Mr Natural (Nov 8, 2015)

Bernie.

If Bernie doesn't make it then Hillary.  

I'm collecting Social Security so there's no fucking way in hell I'm voting for any republican.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > I go with Trump.  I can't vote for him in the primary.  Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.
> ...



Someone needs to convey that message to Trump.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



So....you choose Cruz? Weeeeeeeeee!


----------



## Old Yeller (Nov 8, 2015)

I vote first to say VP will go to work.  No more laying in bed checking phone message, eating toast.  This job is now far too big, teetering on complete collapse.  

I would go Trump/Carson.  Trump work financials,  Carson work ghetto and other.  War? get a good Sec Defense.  Trump knows how to hire the best.  We need a winner.  Trump has always been winner.

Trump would have final "trump card" but Carson is very close #1.

Trump/Cruz?    why not.  
Rand Paul always seemed good but nobody agrees?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them  a lot of attention. 

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So to bring you back to the topic, who are you favoring so far and why?



I have been a Ted Cruz fan since he beat RINO Dewhurst for the senate seat. I was hoping he would run for president as soon as I heard him speak. I don't believe any other candidate will work to restore the constitutional restraints on federal power that have been abandoned by the states since the civil war as hard as Ted Cruz.

A lot of people complain about "big money influence", and pretend they will abandon their own big money donors. That's obviously complete bullshit and it isn't the solution. The people who write the laws always leave a means to skirt the laws.

The solution is to remove the power of the federal government and therefore remove the commodity federal officials sell to the lobbyists. I know for damn sure no RINO like Jeb, Crispy, Graham Cracker or Kasich will do a fuckin thing but increase federal power, just a little slower than hitlary. Most of the other candidates might do it less slow but the only guy I trust to not just stop the growth of federal power but roll it back is Ted Cruz. Rand Paul I think would also do so, but I do not think his foreign agenda is all there.Carson might stop it, and even roll some things back. Trump...

I don't know WTF Trump would do, but I'll vote for him in a heart beat before a RINO.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 8, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So to bring you back to the topic, who are you favoring so far and why?
> ...



Let me make sure I understand you.  You support Cruz.  Except when you support Trump.  Except when you support Cruz.  Except...

Have I omitted anything?


----------



## Programmer (Nov 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > I go with Trump.  I can't vote for him in the primary.  Reason: I think it will be more exciting, and I'm confident that I/We could survive it.
> ...


Tongue in cheek, yes.  For the most part, I am the future of the nation from my perspective, and we own that severally and as a bloc.  It would defy the universe if the President alone impacted my life more than me and what I do with my time, etc.  

You know... excitement isn't limited to entertainment value... right?


----------



## Programmer (Nov 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


Trump is clearly doing fine balancing popularity and politics like he knows what it takes to be president.  Other than Clinton, who else is doing so at this point?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Well, the voters will, or they won't.  That's how it works.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



No, I don't.  In this context, there is no good about "excitement".  As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time.  It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do):  if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Honestly, I don't know how much "balancing" Trump is actually doing.  It seems more to me like he's just capitalizing on the popularity aspect.  How long that's going to last depends entirely on how shallow and silly the American people have become.  I guess we'll see that measurement as the campaign continues.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

num_nut said:


> I vote first to say VP will go to work.  No more laying in bed checking phone message, eating toast.  This job is now far too big, teetering on complete collapse.
> 
> I would go Trump/Carson.  Trump work financials,  Carson work ghetto and other.  War? get a good Sec Defense.  Trump knows how to hire the best.  We need a winner.  Trump has always been winner.
> 
> ...



No, I think the entire Paul family are loons.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls.  Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So to bring you back to the topic, who are you favoring so far and why?
> ...



I agree about Cruz, and I also have zero use for Bush, Christie, Graham, and Kasich.

I've already said I think Paul is a nutjob.

Trump . . . I don't think Trump is all that conservative, but I do think he's conscious enough of public opinion to respond to what his constituents want, which would be a refreshing change to having things rammed down our throats.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Any understanding that the purpose of this thread is to discuss who we favor and why, even if we aren't set in stone in our selection.  THAT would be what you omitted.

Oh, and the fact that no one has to justify themselves to you.  Take your snottiness and judgement elsewhere, and start your own damned thread.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



The "who" was clear from his post; the "why" was not.  His two choices were so completely disparate in their promises it's puzzling.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


What I mean is that Trump is considerably more popular than Ted Cruz, for example.  It is speculated that they cater to the same cut of the GOP base.  Trump has decided not to make one of these flat, 'scrap the IRS' tax plans.  I'm confident that there will be none of that bullshit in the Whitehouse after this coming cycle.  Trump's plan recognizes that fiscal conservatism excludes fiscal radicalism and the uncertainty and volatility that comes with it.  

This is where I think the silliness and shallowness is Carson, Cruz, Fioina, Huckabee and Paul's game, but it's not in the popularity race, it's the way these people think they can run the country.  Jeb Bush and Rubio have tax plans I think are qualified, but they can't run a campaign worth an ass.  Rubio's such a 'serious' candidate that he can't use conjunctions when he's speaking.  That's weird to me.

As a disclaimer, I haven't studied Fiorina's or Carson's plans like the others I mentioned.  I characterize them as extreme (and policy-based pandering) based on the last debate. I very lightly skimmed Rubios bit and had trouble distinguishing it from Bush's.  I don't think research will change my opinion, but we'll see when I get some time.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country.  We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing?  It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.  

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
_adjective_

causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended  up winning it.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> The "who" was clear from his post; the "why" was not.  His two choices were so completely disparate in their promises it's puzzling.



Liberals are puzzled by gender, so it no surprise you can't seem to comprehend what was written.

First of all I listed 1 candidate I fully endorse and why, I listed 2 other candidates I can also support and mentioned that I think they would also roll back regressivism, but to a lesser extent than Cruz.

I did mention I would support Trump over a RINO, and that I had no idea what he would really do. 

Incidentally I would vote democrook for the first time in my life if it was a choice between Bernie and Bush. If it's Hitlary/Bush I will write in a cartoon character.

I'm leaning towards Yosemite Sam because of his stance on the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I had no trouble understanding what his criteria were from that post.  I don't necessarily AGREE with them, but I understand what they are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 10, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Okay.  I'll accept that.  I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government.  There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward.  You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 10, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The "who" was clear from his post; the "why" was not.  His two choices were so completely disparate in their promises it's puzzling.
> ...



You're saying Trump and Cruz are different genders?  This is big news...


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice.  She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing.  Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard.  Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.  

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 11, 2015)

Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!


Trump's smarter than that, though.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


Yeah, after all the election was a couple weeks ago. It's about time people decided who they would vote for.

Or maybe that's just stupid.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 11, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Can't beat this combination for the betterment of America!
> ...



There is NO ONE smarter than Cruz when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, which will play a HUGE PART in the next 4 years!


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


I just mean to say Trump wont try to take Cruz with him out of Trump's intelligence.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 11, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



You do realize they've already met 3 times since Trump's announcement, one meeting over an hour, and have you noticed Trump will attack everyone, except Cruz?

Both men are VERY SIMILIAR on the important issues!...Not the social issues, but that can be modified if they succeed!


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


I'm sure Trump's met with other people, too.  Cruz would be a political miscalculation on Trump's part, granted that he's better at appealing to the same group that Cruz is.  For the GE, Trump will probably be looking to the center of Cruz.

Regarding Cruz and the constitution, I thought he went hustling in Kentucky with Kim Davis.  That's not sound.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



yeah one of those  criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 11, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government.  I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be.  I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 11, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Yes, I think we can agree that your post IS stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 11, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


I'm still marking the box: None of the above.....


----------



## Manonthestreet (Nov 11, 2015)

Bob Dole says vote Jeb


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life.  It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes.  The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 11, 2015)

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 11, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Okay.  Don't vote.  Works for me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 11, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



You think you control how much involvement the federal government has in your life?

I didn't say a damned thing about "blue collar", but it is a fact that Presidents used to do their jobs without people having to hear about it and from them several times a week.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yeah, back then they had to wait for the Pony Express to bring last month's newspaper.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yes.  I feel in charge of my government exposure.  Regarding the press component of that, I was raised a political spectator, so again, there's no way I'm ever going to understand where you're coming from.  That's a bit off the topic, though.

This couldn't be the chief factor in your decision.  Did the last debate influence your position at all?

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth about collar color. You described the behavior expected of blue collars.  Executives like the POTUS are indeed expected to face the public.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 12, 2015)

HRC. All the way. Best qualified office seeker since Bush 41.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 12, 2015)

candycorn said:


> HRC. All the way. Best qualified office seeker since Bush 41.


Clinton has coffee spilled on that resume.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



After Romney pissed it all away?.....no it should absolutely be a criteria.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> bernie
> 
> His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.
> 
> ...



Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress.  What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit. 

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%,  This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 12, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I agree, but remember, Reagan tried the primary more than once.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 12, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > bernie
> ...


The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...




well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else.  And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 12, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.


----------



## Slyhunter (Nov 12, 2015)

*The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows*
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
*©*Reprints





*




*


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 12, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> *The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows*
> By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11
> 
> 874 Comments
> ...



Ah, the one-issue voter...fragmenting the GOP since at least 2008...


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?  

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of. 

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects,  but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> *The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows*
> By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11
> 
> 874 Comments
> ...



While I dont particularly care for Cruz he did hit the nail on the head when he said at the debate that there would be less support for immigration if bankers and lawyers were immigrating in mass.  Then he added journalists I think.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 12, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I characterize our current lot as overspending.  Taking 90% of someone'e earnings is over-taxing.  

The Fed 'targets' interest _and_ inflation values.  Some of our borrowing recalls funds from a weakening trade balance.  We wont completely stop selling debt.  Rather than taxing, why wont we get investment for our infrastructure?   From these same 'the rich' you're talking about?


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.
> 
> There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.
> 
> I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.



SMH!   I can understand your being drawn to those with integrity as I do believe both have more of that than anyone else running.  The problem is that they are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum and neither would be good for the country in the long run.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 12, 2015)

Manonthestreet said:


> Bob Dole says vote Jeb




That's great anti-advice if you ask me.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 12, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > bernie
> ...


No it won't.

I'd explain, but I've explained so many times that I know leftist can't learn.

So yo tell me how taking money out of the economy helps the economy.

and remember, under that 91%, no one got rich.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2015)

Poll: Majority think Clinton acted unethically or illegally in emails


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.
> 
> There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.
> 
> I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.



Are you senile or just stupid?

Besides, you're registered Hezbolah, everyone here knows that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Rubio supports open borders and firing American professionals so that low cost foreign replacement can have their jobs.

I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for that scumbag.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 12, 2015)

You're getting false information.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> You're getting false information.




About what?

Rubio himself advocated for H1B's in the second debate. He is a promoter of this kind of shit;

{
*Southern California Edison (SCE) announced a “transition effort” that will dump 500 employees and replace them presumably cheaper H-1B visa holders imported from India. Many laid-off employees are complaining that in a demoralizing betrayal, some laid-off workers are being assigned to train their India replacements on how to do their jobs.*}

SCE Dumps American Staff, Imports H-1B Tech Workers from India - Breitbart

Rubio is bad for anyone who has a job in America.

{
A guy whose entire career has been dedicated to giving cheap labor to employers while driving down American wages should steer clear of complaining about “special interests.” It’s like a hooker complaining about promiscuity.

– He said the “problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough.”

I wonder if the dump of millions of low-wage foreign workers on our country has anything to do with that?

– He gave a brave little speech announcing his opposition to jihadists — setting him apart from everyone else on that stage, who LOVES Islamic jihadists! — and claimed that radical terrorist groups “recruit Americans using social media.”

No, Marco, ISIS doesn’t recruit “Americans” on social media. It recruits immigrants and their children — whom you want to import more of, by the way.

Given his record, it’s too late for Rubio to take America’s side on immigration. But it’s still amazing that only Ted Cruz is smart enough to adopt Trump’s runaway, most popular position.}

Ann Coulter - Don’t Ask Him That! It Would Be Too Obvious


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2015)

I haven't decided.  I don't have to decide until March 15.

The only thing I have decided is that I'm not going to vote for that unstable, unsuitable for President, Trump.  He doesn't have the temperament to be President.  There is no way that guy should be deciding on whether to send our children to die in war.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Trump has the so called "independent moderates" locked down at the moment, shining light on the moonbat lie.



Link?


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2015)

num_nut said:


> Trump work financials,



Trump is a disaster financially.

This is common knowledge for anyone with a modicum of financial knowledge.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



?  like I said its not taking 90%, but more than the aprox 16% they pay now 

I dont understand the rest of what you re sayng


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 12, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



I would guess plenty of people got rich...Ross Perot made his fortune largely in this time.

borrowing money also takes money from the economy...and because of interest takes more than straight taxation.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 12, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


so you know it wrong to heavily tax people, but not as bad as borrowing.

What do you think about cutting down the size of government?

decreased costs would mean we wouldn't have to increase taxes or borrow (if the cuts were serious enough)


----------



## Programmer (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I'm saying that paying the debt is not the economic boost that you're talking about and a silly justification to overtax the economy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll modernize the brackets, but with all said and done @ $130K a 1 billion dollar income taxed 91% above $130k is indeed taxed more than 90%.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Is THAT what you think government involvement is, just how often it's on the news?  You think you just shut off the TV, and _voila!_  The government is gone?

I'm not talking about watching press releases.  I'm talking about not being able to buy the type of toilet you want because the federal government has decreed you have to have one that requires three flushes to clear the bowl in the name of "environmental consciousness".  Or buy the type of light bulb I want.  Or any of dozens of other purchases.

I'm talking about my streets not being safe to walk down at night because I live an hour from the Mexican border and the President - who doesn't live anywhere near the Mexican border - has decreed that we are not going to enforce the border because it isn't "nice", and my city is overrun with criminals who wandered over the border with impunity.

I'm talking about pretty soon not being able to buy cough syrup when I have a lousy cold without taking a day off from work to visit a doctor and get a prescription for it because the FDA has decided adults can't be trusted and is pushing through a new regulation.

I'm talking about my city spending 42 days being extorted by the Teamsters Union _via _bus driver strike because the federal government subsidizes metro transit systems and in exchange, decrees that unions must be kowtowed to and that the city government itself - for all that it actually OWNS the transit system - cannot be involved in negotiations to represent the people of the city.

I can go on and on, but I really don't feel like it.  The upshot is, why in God's name does my daily life as an individual involve THIS much interaction with the federal government?  Why in the hell are they this involved?

So yeah.  My ideal candidate is someone who thinks the federal government is way too front-and-center in people's lives, and wants to scale that back in reasonable ways (I always hear about whichever Paul lunatic is currently running at this point, so let's skip that this time around).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Are you a Republican?  No?  Then may I ask why your criteria for Republican primary debates should mean a fart in a windstorm to anyone?  Yeah, I'm sure you love every opportunity you leftists get to obscure any sort of meaningful information exchange on the right regarding candidates.  Hey, let's require that debates be moderated by partisan hacks asking retarded questions that apply to fuck-all; let's require that we haul out someone the voters rejected and treat him like the front runner, because it's IMPORTANT right now that he won a caucus four years ago.

Sorry, Chuckles.  The debates are about who and what matters to the GOP's voters right now.  Go tend to your own party and candidates.  Spend some more time trying to convince the rest of the world - and yourself - that Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate and you're THRILLED to be voting for her.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > bernie
> ...



Oh, believe me, we never forget how much you leftists LOVE the idea of people working and risking everything in order to keep only a dime out of every dollar they earn.

Well, people other than YOU, that is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No one's saying you can't run as many times as you like, but the fact that you ran last time does not by itself convey any "primary stage" privileges.  What counts is whether or not you get the supporters THIS time.

Santorum was ultimately a dud last time, and he's a nobody this time.  The fact that he won a caucus four years ago does not entitle him to be in the main stage debates now.  Reagan, on the other hand, came back a second time and got people fired up about supporting him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > *The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows*
> ...



That's funny, coming from people whose "one issue" is whether there's an (R) or a (D) after a candidate's name.  No other info needed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > *The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows*
> ...



What he actually said was that the politics and the media coverage of immigration would be very different if lawyers or bankers or journalists were crossing the Rio Grande and driving wages down.  THEN we'd be hearing about what an economic calamity it is, instead of being told how "anti-immigrant" it is to object.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



the history of government, our government, shows, no matter what the political makeup of congress, substantial cuts are never made. This may be a flaw in the system and I believe it is in part. (see my outline for a new constitution) But history does show we can tax enough to at least pay the debt down slowly.   That is where we should be.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



?  no it doesnt, if the 91% rate doesnt kick in until 130,000, and the next lowest rate is say 35%  then a guy making 130,001 pays 35% + 91cents , and not even that because he pays say a lower rate of 15% on his first 15,000, and so on.

here is a good site a found that shows u todays rates, the highest bracket doesnt kick in till 413,200.    a  married couple making 130000 currently is in the "25% bracket" but pays 18.53%

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2015 and 2016


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



first, I'd say the same in a similar situation in the democratic party......(I havent voted democrat for president in years, I vote 3rd party ) 

The Republicans tried Romney last time...that didnt work in general......so that would tend to tell them to try a different tack this time around.....maybe the guy that came in second last time?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



typical of you to get the math wrong, which I believe I explained with a link in a post above this one.  And no one is singled out by party according to the tax code


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


A caucus?......he won 11 states, against a formidable money machine in Romney. That is pretty impressive and I think if he was allowed on the main debate stage he would do better this time around.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I guess it was in a different thread but here is a good link to show you the current math.  Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2015 and 2016


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


 right, and I agree


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Are you a Republican?  No?  Then may I ask why your criteria for Republican primary debates should mean a fart in a windstorm to anyone?  Yeah, I'm sure you love every opportunity you leftists get to obscure any sort of meaningful information exchange on the right regarding candidates.  Hey, let's require that debates be moderated by partisan hacks asking retarded questions that apply to fuck-all; let's require that we haul out someone the voters rejected and treat him like the front runner, because it's IMPORTANT right now that he won a caucus four years ago.
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles.  The debates are about who and what matters to the GOP's voters right now.  Go tend to your own party and candidates.  Spend some more time trying to convince the rest of the world - and yourself - that Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate and you're THRILLED to be voting for her.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.  

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000.  Not 35%, but 0%.  Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues.  That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yeah. I wish he'd fold up, but he may have a glimmer in his eye over past performance.  There's so much $ for the mediocre that they can stay in this thing.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I've got where you're coming from.  I try to curb this sort of exposure, but yes, at tax time I have the obamacare thing to deal with and some local government bullshit can't be avoided.

Jeb Bush will make a difference in this column over 8 years.  I'm looking for more 'exciting' than that with the Trump.  I think Rand Paul and Ted Cruz also represent 'small-government' people, but they present too many crazy ideas that are not 'exciting'.  They're not as well thought out as they need to be in order to improve on how we currently work.  I'm really concerned that revolutionary economic policy bullshit from these two or from Sanders will have the biggest, least avoidable negative impact on my life.  They really don't know or care what they're talking about.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part.  91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 13, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 14, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



That "whooshing" noise was the point flying over your head and parting your hair.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 14, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.


----------



## Zander (Nov 14, 2015)

I proudly support "ABCOB" ...anyone but Clinton or Bush.


----------



## Interpol (Nov 15, 2015)

Of all the candidates on both sides, and this does not mean I fully endorse all of their policy positions, I feel Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-equipped to take charge on day one. Part of what I hope is involved in anyone's decision making process for President is that fundamental ability.

Watching the Democratic debate last night, it seemed more clear than ever that their candidates are engaged in a conversation fit for thoughtful adults, whereas the Republican debates so far have given us nothing but grandstanding, name-calling, cheap shots, put downs, smack talk, and total pie-in-the-sky plans like somehow building a great long wall and having Mexicans pay for it.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush are right about immigration. Rand Paul is right about the military and many spending issues.

But on the other side, Bernie Sanders just gets it when it comes to Wall Street reform and on Middle East policy. We're only going to get somewhere on terrorism by getting Muslim countries to put some skin in the game. He was ahead of most of us on his opposition to going into Iraq. He just gets it that we've rigged our economic system so that money flows straight to the top and then out of the country. Totally noble of anyone to say they will vote for him because that fundamental issue of economic fairness transcends politics, in my opinion. There are just as many struggling working people that are Democrats as there are Republicans and their interests deserve to be represented.

I like him on many policies and think he's a perfectly respectable candidate, but when it comes to who I want twisting arms when we need to twist arms both at home and abroad, I want Hillary Clinton. It was President Clinton who was ahead of everyone on bringing the military up to speed with the new challenges of the 21st century. The idea of utilizing more field agents to break up terror networks instead of a big, bulky army that continues to be trained for the kinds of wars we don't have anymore.

We all know we need a sleeker, better counter-terrorism apparatus. It's the one thing holding back the office of the presidency, regardless of party. I think her presidency would continue on the path Bill Clinton had set it on, which meant a more effective offensive strategy without the costly overhead of more tanks and other outdated things of that nature. On the economy, I'm attracted to the Clinton 90's. Things were really moving there for a time. For now, I'd have to say Hillary Clinton has the edge. When she speaks at the debates, she simply has the gravitas of a President.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 15, 2015)

the election is still a year away I would say it's not time to pick anyone


----------



## Programmer (Nov 15, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


This one's like Pol Pot.  There has to be a deep seeded greed and self doubt among these commies.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 15, 2015)

Jim Webb


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 15, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it,  I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 15, 2015)

Interpol said:


> Of all the candidates on both sides, and this does not mean I fully endorse all of their policy positions, I feel Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-equipped to take charge on day one. Part of what I hope is involved in anyone's decision making process for President is that fundamental ability.
> 
> Watching the Democratic debate last night, it seemed more clear than ever that their candidates are engaged in a conversation fit for thoughtful adults, whereas the Republican debates so far have given us nothing but grandstanding, name-calling, cheap shots, put downs, smack talk, and total pie-in-the-sky plans like somehow building a great long wall and having Mexicans pay for it.
> 
> ...



she said, if I remember right, 'we cant contain terrorism we have to kill it', tough, demagogic talk , but illogical,, and dangerous.   

You can never kill terrorism, it is a tactic, and the more we try the more resentment builds up and seeds itself in a new generation. 

Obama's containment is closer to the right path to take.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 15, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society.  Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income?  What does this 'do for society'?


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Eisenhower used it to build the interstate highway system.

During the Reagan era the top bracket was 70%. 

Two things are missing from the "OMG, TAXES!!!!" conversation.  One is a discussion about taxes on corporations (or in many cases, _no_ taxes on corporations).  The other is offshoring.

Tax the big corporations at the same rate as the little guys, tax individuals and corporations on real income, not "revenue I didn't have time to transfer to the Cayman accounts," and you'd have something to work with.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea


----------



## Programmer (Nov 15, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Bolshevic simpleton.

This is very simple math.  You can't tax 91% of someone's income above $430k and effectively tax them 17%.  That's just laziness not using a calculator.  Marginal Tax Rate Calculator .  You'd easily steal 80% of earnings from someone earning 3-4 million a year.

Through your greed and inability to imagine why a system from the 1950s wouldn't work, small businesses would struggle paying your stupid dues, while big business execs just convert earnings to capital gains or whatever loophole your politicians will offer them.  

...And your brilliant use for all this cash is to 'pay down the debt' in advance, like a dolt.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 16, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



techno-fascist 

first of all, wrong, if they make 431 k  and the lower rates are under 17% yes, you can...

now the 17% ive seen must include other breaks, and tax avoidance these folks get. 

I really couldn't care less how much we take from those making 3 to 4 million a year....fuck them.           As for "small business", they seem to be offered anyway all sorts of cheap government loans and subsidies. Even have a governnment bureaucracy for them the small business administration. 

the country did good under Eisenhower.   Ideally I would eliminate loopholes such as the lower capital gains rate and not go as high as Eisenhower.


----------



## JoshuaZ (Nov 17, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.



What probability do you estimate that Fiorina will be the VP nom?


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 17, 2015)

JoshuaZ said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.
> ...


What am I, a Vegas bookie?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 17, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No, Chuckles, as much as you think every criticism is merely a generalized "I don't like you" insult, this is actually a precise descriptor of behaviors and attitudes, and so it does NOT work to say, "I'm not, YOU are!" in time-honored, leftist-kindergarten fashion.

The right does not really talk about "fair share" unless it's addressing leftist accusations.  Nor does it talk about concepts like "enough" or "obscene wealth" or "inequity".  And at no time whatsoever does the right EVER talk about tax rates in terms of how much wealth people will have left afterward.

Cloak it in all the high-minded "good of society" crap talk you like, but it still comes down to the fact that only the left thinks it is ordained by God - or the universe, or whoever - to determine how much people should be allowed to keep.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 17, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Eisenhower was not a leftist and his rates were 90+% on the top tier.   

but it is indeed more likely the right who is always bellyaching...as you do, about what is left over after taxes,....tax freedom day etc.  THats what I was getting at when I replied to your "Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have "....What do rightists think the code is about then?

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.


----------



## OldLady (Nov 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.



I don't know BECAUSE none of the Republican candidates' debates have been on a television station I can afford to subscribe to.  I get the basic or I don't get tv (I live in the sticks) but I can't afford $50 + a month to get the fancy news stations package.  Am I the only one who thinks this stinks?  Are the Republicans all too rich to care?  I am glad to hear they will be on CBS in February, but so far, I've only been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 19, 2015)

OldLady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



It's interesting that not one of the RWs here could bother telling you that the GOP debates are available on YouTube:

republican debate 2015 - YouTube

Or that you can read the full transcripts here:

Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the Primetime Debate
Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Second Republican Debate | Popular Liberty at the Daily Paul
The third Republican debate transcript, annotated
Republican Debate: Read Transcript of Fox Business Debate


----------



## OldLady (Nov 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## Penelope (Nov 20, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



How interesting , so you for open boarders and SSM, who would of thought.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 20, 2015)

Not Rubio, not Hillary, at this point I do not know.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 21, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


First of all, you're being a lazy, ignorant bolshevic.  You cannot derive an effective rate of 17% from a 91% top marginal rate by using math.  Just use the calculator and type in $430k.  Tax rates for someone making half as much as $430k are twice as high as 17%.

Eisenhower didn't more than double the tax rate like you propose.  I'm sure he could do better arithmetic.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 21, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> {snip}
> 
> large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.


This is a ass-backwards.  Economists  - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.  

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s.  Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.


----------



## Slyhunter (Nov 21, 2015)

First time I've ever wanted to vote FOR someone. Voting for TRUMP!


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 22, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > {snip}
> ...



so youre actually using the board game  MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 22, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



if your talking about the tax calculators thats because the lower rates are higher than 17


----------



## Programmer (Nov 23, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Yes.  Monopoly's a legit economic model.  Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 23, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......


----------



## Programmer (Nov 24, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


The U.S. is a very competitive business environment.  One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 24, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 24, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


We have anti-trust laws that came from experience with that.  You may have bee underestimating the significance of the Monopoly game up to this point.

Because nobody who supports your world view will ever be president, we will continue to incentivize entrepreneurship and investment.  As long as we maintain that element, it will be difficult to even challenge trust laws.

Unions compete, but rarely, like I said.  The 'local' and trade-specific nature of them precludes likely competition.  ie you want to do [trade] in [location] use [one union choice available].


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 25, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


I think our anti-trust laws have been co-opted.   They have been mutated in order to allow more and more mergers.  It is like regulatory capture.

Perhaps no one with my views will ever be elected.....but I think that would go to show that our system has decayed into an oligarchy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 26, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Toro (Nov 26, 2015)

If the vote were held today, I'd vote for Rubio.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 26, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


_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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 27, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 27, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 27, 2015)

The SMOD has a rock solid, earth shattering plan to end political strife, war, terrorism, global warming, income inequality, and pretty much everything else. 

"The Sweet Meteor of Death, the End of Politics as usual, and everything else"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 27, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 27, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Nov 27, 2015)

Trump - Cruz


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".



While you're doing that, here's an article about the study dcraelin referred to, from a source bizarre enough for y'all to trust:

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds

Yes, o-li-gar-chy is a big, scary word, but maybe you can let it into your peabrain without too much discomfort.

After you're done watching the inflammatory videos and laughing your fat ass off at the creepy photos, you'll find the actual study here:

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...95a.pdf&code=8086e20ef15d8179d36eebf438633b36

It's 18 whole pages and has lots more big, scary words in it, so you're not expected to read it before you mock it.  But your mockery would be more on-point if you knew what you were talking about.

Please make certain your reply to this post contains the usual amount of inflammatory language absent content, mmkay?


----------



## Programmer (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


It's American values, not oligarchy. The US would rank poorly among the world's havens for racketeering oligarchs.  

The fact is, there's only a handful of you guys that want the American dream to be some mediocre handout. None of y'all will get into office because your utopia makes Americans want to vomit. 

As for mergers: mergers aren't illegal, bud.  It's monopoly that's illegal. We're very thoroughly regulated here.  What mergers have created a monopoly in your lifetime?

I'll concede that union regulatory capture has lead to union monopolies over government and public use contracting.  ...And that our auto industry is monopolized by those clowns, too.


----------



## Programmer (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


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


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Its not bullshit...it is common sense.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



you're just babbling on about your straw man idea of a liberal (even though I consider myself a populist not really a liberal)

the meat processing industry is very concentrated I believe......  on a local level I've seen grocery stores bought out and closed.      You have a point I think about the auto industry.     Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



not some techno-fascist I tell you that. 

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> _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.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".
> ...


A university finds we are not a Republic? That's laughable. But like most libturds, you didn't post any content, just lazy links.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.


What do you know about it? The government has their pet contractors and/or hoops to hop through in order for them to serve their public masters. And you want the blame to fall on contractors?


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 28, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> ...you didn't post any content, just lazy links.



Do you understand how links work?  The content is at the links.  You click on them and read the content.  "Lazy links" may be alliterative, but the links are inanimate.

If I were to post 18 pages of content, would you read it?  Dubious, if you're too lazy to click a link.  But let me know and I will, so you can dismiss the content without reading it as well.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 28, 2015)

I favor her in the BIG HOUSE....NOT the White House!


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 28, 2015)

Clinton is the best candidate


----------



## Programmer (Nov 28, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


The journal itself doesn't go as far as the editorial or you, of course. There's a lot they attribute to the government itself, and from the beginning. They note that econ. elites have the same desire as the public in nearly all cases but wealth management.   

Who am I to question some Princeton professors, but they didn't seem to account for voter participation disparity, which is totally voluntary.  That's one elephant in the room.  The other is time.  From my west-coast education, it seems like they tailor the timeline to exclude the way major public desires tend to come to pass with time.  Ballers weren't praying for obamacare.

EDIT: I love techno-fascist by the way.  You mind if I make a t-shirt?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > _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.
> ...



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.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.
> ...



mostly yes, it is in a way a form of regulatory capture.


----------



## jillian (Nov 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 28, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



people have given up on a system that never seems to work for the common good.   

"Ballers weren't praying....." ?

No go right ahead with the t-shirt, you'd probably wear it well.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > ...you didn't post any content, just lazy links.
> ...


I made it clear I understand how links work, I also made it clear you are too lazy and stupid to post the relevant content. You don't need 18 pages to make a point, you aren't giving a presidential address. Why does that need to be explained?


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


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.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 29, 2015)

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



Iceweasel said:


> 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.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


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


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.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


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



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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


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



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


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


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 29, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 29, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 29, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Still no facts to go with your opinion?  QED.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You need me to read them to you? DOA.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 29, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> You need me to read them to you?



State them.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


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 (Nov 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 30, 2015)

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


----------



## jillian (Nov 30, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



and I consider trying to help your wingers lose a moral obligation. but if you really think you have a shot, you might want to run as far as humanly possible from Fiorino or Carson. your faith in their limited appeal is optimistic at best.  you're closer with Kasich but your wingers hate him because he's rational and not vile.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



wages, like product prices, are largely determined by supply and demand. If an area of the economy experiences shortages in labor wages go up......that encourages people to take those jobs...increasing supply of labor an driving the wages back down.

"something has taken over your minds"----  yeah thats logical


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


You don't know what the word logic means. You have it exactly backwards. When jobs are in short supply, wages go DOWN, not up. Which is where we are and have been for the last 8 years. Wages go up when employers have to compete for good employees.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Labor is done by employees. A labor strike means what to you?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



a different use of the term,  but,  a shortage in available workers then


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


OK, I agree with that then. The point is that government can't be adept enough to put their finger on the pulse of the labor market and determine wages and salaries. Only the market can do it. We have too much government standing on the throats of business, instead of government solutions like the left seems to always want, we should let the market do its' thing. More jobs will mean higher wages.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2015)

jillian said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



In fact I prefer Kasich because he's rational, experienced and from a large swing state. Others may prefer a VP candidate that will satisfy women or African Americans although after 8 years of Obama I seriously doubt many of them will bother to vote.

Certainly none of the old white folks currently seeking the Dem nomination has the juice to invigorate anyone. As recently as 6 months ago my 89yr old mom - a hardcore FDR leftist - wanted desperately to see Hillary elected. She now says she will for the first time be sitting out a prez election.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Start here:

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The references at the bottom of the page can give you more drill-down detail.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I woul say it, the government, isnt trying to do that. Taxes need to come from somewhere, an taxing the wealthy is the least painful way to o it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> I woul say it, the government, isnt trying to do that. Taxes need to come from somewhere, an taxing the wealthy is the least painful way to o it.



Brace yourself for yet another round of "You just want to punish people for working hard and being successful.  Why are you picking on the Poor Widdle Rich People?"


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Post the content that best makes your case, lazy asshole.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 30, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


The wealthy pay most of the taxes. Next idea.....


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



well, why dont we try and squeeze some blood from a turnip as they say, and put in place what a lot of "conservatives" want, a consumption tax.......you know they also say you get less of what you tax. Since our economy is consumption based that is a real bright idea.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



You asked me for a link; I gave it to you.  Do you expect me to click it for you?


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 1, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Then you didn't understand it. It wasn't in addition to all the other taxes.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 1, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



no though proposals generally take in far less revenue.....putting our grandchildren even deeper into an economic mess.  It is just a plain dumb idea.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 1, 2015)

Everyone I like is too smart to run for office.  Until the GOP clowncar empties out freeing up those votes, leaving just a couple or three it's too soon to say. No one on the Democrat side is blowing my skirt up though. So it's all GOP at this point. Unfortunately, Trump's doing what he did last time and talking too damn much letting his inner crazy person show through, and no one else is really Presidential yet.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 1, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Everyone I like is too smart to run for office.  Until the GOP clowncar empties out freeing up those votes, leaving just a couple or three it's too soon to say. No one on the Democrat side is blowing my skirt up though. So it's all GOP at this point. Unfortunately, Trump's doing what he did last time and talking too damn much letting his inner crazy person show through, and no one else is really Presidential yet.



What are the issues that are important to you?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 1, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


 I still really like Trump.

I like him because he's made a success of his life independent of professional politicking. I think he is genuinely interested in helping the US and I trust his ability to get stuff done.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I don't see anyone waving Snausages, so I can't imagine why you're speaking.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 3, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't see anyone waving Snausages, so I can't imagine why you're speaking.



Yet another post where Cecilie1200 follows the rules: USMB Rules and Guidelines | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2015)

NOTA


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Well, fortunately, I started this thread fully prepared sift through the meaningless dross that is our liberal board neighbors flocking here to batter themselves against any possibility of serious conversation like moths on an outside light.

In and around that, I am enjoying the chance to hear people discussing not just which candidates are standing out to them, but also what their priorities are this election cycle, and why.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 4, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


----------



## Programmer (Dec 4, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Well, maybe you don't support organized labor.  The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.

_Perfect competition_ flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in.  See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 4, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


To the contrary, Americans have decided to tick up their interest in politics since the turn of the century.  Credit to Obama's and Trump's popularity and the wars we've been in, regardless of people's opinions of them.  Generally people are ambivilous to policy, completely by choice.  Anything intellectual is boring to many if not most people.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 4, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect  as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.

So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?,  I dont understand you here.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 4, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



I doubt that


----------



## Programmer (Dec 5, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices.  Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.

Main street competition drives diversity in the market, rather than price parity. 

Companies use union labor because government regulation forces them to do so. The government insulates the union from competition from the American labor market.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 5, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


----------



## Programmer (Dec 5, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Let me chew this for you: A perfectly competitive job market has a single job description; a perfectly competitive fashion market has a single, uniform product.  The stuff you made up does not apply in either of these scenarios.  Otherwise, how many more participants are required in the clothing market to flatten prices?  Only a mandate to produce mao suits, the only time your bullshit's been put into application, will flatten price through more perfect competition.

Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 5, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



I have no idea what your talking about.......gibberish....designed to fool yourself into thinking you know something..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, this is what happens when dipshits with no conscience start trying to invent their own "morality":  we get treated to the grotesque display of being told that doing whatever gives them what they want is a "moral obligation", and we're expected to take it, and them, seriously, instead if disdaining and shunning them as they deserve.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I can appreciate all of that, but the truth is, I think many of the qualities that have served him so well in business would make him an utter disaster in the areas of politics and diplomacy.  I think they kinda already have, and only the fact that the people being polled are so VERY anti-establishment, anti-PC, anti-politician right now is saving him.


----------



## jillian (Dec 5, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



poor mentally ill S&M queen.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 5, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


People said the same about Lincoln, and Reagan. Trump is 100x the diplomat that Obama is. And trump earned his position....Obama was placed.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 5, 2015)

Imagine, America's first "Equal Opportunity Hire-president"!

Probably good to give a few points to the intellectually disadvantaged.  Well, in theory though now thoroughly dis-proven in practice.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 5, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


This state you're in indicates that you should leave economics to people with at least a high school understanding of it. Being math history and science, it doesn't comply with your unique make it up as you go technique.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Poor, terminally-stupid, amoral hypocrite.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



With all due respect, being a better diplomat than Obama is not a high bar to clear.  You can pretty much just shuffle right across that bad boy without lifting your feet.

I was actually aspiring to a bit more than that in the next President.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I honestly don't place too much importance on diplomacy.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 6, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



I think the vast bulk of economists would agree more with me, even though I think the "profession" is largely a joke.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Inasmuch as it's the primary job description of the President, I'm thinking it might be important.  And one need only look at the dog's dinner Obama has made of US relations throughout the world to see how much it matters to have someone in office who can fix it.  I just don't see Trump's blustering and trash talk as the solution we need.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 6, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


This is a total joke.  The 'economics' that you are hacking up is high school level and you are 180* from the correct conclusions regarding competition and price and free market outcomes.  History clearly does not agree with you.  There's never been an economy where competition flattened prices or a free market drove income parity, ever.  Economists would give you an F in economics, mainly for not studying and making up theory instead.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Trump is not being saved.  The man is dominating the field.  While pundits fuel this flame as you have here, claiming that it is his supporter's emotions that are propping him up, perhaps his correctness, rather than political incorrectness is getting him taken seriously by a broader and broader group.

If there's anything fishy about the polling, I predict the head-to-head between Trump and Clinton will prove the most misleading by this time next year.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Obama's shit standing has more to do with his ideology than his diplomacy. He's a crappy diplomat because he wants America disgraced. Diplomacy the way you're referencing it is just pc behavior, and America has had enough.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 6, 2015)

and trump is less of a disgrace?  really?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 6, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> and trump is less of a disgrace?  really?


I don't find him disgraceful at all. But then I'm fond of America and Americans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm very sorry if criticizing your hero got your panties in a bunch.  Pick them out and stop talking like an Obamabot.

Believe whatever you like about Trump being the "savior" who's adored by the masses for his "honesty" - by which I assume you mean his need to be needlessly confrontational and offensive in order to make headlines.  But spare me the emotionalism.  I can get that from the leftists.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 6, 2015)

I just don't see "diplomacy" as the #1 skill required of a prez. I prefer integrity, the desire to do what's right for our country, and a love of traditional American values (and an understanding of what they are)...and I think that's what most Americans want. We're fed up with kowtowing and the demonization of the us by our leaders...under the umbrella of "diplomacy".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Oh, it's entirely true that Obama's positions and viewpoint on the world are the heart of what's wrong with him.  But the "diplomatic" moves he makes are the active manifestation of his crap, the carry-through of fucking up our nation.

And I haven't said a word about being PC, nor has it been anywhere in my mind.  That's just what you're projecting onto my words because you want to cheer on Trump.

We go through this every damned election.    There's always some chunk of voters desperately looking to be "Cleverest Guy in the Room" and find The One, the uber-special outside-the-box hero who's going to be the silver-bullet anodyne to "politics".  All it ever accomplishes is to waste time and divert attention from finding a real, competent candidate and leaving us all at the mercy of whatever warmed-over, wishy-washy moderate the Establishment chooses to foist on us.

And the saddest thing is that The One is always much less conservative than the viable potential candidates, usually only having the ability to run their mouths flamboyantly and pander to the media's desire to divide the right.

Let's review:

1992 - Ross Perot.  This little gremlin launched his campaign on a _talk show_, for God's sake.  He wandered around spouting off with the most blatant reverse psychology tactic since a parent trying to trick a kid into obeying bedtime, insisting that he had to be "drafted" to take the Presidency, and "creative thinkers" simultaneously had a Perot-gasm in their pants and flocked after him.  And what did the rest of us get stuck with while they "changed politics forever"?  George H.W. Bush, and the Clinton presidency.  And only a complete dumbass believed this guy was conservative.

1996 - Ross Perot: The Return.  This time around, the right whipsawed back and forth, trying desperately to find someone "fresh and original" to trip on.  We had Alan Keyes - Ehrmagerd, we could elect a BLACK MAN!  THAT'LL convince the left that we're not racist! (Seriously, people?)  We had Steve Forbes - He's a BUSINESSMAN, not a POLITICIAN!  What a brilliant idea! (Where the fuck have I been hearing that recently?  Hmmm.)  We even had a minor national aneurysm over _Pat Buchanan_, for the love of all that's holy.  I distinctly remembering at that point if someone was spiking the water supply with LSD.  And, of course, we wound up with 3rd-Party-Messiah Ross Perot doing an encore.  Which left the right with the painful spectacle of Bob Dole being turned into an Establishment meat puppet, and the second term of Bill Clinton.

2000 - We Gotta Get A Minority!  Hey, look, let's idolize Elizabeth Dole, because she has a vagina!  Oh, wait, no, Alan Keyes!  He's black, remember?!  No, no, Steve Forbes, because he's not a politician!  Oh, fuck it.  We'll go with George W. Bush.

2004 - Well, at least having an incumbent spared us the humiliation of everyone going all "Beatles" over some OTHER drip.

2008 - Ron Paul:  Ross Perot Returns!  Because apparently, the GOP disenfranchised have some sort of love affair with creepy Muppet-clones?  And what did we get on the ballot?  John McCain, who looked like the loudmouthed maverick everyone was lusting after, and turned out to be a through-and-through RINO.  Hellooooo, President Obama.

2012 - Herman Cain; no wait, Rick Perry; no wait, RON PAUL!  Default to Mitt Romney and an Obama second term.

Look, I get it.  The only difference between a professional politician and a whore is that whores have better principles.  And it's incredibly hard to respect and trust anyone who actually WANTS the frigging job.  But possibly we could get past this deep-seated desire to find The Next Big Thing and draft some heretofore-unknown George Washington-in-hiding, and actually settle down to choosing a real candidate with better qualifications than "You can tell he's honest, because he's so rude about it!" and "Better than the Democrat".


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Look, I get it.  The only difference between a professional politician and a whore is that whores have better principles.  And it's incredibly hard to respect and trust anyone who actually WANTS the frigging job.  But possibly we could get past this deep-seated desire to find The Next Big Thing and draft some heretofore-unknown George Washington-in-hiding, and actually settle down to choosing a real candidate with better qualifications than "You can tell he's honest, because he's so rude about it!" and "Better than the Democrat".



You've been clear and very detailed about what you _don't_ want in the "whores" you elect.  Can you describe what qualifications you think a "real candidate" should have?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm sure you're upset that your candidate can't win the race and is trying to align himself as Trump's running mate.  It's not my fault; there's no reason to attack me personally.  

Write Cruz and advise him to back sounder policy, revolutionize his charisma and lead the message instead of parroting it.  Maybe he could come through for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I just don't see "diplomacy" as the #1 skill required of a prez. I prefer integrity, the desire to do what's right for our country, and a love of traditional American values (and an understanding of what they are)...and I think that's what most Americans want. We're fed up with kowtowing and the demonization of the us by our leaders...under the umbrella of "diplomacy".



You don't?  You really don't think the person tasked with representing Americans in their dealings with other nations and with getting Congress to support his policies and move the nation in the right direction and with getting the average everyday American onboard (you know, when it's an actual PRESIDENT, and not a wanna-be dictator) requires diplomacy as his number-one skill?

You can have all the integrity and American values in the world - and you should - but if you can't get other people to work and agree with you, you're just an ineffectual talking head.

Maybe you ought to recheck the definition of "diplomacy", and stop projecting.  No one is suggesting "kowtowing and demonization of the US", no matter how radically you want to misread the text to justify Trump's complete inability to do anything more than bloviate.

Why don't we move past Trump's stunningly, orgasmically wonderful ability to offend people and make headlines, and take an actual look at the policies you would have him in the White House "telling it like it is" about?

And let me just say, it ain't easy to find any definitive policy stances from this guy.  Most of what I can find are just empty platitudes and pandering.

1)  Favors abortion, except for the headline-making "hard cases".  And a relative newcomer even on those.

2)  One-time tax on wealth to "eliminate the national debt".  Also has suggested that we should have a tax on assets over 10 million dollars.

3)  Favors hate-crime prosecutions.

4)  Total elimination of corporate tax.

5)  Legalize drugs, then spend the money to "educate kids" on the evils of the very things he just legalized.

6)  Raise import taxes.

7)  Supports "assault weapon" ban.

8)  Supports vaccines, but thinks they should be used less because they cause autism.

9)  Favors universal health care.  But not Obamacare.  No, no, no, Obamacare is baaaaaad.

10)  Raise taxes on hedge fund managers.

11)  Opposed Iraq War, but now thinks we should march in there and take their oil to give the money to US victims.  Also thinks we should go to war with North Korea and Iran and Syria.  Kinda waffles a lot on the issue of military force.

That's from the nice people at Ontheissues.org, which also helpfully provides the actual quotes from the candidates establishing their positions throughout time.  Two things are noticeable about Donald Trump:  one is that virtually everything he says on the issues sounds like a Tony Robbins video - long on slogans, short on actual "this is what I would do"; the other is that a number of his positions have recently changed (or "evolved", as he puts it), almost as if he's trying to position himself or something.

He likes to talk tough and conservative on immigration, this is true.  Like pretty much every "outsider" candidate conservatives have gone ga-ga over over the years, he has a one-note hobby horse to ride, and immigration is it.  Even still, the only actual "this is what I can do" that I'm able to find on him is "build a border wall".  Nice as far as it goes, but rather simplistic and ineffectual all by itself.

So you tell me:  other than his ability to say, "Elect me, and I'll make it better" (his actual directly-quoted "policy" on many of the issues), why is this guy the Great White Hope for conservatives?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Look, I get it.  The only difference between a professional politician and a whore is that whores have better principles.  And it's incredibly hard to respect and trust anyone who actually WANTS the frigging job.  But possibly we could get past this deep-seated desire to find The Next Big Thing and draft some heretofore-unknown George Washington-in-hiding, and actually settle down to choosing a real candidate with better qualifications than "You can tell he's honest, because he's so rude about it!" and "Better than the Democrat".
> ...



I can do better than that.  I can tell you exactly why I'm supporting Ted Cruz.

1)  Abortion - Supports free choice of businesses to not participate in funding abortions via insurance; supports a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions; supports a full investigation of allegations of trafficking in human body parts against Planned Parenthood, and prosecution thereof if the evidence supports it.

2)  Economy - Supports a Balanced Budget Amendment; supports limiting growth of federal spending to inflation rate; wants to audit the Federal Reserve; supports free market solutions over federal spending.

3)  Civil Rights - Opposes Supreme Court decision taking legalized "gay marriages" out of state jurisdiction and has suggested a Constitutional Amendment preventing the Supreme Court from voiding individual state laws on the subject; on the other hand, he doesn't appear to have any problem with gays themselves, having attended a fund raiser hosted by a gay couple in their home; authored a brief to the Supreme Court asking them to reverse an 8th Circuit decision to allow the KKK to participate in Kansas' "Adopt-A-Highway" program.

4)  Crime - Convert regulatory offenses to civil offenses; supports full monitoring of sex offenders; supports the death penalty.

5)  Drugs - Supports lowering minimums and mandatory sentencing on drug offenses; co-sponsored the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015, to give judges more flexibility on sentencing of drug offenses to end overcrowding of prisons.

6)  Education - Supports parental choice in education; opposes Common Core and supports local educational control.

7)  Energy and Environment - Opposes moratorium on offshore oil exploration; supports leasing of energy rights on federal lands; opposes federal protection and intervention of environmental "special interests".

8)  Government Reform - (This is a big one for me)  Opposes use of executive orders to override Congress; Supports reform of IRS _vis a vis_ harassing people for personal beliefs; supports full enforcement of laws, rather than just those the administration likes; supports debt ceiling limits; supports voter ID requirements; supports auditing all federal agencies with an eye toward reform or even elimination; supports a requirement to identify the actual Constitutionality of all proposed laws.

9) Gun Control - Supports the Second Amendment and opposes any unreasonable and burdensome restriction of gun rights.

10)  Obamacare - I think we all know he opposes Obamacare in no uncertain terms, and has actually backed up his campaign promises with action; supports expansion of free market choices in healthcare and insurance.

11)  Immigration - (Also a big one for me)  Opposes Obama amnesty; supports Kate's Law, requiring a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for any deported illegal who returns to the US; supports a border wall AND an expansion of the Border Patrol AND increasing the ability of the police to ask about immigration status; tried to reverse Obama's executive order halting the deportation of illegal immigrants; opposes a "path to citizenship" for illegals remaining in the country.

That's his actual policies that I like.  Yes, I know you don't approve of or agree with any of them, Arian, but you asked a conservative why she's choosing him as the conservative candidate, so that's why . . . policy-wise.

On more personal terms, I like that he got elected and immediately started taking stands and fighting for the campaign promises he made, rather than simply giving them lip service to get in office and then forgetting them.  I also like that he speaks firmly, confidently, and unapologetically about conservative values and positions, while still managing to sound like a serious, mature adult.  I think he calls them like he sees them, but he expresses it in a way that's actually persuasive and effective, rather than bombastic.

The moment that really got me, on a personal level, was when the #BlackLivesMatter jackasses were hijacking rallies and trying to shout down and silence the speakers with their tantrums.  They managed to make the likes of Bernie Sanders and whatshisname, that other Democrat non-entity, flee the stage.  Trump's rally got unruly and the protesters were escorted out.  But when they tried it on Ted Cruz, he answered them politely and respectfully, but firmly; he kept his own supporters from shouting back at them; and he actually got them to stop disrupting and engage in about as much civil give-and-take as primitives like that can manage.  It was a masterful performance of REAL diplomacy, and it was Presidential.

I think, if he gets a chance, Ted Cruz is someone who can genuinely bring in and work with moderates, and even principled liberals, without resorting to the "across-the-aisle compromise" that always seems to translate to caving in.

So that's what I'm looking for in a candidate.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Allow me to extend the same invitation to you as to Kosher:  tell me the actual policies of Donald Trump that make him the Conservative Messiah.  And while you're at it, why don't you tell me which of Cruz's polices are "not sound", or "parroting the message"?

The whole point to this thread was to discuss which candidates we support and why, and so far, all I've heard in favor of Trump is "Listen to how abrasive he is; he MUST be tough and honest!"


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Donald Trump on the Issues


I've posted this before on other threads. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Seal the border, allow no immigration of low wage or no wage earners until every American who wants a job has a job that pays the living wage. Only allow in those who bring in money or jobs.

Apple currently has over 30 billion in foreign banks that they made legally in foreign countries that they want to bring to America to spend. But if they do so they have to pay 30% in capital gains tAXES which is why they haven't. Trump, Romney, will do a repatriation holiday so companies like Apple can bring that money here to spend here and Trump plan has them pay 10% instead.

Trump mentioned appointing Icahn as ambassador to China. I like that idea. I also like the idea of increasing tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage. Trump wants an even trading field and wants to force China into stopping playing with their money valuation cheating, so to speak, on world trade. I don't care if stuff we import from China becomes more expensive that would incentivize people into making it here instead.

Trump believes our promise to retires should be kept. How he'll do that I don't know.
Trump believes in fixing our VA health problem.
Trump wants to deport all illegals. So do I.
Trump wants to wipe away unnecessary regulations that interfere with people making money running a business. Like them not being able to drill for new oil in the Gulf, ANWR, or other Federal sites the entire time Obama has been in office. WE can become the energy producer of the world if the liberals got out of the way and let those who know how to make money do so.
etc


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Thank you very much for providing a point-by-point of policy stances you support by Trump.  You are the first person who has actually done so.

I am not, however, in any way responsible for anything you may or may not have posted elsewhere.  I'm HERE.  I'm more than willing to repeat myself as often as needed about Ted Cruz, because I genuinely believe in supporting him.  If you genuinely believe in Donald Trump, you should be willing to do the same.

Now, as to your points:

I'm all in favor of sealing the border and revising the current immigration standards.  I live an hour from the Mexican border, and what is largely an academic exercise to many people is a fact of daily life to me.

That being said, I tend to find Trump too simplistic and general on this subject.  HOW do you seal the border?  HOW do you deport illegals?  What actual, real-life policies is he going to enact to make this happen?

I am not a particular fan of tariffs or other protectionist policies, so we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  I also am not a fan of requiring "American living wages" in countries with radically lower costs and standards of living.  All that would accomplish is to badly destabilize their economies.  I AM a fan of requiring companies to operate clean, safe shops abroad rather than sweat shops, and I am a fan of supporting a decent wage to workers in accordance with the actual cost of living in their country.

Again, I think Trump is very vague and simplistic on HOW he would accomplish his goals regarding China.  Ditto fixing the VA, and a whole host of other issues.  Even you admit it when you say he wants to keep promises to retirees, but you have no idea what that actually means.

I like solid mission statements, and I don't see much of that from Trump.


----------



## Toro (Dec 6, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> I also like the idea of increasing tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage.



That's a very left-wing idea, usually promoted by unions and other statists who want government interference in the economy.. 

Most economists think it's a very bad idea.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Hahaha this is great you should save it!!!


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Trump is a Manager. He doesn't have to sweat the details. He'll have people to do that for him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



You have, in no sense whatsoever, reassured me as to his abilities.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Conservative Messiah isn't what I'm looking for.  To your earlier remark about some Obama something, Conservative Messiah sounds like some liberal pejorative that you're volunteering here.  Why?

Ted Cruz remarked at the last debate that he supported returning the dollar to the gold standard.  Unsound.  Closing the Department of Commerce?  No Article I, Section 8, Clause 3?  No Federal Trade Commission or United States Patent and Trademark Office? Joke candidate. Me, mailing in my taxes on a postcard?  WTF!

As crazy as you try to make Trump seem, he's not down with any of that bat-crazy nonsense politics.  Neither Trump nor myself see overturning the way the country functions as conservative.  It's radical/libertarian/Paul pandering is what it is.

As for being a parrot.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see him unless it's on Trump's coat tails.

He's a goddamn Canadian, damnit.


----------



## Preacher (Dec 6, 2015)

Trump. If he isn't nominee then I will vote for American Freedom Party candidate.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 6, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


We may just be judging the candidates differently.

I like the idea that were going to approach certain issues from a certain angle.  I think that Trump's placed those angles well. His theme-based campaigning is more like what is expected in the business world.  The CEOs with a plan or a system, the Nardellis and Fiorinas, are perceived to do poorly.  You have to take the job and use the company to pursue thematic objectives the way it knows best.

The 5-point-plan group are using a deprecated way of communicating these themes, so Trump's Twitter game is publicly defiling them in the polls.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 6, 2015)

Programmer said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



you  have GOT to be joking, "never been an economy where competition flattened prices"   B.S.

and if you mean by  "income parity" perfect equality,  then no, but it does tend to level out wages.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 7, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I'll take examples, captain.  What one economy performs like this.  Cuba?  Oh, you said competition.  Where/when? (restricted to our dimension)

Here's a sixth example: Try buying powertools for the holidays.  Plenty of competition. _Differentiated_ on price, as main street and labor markets work. Price markets, like commodities traded on an exchange, have no brands, perfect info and uniform product.  There's pretty flat pricing. Without a communist dictator in place, street markets won't disallow branding, marketing, product differentiation, innovation and sales.  Purposefully, business people won't all decide to compete on price with these other options available. (Unless all consumers are brokeasses like you propose).  This is how the world around you works, and directly contrary to your view.  

This is also why lazy asses outside of a unionized environment are passed over for promotions or fired.  At unions, they total the amount of time you've been a sloth at one tier and bump you up a tier based on a chart.  You have to get into racism and backstabbing to cheat your way into hours.  Busting your ass, differentiating your offering on quality: frowned upon in your unionized bolshevik state.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Because it is.  A pejorative, anyway.  Nothing liberal about it.

The point I'm making is that people are chasing around, looking for some magic candidate to get goose pimples over, trying to be original and clever and "think outside the box", and all it ever accomplishes is to ultimately leave us with mediocre, warmed-over-shit nominee, and all too often, a leftist President.  And I don't want you to be in any doubt that I think it's fucking stupid, and I'm tired of it.

So yeah.  If you want me and others like me to support Trump, you are going to have to give me some solid reasons why he is a good choice for conservatives, and the fact that whatever enters his head immediately pops out of his mouth with no filter ain't gonna cut it.



Programmer said:


> Ted Cruz remarked at the last debate that he supported returning the dollar to the gold standard.  Unsound.  Closing the Department of Commerce?  No Article I, Section 8, Clause 3?  No Federal Trade Commission or United States Patent and Trademark Office? Joke candidate. Me, mailing in my taxes on a postcard?  WTF!



You really need to stop getting your news from the first five items on your Internet search.  Research will not hurt you, I promise.

*Gold Standard*

What Mr. Cruz is referring to here is one of the points in his 12-step plan to revive the economy.

A Growth and Jobs Agenda, by Ted Cruz, National Review

_10. Rein in the Fed and Ensure Sound Money. Congress should pass Rep. Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve — so that it is subject to basic principles of accountability and transparency. We then should restrain the Fed’s “quantitative easing” — a fancy term for printing money — so that our currency isn’t further debased. Since 2008, gold has skyrocketed and the value of the dollar has plummeted creating a cruel tax on every consumer, saver, and investor. For long-term growth, we need sound money and a strong dollar._

While I realize that lots of "modern" economists love to pooh-pooh the whole thing as "crude, outdated thinking", Cruz is not wrong that we need to rein in the federal reserve and stabilize the dollar.  Anyone who thinks the _status quo_ is better is the one who's crazy.

*Department of Commerce, Federal Trade Commission, Patent and Trademark Office
*
I know, it's so much easier to simplify, consolidate, and paraphrase than to really understand what someone's saying, particularly on big, complex issues like reforming the federal government.

Here's what Cruz is actually proposing, and again, he's not wrong:

Five for Freedom Summary | Cruz for President

_Abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. *A Cruz Administration will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose sole charge will be to wind them down and determine whether any programs need to be preserved.*_

Observe the bolded sentence.  Obviously, when Cruz says "abolish", he doesn't mean simply wipe any vestige of them out in one stroke.  Since he certainly still intends for there to be an income tax of some sort (he favors the flat tax), he equally certainly intends there to be some sort of agency to collect and process said tax (just as an example).  But do we really need or want the bloated, intrusive IRS we have now, which has progressed alarmingly to the point of targeting and harassing people on the basis of their personal beliefs and political affiliations?

So yes, indentifying agencies and programs that are wasteful and obstructive and/or doing things that really are not appropriately the job of the federal government anyway in an orderly progression of auditing and scaling down is an excellent idea.

Meanwhile, Cruz is not suggesting eliminating or ignoring the Constitutionally-mandated regulation of international and interstate commerce, so spare me the all-or-nothing exaggeration.  He is saying, and he is correct, that our current hotbed of cronyism, corruption, and interference in the free-market that is the Department of Commerce is not necessary or desirable for accomplishing that.

Taxes on a postcard?  Why not?  Are you saying you really enjoy spending hours going through reams of forms (well, electronic forms, but still), raising your blood pressure, and stressing about the possibility of audits?

The only joke here is that you swallow the media's disingenuous simplifications hook, line, and sinker.



Programmer said:


> As crazy as you try to make Trump seem, he's not down with any of that bat-crazy nonsense politics.  Neither Trump nor myself see overturning the way the country functions as conservative.  It's radical/libertarian/Paul pandering is what it is.



No, Trump has sane ideas like, "Just build a wall and deport 'em!  Elect me and I'll make it all better . . . somehow, you don't need to know how, I'm not going to tell you."  If he's got any more than that, you sure as shit haven't bothered to share it with me yet.

If you don't think changing large chunks of the way the country is currently running - or staggering like a drunken whore, as the case may be - is appropriate and necessary, then you're not much of a conservative.  We've had entirely too much of "Oh well, it's already there, so we're stuck with it, let's just tinker around a bit on the edges".



Programmer said:


> As for being a parrot.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see him unless it's on Trump's coat tails.



It's just you.  You're so blinded by the glowing light of "Truuuuump!!!!" that it's making Trump-spots on your retinas.



Programmer said:


> He's a goddamn Canadian, damnit.



You should have saved the rest of your post and just said this, so I could have saved MY time and dismissed you as a media-drunk halfwit.

Oh, well.  Since I already wrote up my answers to the rest of the post, I might as well put them up for anyone with an engaged brain out there to read.

Happy Trump worship, fanboy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



"Theme-based campaigning".  Is that what you call, "We don't need no steenkeeng plan.  Just vote for me and I'll make it better.  That's all you need to know"?

And may I remind you that we're not TALKING about business here?  We're talking about the Presidency of the United States.  Even if one accepts the idea that CEOs just spout generalized platitudes and vague mission statements - which I don't, because it's ridiculous and childish, anyway - the President definitely cannot.  The best Presidents have a clear mission statement AND a plan as to how to achieve it.

If you think voting for someone who says, "We're gonna handle it", and provides no answer as to HOW is a great idea, then you go on with your bad self.  Myself, I've already lived through almost eight years of a vague, platitudinous gasbag who has nothing to offer but his overall wonderfulness, and I'm tired of it.

If Donald Trump wants my vote, he'd better get the fuck off Twitter and start offering some solid, serious, adult thoughts on what's wrong and how to make it right.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


He provides answers in his book. 12 bucks for a kindle version. He sounds a lot smarter in print.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I appreciate that you've made a real response.

First, I've reviewed Cruz' site and did not miss the line about retaining necessary programs.  Where else would one find out about Cruz' policy ideas?  The site states the aim to demo 5 departments, at least in part... as well as other programs from the legislative process, all to the tune of $500 billion in 10 years. Fine.

I think the constitution's provision which made the DOC the way it is is indeed contradicted by Cruz' stance on determining 'necessity' through an exec branch cabinet level audit.  You guys are real tiring with the ad hominem, but maybe you could explain how my position is so outrageous.  Where do you feel it shows that Cruz even considered our constitution or civics with this proposal.

I'm skeptical that plans like this, the gold standard bullshit and the postcard tax form are pandering gimmicks with no shot in application.  I associate this campaigning style with Huckabee, Paul and Cruz, at least.  This isn't suitable for my vote.

The gold standard claim came straight out of Cruz' mouth at the FBN debate, putting him on my DQ list.  The link you provided shows me that he's a Paulist, but doesn't relate to the gold standard statement he made live.  I haven't researched that further, being satisfied by witnessing him say it.

I'll take the insulting label, but I feel wiser than to support old and stupid ideas from libertarian politicians in lieu of a modern better-working status quo.  You don't apply this same line in the sand or see our monetary policy in a positive light.  We differ 180* in this way.  It's ok, but it means we support different candidates.

You've gone a long way to defend your choice, and you've misidentified my intention to sway your thinking at all.  I'm just my vote.  You asked what I see in Cruz regarding his policy positions.  I see a shitty-policy canadian paulnut on my DQ list without the charisma to do anything about it.  I understand he renounced his Canadian rights just last year? We must be agreeing to disagree on the significance of this, too.  I think he's running the race with a peg-leg on this basis alone.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


So far Trump has communicated the direction his presidency will take.  I don't see this as falling short of your candidate or others who have put infeasible promises forward in print.  Cruz' 5 for freedom opens more how questions than Trump has, but people who support him haven't bothered to question how that would possibly work.

As for the 'tradition' of detailing how in presidential races:  The five-point-plan era is not so old, and may be dead.  I don't recall Bush Jr indulging in this with his victory. I recall Perot's specificity was irregular and conceived to be politically ineffective.

My point about how anyone is brought into the business world is my preference, but apparently shared by shareholders with financial stakes and voters in this cycle.  We all know what happens to the best laid plans, so let's hear what good fight you'll fight.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 8, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



How about no?  He wants my vote, he'll fucking tell me his plan for free, and be grateful that I took the time to listen.

Hillary sounds smarter in print, too.  Most people with ghostwriters do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 8, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



So far, Trump has communicated a vague mission statement and his belief that his mere presence in office will somehow miraculously make it so.  Really gonna need more than that.

It's one thing to answer the "How?" questions and spark MORE "How?" questions, because that leads to a discussion of the best future for our country.  It's another thing to just say, "We'll make America great.  Never mind how.  Just elect me and I'll make it happen."  And you are incorrect that his supporters aren't asking those further questions.  You just aren't paying attention because you're too distracted by Trump's smoke and mirrors and flashing strobe lights.

This is a process.  Cruz has advanced into the next stages of that process; Trump's still at the starting line.  That's the problem.

You already heard what I like and what I'm fighting for, and despite multiple posts on that subject and multiple requests for you to reciprocate, you continue to think you can get away with "Trump's stated his direction, and I see it as good enough" and then demand even more answers and details.  How about no?

I think we've got this pretty well nailed down.  Trump says he's wonderful, you believe he's wonderful, and that's all you fucking need to know about this election.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


There is a web site where his positions on all the issues are listed. I would post it now but am on my tablet. Why are you demanding more then any other candidate? They all have web sites describing the details so they dont have to waste precious tv time to do so. They all do it . You are demanding more from trump than you are demanding from the other candidates.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I see my position more like who else but Trump? Rubio and Jeb are the 'ideas look good on paper' candidates.  They've got their hows all in a row.   Why support these cookie cutter guys?  _I'm not scared of a president Trump _and they're six to Hillary's half dozen.

The rest of the field are on the DQ list for thematic reasons as well: Fiorina's Kissinger rant about Russia, Cruz and Paul about politicians fuckin up our dollar, too.  Huckabee, Fiorina, Cruz and Paul for oversimplified tax plan pandering.  Cruz holding out his kanuck license until last year.  Huckabee getting that Kim Davis shit ass-backwards.  Poor Lindsey Graham for not having a wife. They're done. 

The difference between them and Trump, which escapes most commentary, is that Trump has mandate.  It makes all the difference, back to Locke's observations on social contract, although I'm sure there's some modern group psychology term for it.  It's why the moderators of his rhetoric lose people's confidence and propels him in polls. This is where I draw my coat tails.  Under whose mandate is the republican field wading into the immigration debate?

I'm always curious about the processes for people who checked different boxes than I would.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 8, 2015)

Forgot Ben Carson's issues.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 8, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


Trump's "issues pages" are 1/10th of anyone else's.  Cecilie will help with the fact checking, but that may not be an exaggeration.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 8, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


visit this site --> Donald Trump on the Issues it's free. Every Candidate has one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 8, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



Yeah, see, that's the thing.  There ARE sites like that, but they can only post as much as they're provided.  My personal favorite is OnTheIssues.org, which helpfully provides the actual candidate quotes/voting records (when applicable) that provide the position.  Let's look at an example of Trump's "policies":

This is the section on Foreign Policy (kind of important).

Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine. (Nov 2015)
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria. (Oct 2015)
US should not train rebels it does not know or control. (Oct 2015)
Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos. (Oct 2015)
Good that Russia is involved in Syria. (Oct 2015)
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia. (Sep 2015)
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him. (Sep 2015)
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes. (Sep 2015)
More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel. (Jun 2015)
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions. (Dec 2011)
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies. (Dec 2011)
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy. (Dec 2011)
Things change; empires come and go. (Apr 2010)
Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement. (Jul 2000)
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker. (Jul 2000)
Support Russia, but with strings attached. (Jul 2000)
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development. (Jul 2000)
Be tougher on China-we’re too eager to please. (Jul 2000)
Out of 18 points, I see . . . two actual policies:  isolationism in regards to violent spots, and general opposition to all things China.  Everything else is just repetitions of this, or assurances that he's so wonderful, he'll be able to "get along with" people and "negotiate" our way out of trouble.  And at least THIS section isn't full of waffling.  Many of the others are much more vague and confusing and, dare I say it, pandering.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 8, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If you're done throwing blank website addresses at me, perhaps you can tell me what actual policy proposals YOU are seeing there.  I'm not much for simply implying that something exists on a website link; show it to me.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


While I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks, I do favor Ted Cruz at this time.  I think a Cruz/Rubio ticket would be a winner.

Trump is an arrogant, super-rich redneck with little other than extreme success in the business world to speak for him.  He has no Presidential qualities.  His main draw rests in saying what rednecks want to hear...like "I would bomb the shit out of them!"

His puerile attacks on the other candidates and insensitive mocking of a disabled journalist have given him too many demerits to recover from.

Had he, from the beginning displayed a statesmanlike demeanor and a gentleman's choice of words in constructing sentences, I would likely have him at the top of my list at this time.

I am a refined redneck.

Bush has no chance of obtaining my backing....unless he gets nominated without it.

ANYBODY but Hillary!


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I don't see a problem with what he's said here.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


I already gave you a bullet list, you asking me to do it again?


----------



## Gracie (Dec 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?


Still Trump. Why? Cuz he is an uncouth Kennedy and won't take shit, says what he means.
Trump all the way. ALL THE WAY.


----------



## dblack (Dec 8, 2015)

Trump is the kind of candidate loyal Republicans deserve.


----------



## Antimatter (Dec 8, 2015)

Trump.. and I'm not the only one. The rest of my friends are voting for him too.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 8, 2015)

Antimatter said:


> Trump.. and I'm not the only one. The rest of my friends are voting for him too.


He has to be nominated before you can vote for him.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 8, 2015)

asaratis said:


> Antimatter said:
> 
> 
> > Trump.. and I'm not the only one. The rest of my friends are voting for him too.
> ...



Um, primaries?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 9, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



It's incredibly vague and general, as I keep saying.  I need a lot more than, "Be tougher on China."  Oh, really?  HOW?!  "Support Russia, but with strings attached."  WHAT strings?

I am also extremely bothered by the issues he's "evolved" on very, very recently, almost as if he's trying to position himself to appeal to conservatives.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Dec 9, 2015)

It's time for what?  I'm still watching the clown show.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 9, 2015)

Antimatter said:


> Trump.. and I'm not the only one. The rest of my friends are voting for him too.


Good!  Invite the rest of your friends to this board!   The more Trump fans the better!   Glad you are here, Antimatter.


----------



## dblack (Dec 9, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> Antimatter said:
> 
> 
> > Trump.. and I'm not the only one. The rest of my friends are voting for him too.
> ...



Indeed. The Trump candidacy is a fantastic "teachable moment".


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 9, 2015)

dblack said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Antimatter said:
> ...


For those who are teachable?  Yes. For those who are not open to truth and political incorrectness?  Not so much, dblack. Not so much.


----------



## dblack (Dec 9, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...



True that! "Stupid is as stupid does."


----------



## asaratis (Dec 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Antimatter said:
> ...


He still has to be THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE before you can vote for him as PRESIDENT.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 9, 2015)

asaratis said:


> He still has to be THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE before you can vote for him as PRESIDENT.



But if you don't vote for him in the PRIMARIES, how will he win the NOMINATION?

Caps Lock R Us.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 9, 2015)

asaratis said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Who said "voting for him as President"?  Antimatter only said his friends were voting for him.  He didn't say in what context.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 14, 2015)

Trump puts on revivals.  This guy's going to win.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Trump puts on revivals.  This guy's going to win.



Hold your breath waiting for that.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Trump puts on revivals.  This guy's going to win.
> ...


Yeah.  Hold your breath for O' Canada's drafting maneuver.


----------



## Toro (Dec 15, 2015)

None of my Republican friends are voting for Trump, or at least the ones I've asked. They'll either vote for Hillary or not vote. 

But they're all educated.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

Toro said:


> None of my Republican friends are voting for Trump, or at least the ones I've asked. They'll either vote for Hillary or not vote.
> 
> But they're all educated.


And indoctrinated.


----------



## Toro (Dec 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > None of my Republican friends are voting for Trump, or at least the ones I've asked. They'll either vote for Hillary or not vote.
> ...



No. You, Programmed.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 15, 2015)

Toro said:


> None of my Republican friends are voting for Trump, or at least the ones I've asked. They'll either vote for Hillary or not vote.
> 
> But they're all educated.


Than they ain't real Republicans.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

Toro said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


I'd take an outside perspective on why I support Trump, but I'd argue programming and indoctrination are not required to support Trump's over-simple positions.

On the other hand, learning about and subjecting one's self to a certain levels of decorum is indoctrination.  It comes with higher ed, and depending on your line of work, it sticks like it was designed to.  Polling my buds who can't bring themselves to support Trump, this is what they refer to:  The 'how to say' that has been propelling them through their careers is being shit on.  The fact it's working annoys them more.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 17, 2015)

Please run as an Independent, sir.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 17, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Please run as an Independent, sir.


Yes please. He'll take a hundred votes away from Hillary.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 17, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Please run as an Independent, sir.
> ...


Hey, at least I'll have someone to vote FOR.

If only 99 others agree, I can live with that!
.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 17, 2015)

Who tells your guy to wear soccermom jeans with plaid shirts and a silver-tipped belt?  
Did you write him like I suggested?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 17, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Please run as an Independent, sir.


Trump/Webb 2016?  Maybe don't print the mugs yet.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 17, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Please run as an Independent, sir.
> ...


No way Webb does that.
.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.
> 
> There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.
> 
> I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.



Really?   That is as a wide a spectrum as there is.  WHY?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 17, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Has he just folded it up?


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 17, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


Webb?  No. 

He's "considering" an independent run.

Whatever that may mean.
.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 17, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


He doesn't seem like he wants to campaign.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 18, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


Well, he's low-key.


.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 18, 2015)

Reason why Mac fawns over Jim Webb number 26:

Jim Webb Equates Trump's Racist Remarks With Liberal Rhetoric On 'Southern White Culture'

Jim Webb is a guy who can turn a discussion of bigoted remarks by Donald Trump into an indictment of those who wish to put an end to bigotry. After all....both sides are equally bad. It's not PC to mention the ills of the right without declaring that the left is also bad in some way. 

And....Mac is nothing if not PC.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 18, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Who tells your guy to wear soccermom jeans with plaid shirts and a silver-tipped belt?
> Did you write him like I suggested?











He's in one of these outfits _again _today.  Where's the "not a serious candidate" commission, now?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 18, 2015)

I've found Google Trends to be very telling as to this topic.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> He's in one of these outfits _again _today.  Where's the "not a serious candidate" commission, now?



That's his "Look at me, I'm a working guy just like y'all [even though I went to private schools and law school and straight into law practice without breaking a nail]" shirt.

When you see Donny the Trumpster in a flannel shirt, you'll know the Republicans are screwed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 19, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > None of my Republican friends are voting for Trump, or at least the ones I've asked. They'll either vote for Hillary or not vote.
> ...


No, they're real republicans, they just don't have any real republican candidates to vote for.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Dec 20, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't "time".  This isn't even an election year.  Get a ride to a clue store.
> ...


Do all engraved invitations have to go through you and meet with your approval prior to being delivered to the intended recipient?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 20, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yes.  

Please take note of this for future occasions when you might wish to barge into one of my threads and tell me that I can't talk about my chosen topic.  Or any occasion when you wish to address me as though you are someone deserving of my attention.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yanno --- prolly seven women out of ten give me an answer like that when I offer 'em a ride.

But those other three ........... it turns out to be well worth it. 

And it's not bad for me either.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 20, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



As long as you believe it, I guess.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jan 8, 2016)




----------



## Preacher (Jan 8, 2016)

Trump. He has awoken the silent majority and owes allegiance to NO ONE. My other choice would be The American Freedom Party.


----------

