CDZ Clinton Econ Plan

[320 Years of History]

Granted this is USA today so they try to protect her, but her econ plan:

What Hillary Clinton Would Do to the Economy

1. $35 bil for ref and pay states to guarantee tuition. Lol, students can ref now but not to lower rates. Then guarantee tuition means college will collect fed money and increase the tuition rates also. This will be waste.
2. Paid family leave. Big business will adjust, but small business will go under. First they loss a key person. Second if they get a contractor they will have to pay double for the same work. Not small busy friendly.
3. Open infrastructure bank. Her husband expanded the powers of Fannie and Freddie to create the artificial secondary market which was a prime cause of the mortgage meltdown.
4. Expand gov preschool by $27. Bil. Good one I can support.
5. Expand IDEA by $27 bil. I support this move also.
6. $9 bil to repair oil pipelines and to coal family healthcare. To blatant trying to win coal miner votes in the important PA. My bet this would be so riddled with waste some pipes that don't need fixing get fixed an pennies goes to the coal miners.
7. $27 bil in infrastructure expansion. Didn't Obama do this. What was the effect again?
8. Raise minimum wage to $15. Again nailing he small business owner.
9. Increase work benefits. Sounds great right. All this will do is further put the boot on the neck of small business. Big business will push the cost onto the consumer, while wiping out their small business competition and making the barrier to enter the market that much harder.
10. Expand overtime. See 8
11. Encourage/force profit sharing. So Marxist of her.
12. Strengthen Unions and increase collective bargaining. Unions are a driving force for outsourcing. I guess Clinton needs to pay back her Chinese donors also.
13. Raise capital gains on short-term investment. 40% on <2 yr, 36% 2-3 yr, 32% on 3-5 and 20% (current level) on 6+ yrs.
14. Increase income tax on wealth (yea fat chance of it not trickling down). $5 mil a yr 10% increase. I support. $1 mil a year 30% minimum regardless of deductions, can't go under 30%. I support this. $15 mil a year then you get extra 5% increase (total of 15%). I agree also.
15. Expand the disaster known as Dodd-Frank. Why in the world anyone would want to expand it is beyond me.
16. And of course expan Obaminationcare. Admit that mistake and move on
17. No real change to free trade agreements. After all Mexicans are her base to placate and she can't get rid of her husband's bill NAFTA.


There are some things to like, but overall her plan is a disaster. It is build specifically to garner votes and placate the stupid!

These are all excellent ideas. Bernie should be happy. I wonder how many of them came from him directly?

#3 is the potential grand slam -- it could give us another 15 year economic boom until it crashes like Bill's last stimulus did.

That is because you don't understand the inner workings of business. I have done compliance law for too big to fail financial institutions for over 10 years. I see what big regulation and quasi-government agencies do to these business. I don't believe you achieved higher than entry level. If you had you might have a big boy interpretation of such things.

Red:
Perhaps you'll be helpful and identify what be the key "inner workings of business," "big regulation," and "quasi-government agencies" you have in mind and point us to non-editorial, germane, cogent, credible and objective third party references that corroborate your ideas? That would be far more useful than is the empty and unsupported assertion above and your writing about what level you think be that which another has achieved. ("Level" of what, BTW? You didn't specify and there's no specific reference in the prior post(s) that makes it obvious)

As a CPA and management consultant whose in the course of ~30 served clients in government, financial services, telecom, aerospace, discrete and process manufacturing, retail and energy/utilities, I'm well versed on "the inner workings of business," so my request above isn't just for the benefit of those who have achieved but whatever "entry level" you have in mind. I'm also curious to learn just which "inner workings" you see as those that are critical to ken. Please, do tell.....

 

[GHook93]

I suppose we need to understand why she feels the need to do these things.

I am O.K. with raising taxes on the upper class. This could be interesting. The upper class is in bed with government. Theu use government to protect their positions in business. I wonder how they will respond. Many left wing billionares want to be taxed more....go for it.

The whole infrastructure thing is a joke. It only makes more wealthy contractors working on bridges and roads that don't need work (or don't need to be there to begin with.

You think our roads and bridges don't need work?

They do, but you miss the point. When a politician calls for a certain amount of money put aside for "shovel-ready stimulus" projects, 90% of the funds go to waste and 10% at best goes to the project. This is especially true for a notorious pay to play candidate like Clinton.

There is no accountability, no checks in balance and the government is so incompetent that waste is too prevalent.

 

[BULLDOG]

I suppose we need to understand why she feels the need to do these things.

I am O.K. with raising taxes on the upper class. This could be interesting. The upper class is in bed with government. Theu use government to protect their positions in business. I wonder how they will respond. Many left wing billionares want to be taxed more....go for it.

The whole infrastructure thing is a joke. It only makes more wealthy contractors working on bridges and roads that don't need work (or don't need to be there to begin with.

You think our roads and bridges don't need work?

They do, but you miss the point. When a politician calls for a certain amount of money put aside for "shovel-ready stimulus" projects, 90% of the funds go to waste and 10% at best goes to the project. This is especially true for a notorious pay to play candidate like Clinton.

There is no accountability, no checks in balance and the government is so incompetent that waste is too prevalent.

No accountability? What do you call millions of dollars in investigations that have found nothing?

 

[GHook93]

I suppose we need to understand why she feels the need to do these things.

I am O.K. with raising taxes on the upper class. This could be interesting. The upper class is in bed with government. Theu use government to protect their positions in business. I wonder how they will respond. Many left wing billionares want to be taxed more....go for it.

The whole infrastructure thing is a joke. It only makes more wealthy contractors working on bridges and roads that don't need work (or don't need to be there to begin with.

You think our roads and bridges don't need work?

They do, but you miss the point. When a politician calls for a certain amount of money put aside for "shovel-ready stimulus" projects, 90% of the funds go to waste and 10% at best goes to the project. This is especially true for a notorious pay to play candidate like Clinton.

There is no accountability, no checks in balance and the government is so incompetent that waste is too prevalent.

No accountability? What do you call millions of dollars in investigations that have found nothing?

Non-creditable!

 

[MarathonMike]

I didn't even get past #1, I guess this would be Hillarys' "FREE" college plan? welcome to the Clinton Lie machine Bernie supporters!

1. $35 bil for refinancing and pay states to guarantee tuition. Hmmmm somehow that doesn't sound FREE. In fact it does nothing to even REDUCE college tuition. BWAHAHAHAHAHA do you get it now? She lied to you to get your vote and hopes you are too stupid to realize she lied to you. She never changes, just a lying, political changeling that morphs into whatever you want her to be, just long enough to get your vote.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I suppose we need to understand why she feels the need to do these things.

I am O.K. with raising taxes on the upper class. This could be interesting. The upper class is in bed with government. Theu use government to protect their positions in business. I wonder how they will respond. Many left wing billionares want to be taxed more....go for it.

The whole infrastructure thing is a joke. It only makes more wealthy contractors working on bridges and roads that don't need work (or don't need to be there to begin with.

You think our roads and bridges don't need work?

No more than they ever did.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Granted this is USA today so they try to protect her, but her econ plan:

What Hillary Clinton Would Do to the Economy

1. $35 bil for ref and pay states to guarantee tuition. Lol, students can ref now but not to lower rates. Then guarantee tuition means college will collect fed money and increase the tuition rates also. This will be waste.
2. Paid family leave. Big business will adjust, but small business will go under. First they loss a key person. Second if they get a contractor they will have to pay double for the same work. Not small busy friendly.
3. Open infrastructure bank. Her husband expanded the powers of Fannie and Freddie to create the artificial secondary market which was a prime cause of the mortgage meltdown.
4. Expand gov preschool by $27. Bil. Good one I can support.
5. Expand IDEA by $27 bil. I support this move also.
6. $9 bil to repair oil pipelines and to coal family healthcare. To blatant trying to win coal miner votes in the important PA. My bet this would be so riddled with waste some pipes that don't need fixing get fixed an pennies goes to the coal miners.
7. $27 bil in infrastructure expansion. Didn't Obama do this. What was the effect again?
8. Raise minimum wage to $15. Again nailing he small business owner.
9. Increase work benefits. Sounds great right. All this will do is further put the boot on the neck of small business. Big business will push the cost onto the consumer, while wiping out their small business competition and making the barrier to enter the market that much harder.
10. Expand overtime. See 8
11. Encourage/force profit sharing. So Marxist of her.
12. Strengthen Unions and increase collective bargaining. Unions are a driving force for outsourcing. I guess Clinton needs to pay back her Chinese donors also.
13. Raise capital gains on short-term investment. 40% on <2 yr, 36% 2-3 yr, 32% on 3-5 and 20% (current level) on 6+ yrs.
14. Increase income tax on wealth (yea fat chance of it not trickling down). $5 mil a yr 10% increase. I support. $1 mil a year 30% minimum regardless of deductions, can't go under 30%. I support this. $15 mil a year then you get extra 5% increase (total of 15%). I agree also.
15. Expand the disaster known as Dodd-Frank. Why in the world anyone would want to expand it is beyond me.
16. And of course expan Obaminationcare. Admit that mistake and move on
17. No real change to free trade agreements. After all Mexicans are her base to placate and she can't get rid of her husband's bill NAFTA.


There are some things to like, but overall her plan is a disaster. It is build specifically to garner votes and placate the stupid!

These are all excellent ideas. Bernie should be happy. I wonder how many of them came from him directly?

#3 is the potential grand slam -- it could give us another 15 year economic boom until it crashes like Bill's last stimulus did.

Number 3 is one of the worst. Why would you say that ?

What is number 10 about. Why do you have to pay 1.5 times for the same work ? I've never understood that.

 

[oldsoul]

...
Just another reason to vote third party. They are BOTH terrible. The more I learn about them the more I like Canada. Not too far of a move either. LOL

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

 

[GaryDog]

Smart lady. Smart team.

The Donald does not stand a chance.

Excellent example of nonrational thinking: Basing opposition to one candidate on election predictions while accepting another candidate's false narrative without question. What makes Hillary so smart? The fact that she had to go to Arkansas to pass a bar exam?

As for her economic plan, how will raising taxes on corporations promote job growth? This is nothing more than another political payback to labor unions for their support. The Golden Goose of free enterprise is already on life support, but Hillary keeps hacking away. How much longer before it flatlines?

Well we know lowering taxes on corporations certainly does not create jobs. May as well use the money for the public good. Sure, there's waste, but frankly the "waste" in the private sector is worse.

 

[oldsoul]

Smart lady. Smart team.

The Donald does not stand a chance.

Excellent example of nonrational thinking: Basing opposition to one candidate on election predictions while accepting another candidate's false narrative without question. What makes Hillary so smart? The fact that she had to go to Arkansas to pass a bar exam?

As for her economic plan, how will raising taxes on corporations promote job growth? This is nothing more than another political payback to labor unions for their support. The Golden Goose of free enterprise is already on life support, but Hillary keeps hacking away. How much longer before it flatlines?

Well we know lowering taxes on corporations certainly does not create jobs. May as well use the money for the public good. Sure, there's waste, but frankly the "waste" in the private sector is worse.

Really? Care to substantiate your claim? Preferably with reliable, credible source material.

 

[BULLDOG]

...
Just another reason to vote third party. They are BOTH terrible. The more I learn about them the more I like Canada. Not too far of a move either. LOL

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

 

[oldsoul]

...
Just another reason to vote third party. They are BOTH terrible. The more I learn about them the more I like Canada. Not too far of a move either. LOL

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

 

[BULLDOG]

...
Just another reason to vote third party. They are BOTH terrible. The more I learn about them the more I like Canada. Not too far of a move either. LOL

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

 

[oldsoul]

...
Just another reason to vote third party. They are BOTH terrible. The more I learn about them the more I like Canada. Not too far of a move either. LOL

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

 

[BULLDOG]

It does not matter whom you vote for; Hillary is going to win.

It's just that if you want to be able to hedge your bets on either one of them (which turned out to be a good thing in W's case), by voting Green Party or Lib Party you can say "I did not vote for either".

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

 

[oldsoul]

Actually, it does matter who you vote for. One can choose between the two that have a "legitimate" chance of winning (and will continue to take us down the road to self-destruction), or one could choose to vote third party and tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to take a hike. If enough people have the courage to vote for the same third party candidate (15% of electoral votes), then (though they will still likely loose this time), the party of said candidate would be eligible for the same treatment (i.e. debates, money, etc.) as the Rep. and Dem. parties next time around. This would do lots to actually level the playing field for a third party, something neither the Reps. nor the Dems. want, but will never say. It threatens their strangle hold on the American people. That, my friend, is the real problem here. We have two parties that have gotten together and formed rules making it exceptionally difficult for anyone else to "play". Is it a dictatorship? Not exactly, but it is a small step towards that end. Also, it is a giant leap toward tyranny. IMO

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

 

[BULLDOG]

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Referring to legal abortion as killing a child is beyond the bounds of reason and sanity. That's a perfect example of the hysterics that dragged the right beyond those bounds.

 

[320 Years of History]

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Staidhup]

Nothing is more humerus, and yet dangerous, then a progressive socialist arguing how increased government regulations, control of the private sector, and increased taxes will stimulate the economy. The only problem with that song and dance is that it has been proven to be nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. America has and continues to suffer from the direct results attributed to such economic and political nonsense, and yet it still wins elections? Are people really that stupid?