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

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

 

[dcraelin]

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

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.

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

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Link?

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]

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

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

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

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Link?

Start here:

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

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

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.

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.

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

 

[dcraelin]

I said shortages in labor not shortages in jobs.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Link?

Start here:

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Post the content that best makes your case...

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[dcraelin]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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.