2016 POTUS Election Thread

townsend · Jan 18, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
But that is the biggest part of Berrnie's platform. The core of what he stands for is wealth redistribution. Hell Bernie himself brags about the social class of the majority of his supporters.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a politician that didn't brag about support from the middle class. Don't forget that Ron Paul talked about being that guy too.

VA Cowboy · Jan 18, 2016

townsend said:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what, All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

-Mitt Romney 2012 Republican nominee

Is this supposed to prove R's hate the poor? He's just stating a fact that they have a built-in 47% voting bloc before they even campaign.

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

Clay_Allison said:
So basically you just backed down.

What?

townsend · Jan 19, 2016

VA Cowboy said:
Is this supposed to prove R's hate the poor? He's just stating a fact that they have a built-in 47% voting bloc before they even campaign.

You have to sense the contempt in this statement. That the poorer half of the population is a bunch or entitled parasites. That the poor exclusively vote democrat because they all want to steal from the wealthy. This is a sterling example of a prominent republican proving that he's willing to throw multiple lower economic classes under the bus to satisfy the republicans' darling billionaires.

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

townsend said:
You have to sense the contempt in this statement. That the poorer half of the population is a bunch or entitled parasites. That the poor exclusively vote democrat because they all want to steal from the wealthy. This is a sterling example of a prominent republican proving that he's willing to throw multiple lower economic classes under the bus to satisfy the republicans' darling billionaires.

Well is it hat he hates the poor or he hates having to pay for the poor? I think most productive people are not happy with abuses in the system that allows individuals the opportunity to be on welfare instead of working for the same amount of income. If that doesn't bother you then I would like to know why.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

Kbrown said:
The "free free free" thing is the equivalent of Republicans/Libertarians "hating the poor." Highly reductive.

Thank you.

It's very reductive and plays to very specific mindset.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

Kbrown said:
You kind of make my point here. The fact that you can't fathom a reasonable person supporting single-payer health care for any other reason than greed for free stuff, combined with the fact that you can't fathom how the other side could possibly perceive things like deregulation and social program cuts as hatred of the poor, kind of shows why there is no honest debate anymore. "My ideas are self-evidently correct, and I assume the worst about everyone else's intentions."

The left wing does it too. Conservatives are racists, bigots, etc.

FWIW, I will be a Paul voter. I don't think universal healthcare would work on a national level. But it doesn't do anybody any good to dismiss the other side out-of-hand as greedy, or lazy or whatever.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
But that is the biggest part of Bernie's platform. The core of what he stands for is wealth redistribution. Hell Bernie himself brags about the social class of the majority of his supporters.

And what does any of that have to do with Bernie supporters want free stuff?

Like Kbrown said there is a middle ground and a nuanced way of looking at these things instead of going the route of Liberals only vote for liberals because they want free stuff.

Bernies health care plan is not exactly free for the majority of his supporters.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well is it hat he hates the poor or he hates having to pay for the poor? I think most productive people are not happy with abuses in the system that allows individuals the opportunity to be on welfare instead of working for the same amount of income. If that doesn't bother you then I would like to know why.

And what does any of that have to do with 47%.

Do you think 47% of Americans are abusing the system and not working for their income?

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
And what does any of that have to do with 47%.

Do you think 47% of Americans are abusing the system and not working for their income?

I don't think anything about the 47% one way or another. That was Townsend' s response to the statement that Republicans hate the poor.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I don't think anything about the 47% one way or another. That was Townsend' s response to the statement that Republicans hate the poor.

How can you not think anything about the 47% when you responded to a post where Townsend was speaking specifically about that 47% comment?

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
How can you not think anything about the 47% when you responded to a post where Townsend was speaking specifically about that 47% comment?

If you notice closer I said the individual may have meant something different. Then I went on to question Townsend that if he meant that how can he disagree. I really don't know what the 47% represents other than Romney indicated he thought this number would be voters that felt they were entitled. O only Romney knows what he meant.

Jiggyfly · Jan 19, 2016

Trump condemns terms of Iran prisoner swap as Republicans join in criticism

Businessman suggests deal is unfair while Marco Rubio and Chris Christie attack prisoner exchanges under Barack Obama

Republican presidential candidates scrambled to react to a prisoner swap between the US and Iran on Saturday morning, expressing both celebration and scorn on the day sanctions relief begins for the Middle East nation.

In New Hampshire, frontrunner Donald Trump questioned what the US gained from the deal, in which four American-Iranian dual-nationals were released and seven Iranians held on sanctions violations were released or pardoned.

“They’re getting seven people, so essentially they get $150bn plus seven, and we get four,” the billionaire said.

“I’m happy they’re coming back, but I will tell you it’s a disgrace they’ve been there so long,” he continued.

Senator Rand Paul, who opposed the deal in Congress, took a measured tone in an interview with the Guardian, calling the release “a hopeful sign about the agreement” and “a sign that we need to continue to try to see if negotiations will work”.

A US official confirmed to the Guardian that Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, pastor Saeed Abedini, Nosratollah Khosrawi-Roodsari and marine veteran Amir Hekmati were released. In exchange, the US offered clemency to seven Iranians facing trial or convictions, the official said.

A US official told Reuters Iran released a fifth captive, student Matthew Trevithick, separately.

Paul called Abedini, who has been held since September 2012, “an incredibly brave man to believe so strongly in Christianity, willing to risk imprisonment for it”.

Texas senator Ted Cruz also celebrated the release of Abedini on Twitter, saying: “Praise God! Surely bad parts of Obama’s latest deal, but prayers of thanksgiving that Pastor Saeed is coming home.”

The releases coincide with the lifting of economic sanctions and the unfreezing of some $100bn in assets under the terms of the nuclear deal negotiated between Iran and several nations, including the US, in July 2015.

The deal passed its final hurdles in the US Congress in September despite steady Republican opposition. In exchange for Iran dismantling much of its nuclear infrastructure, the agreement lifts crippling economic sanctions on the oil-rich nation.

Senator Marco Rubio, answering questions after a town hall event in Iowa on Saturday, said so-called prisoner “swaps” had “created an incentive” for governments around the world to take hostages.

“Governments are taking Americans hostage because they believe they can gain concessions from this government under Barack Obama,” Rubio said.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, also in Iowa, echoed Rubio’s concerns.
“We shouldn’t have to swap prisoners,” he said. “These folks were taken illegally in violation of international law and they should have been released without condition. But you know, the Iranians have treated this president with disrespect for years and he continues to take it.”

“Remember the last time we had Iranian hostages,” Christie added in a statement, referring to the 1979 hostage crisis. “As soon as Ronald Reagan took the oath of office those Iranians returned our citizens immediately because they knew if they didn’t they would have to face the strength of character and the wrath of Ronald Reagan.”

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said he was “very pleased” by the release and “overjoyed for the families and friends” of the former prisoners. Carson did not comment on the prisoner deal, but did condemn the “disastrous” agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

“The fact remains that President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is fatally flawed and gravely jeopardizes the national security interests of the American people,” he said in a statement.

Rezaian, who had been serving as the Tehran bureau chief for the Washington Post, was taken into custody by Iranian officials in July 2014. In October 2015, an Iranian court convicted him of several crimes, including espionage and “propaganda against the establishment”, in a closed-door proceeding widely criticised by the US government and press freedom organizations.

Rezaian, born in California, is a dual citizen of the US and Iran, although Iran does not recognize dual nationality for its citizens and treated Rezaian as an Iranian.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who is hovering near the bottom of the polls, released a statement that asked why it took the US so long to secure the prisoners’ release. He also compared sanctions relief for Iran to “writing a $150bn check to Adolf Hitler before WWII hoping he’ll behave”.

Huckabee added praise for Abedini: “Well done Saeed! You are a faithful servant! And welcome home!”

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders also addressed the release in a statement, saying: “This good news shows that diplomacy can work even in this volatile region of the world.”

townsend · Jan 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well is it hat he hates the poor or he hates having to pay for the poor? I think most productive people are not happy with abuses in the system that allows individuals the opportunity to be on welfare instead of working for the same amount of income. If that doesn't bother you then I would like to know why.

But in that statement was an assumption that poor and freeloaders are the same thing. That the bottom half of the population are ALL parasites.
Forget how broken a breakdown of the demographics it is, and forget that this bottom half of the population are probably doing all the hardest jobs that keep the roads paved, the trash picked up, get our food planted picked, delivered cooked and served.
Forget that he called every soldier every teacher, every artist, every elderly caretaker a parasite just because they earn a whole lot less than they're worth, and therefore occupy the bottom 47%.
Mitt Romney drew a line in the sand, and his delineation wasn't morality, or conservatism, it was income. In no uncertain terms he said everyone who votes this way is against us because they're poor. That is nothing short of an insult to the nuanced and diverse political opinions of half the population, and a stunning demonstration of contempt and elitism.

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

townsend said:
But in that statement was an assumption that poor and freeloaders are the same thing. That the bottom half of the population are ALL parasites.
Forget how broken a breakdown of the demographics it is, and forget that this bottom half of the population are probably doing all the hardest jobs that keep the roads paved, the trash picked up, get our food planted picked, delivered cooked and served.
Forget that he called every soldier every teacher, every artist, every elderly caretaker a parasite just because they earn a whole lot less than they're worth, and therefore occupy the bottom 47%.
Mitt Romney drew a line in the sand, and his delineation wasn't morality, or conservatism, it was income. In no uncertain terms he said everyone who votes this way is against us because they're poor. That is nothing short of an insult to the nuanced and diverse political opinions of half the population, and a stunning demonstration of contempt and elitism.

Maybe you should 're read the statement again. He is depicting people who feel they are entitled to the government taking care of them. The people you are depicting are simply lower income people but you are proposing that these same people also feel they are entitled to be take care of by the government. Your supposition is completely erroneous because number I those lower ncome people are working so obviously they don't think government is responsible for them or they would quit their job and become one of the group he is actually talking about. How can you just broadening all lower income people and say they have the this attitude? That is totally an unfounded arbitrary response and in my view a real insult to all the hard working lower income people that don't feel like uncle Sam is their nanny.

Cowboysrock55 · Jan 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Maybe you should 're read the statement again. He is depicting people who feel they are entitled to the government taking care of them. The people you are depicting are simply lower income people but you are proposing that these same people also feel they are entitled to be take care of by the government. Your supposition is completely erroneous because number I those lower ncome people are working so obviously they don't think government is responsible for them or they would quit their job and become one of the group he is actually talking about. How can you just broadening all lower income people and say they have the this attitude? That is totally an unfounded arbitrary response and in my view a real insult to all the hard working lower income people that don't feel like uncle Sam is their nanny.

Yeah are teachers and soldiers really receiving government assistance? (Other then obviously the pay they receive for the work they do, which is in no way "assistance")

townsend · Jan 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Maybe you should 're read the statement again. He is depicting people who feel they are entitled to the government taking care of them. The people you are depicting are simply lower income people but you are proposing that these same people also feel they are entitled to be take care of by the government. Your supposition is completely erroneous because number I those lower ncome people are working so obviously they don't think government is responsible for them or they would quit their job and become one of the group he is actually talking about. How can you just broadening all lower income people and say they have the this attitude? That is totally an unfounded arbitrary response and in my view a real insult to all the hard working lower income people that don't feel like uncle Sam is their nanny.

It is an insult. But not one that I have implied. It's one that Romney implied when he said 47% of the population are entitled people who want free stuff from the government.

Kbrown · Jan 19, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Yeah are teachers and soldiers really receiving government assistance? (Other then obviously the pay they receive for the work they do, which is in no way "assistance")

I work a full-time office job at a small business, and while we are working to improve business and I am training to advance in positions, my wife and I have a marketplace health plan and my daughter qualifies for and gets CHIP. That would put me in Thurston Romney III's 47%, I suppose. I don't feel like a leech, myself.

I am a conservative because I believe the policies work, but some of the Republican rhetoric I find distasteful. I'm also a (bad) Catholic, and don't get me started on "pro-life" people who talk about poor children as a burden on society that they "shouldn't have to pay for," as if they are being forced at gunpoint to sponsor a child wholesale.

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

townsend said:
It is an insult. But not one that I have implied. It's one that Romney implied when he said 47% of the population are entitled people who want free stuff from the government.

So you think he was talking about the lower income groups that do not take government assistance? How can you just arbitrarily lump them in and then say this is who Romney is talking about?

L.T. Fan · Jan 19, 2016

Kbrown said:
I work a full-time office job at a small business, and while we are working to improve business and I am training to advance in positions, my wife and I have a marketplace health plan and my daughter qualifies for and gets CHIP. That would put me in Thurston Romney III's 47%, I suppose. I don't feel like a leech, myself.

I am a conservative because I believe the policies work, but some of the Republican rhetoric I find distasteful. I'm also a (bad) Catholic, and don't get me started on "pro-life" people who talk about poor children as a burden on society that they "shouldn't have to pay for," as if they are being forced at gunpoint to sponsor a child wholesale.

Nor do I believe you are part of the group he was referring to. He specifically said the people that feel they are entitled for government to take care of them.

2016 POTUS Election Thread

Banned

Brand New Member

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Super Moderator

Banned

Not So New Member

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are