Time to come clean: Are you voting for Donald Trump?

Genghis Khan · Jun 6, 2016

Kbrown said:
Sanders and Paul are actually fairly close, with economics being the big exception.

On NPR a couple weeks back, Gary Johnson remarked that according to one of those political views aggregator websites, he is 75% in agreement with Sanders.

I don't agree, and the economics is a huge, fundamental difference.

The website is isidewith.com, personally I find their results dubious but it for the record said I side most with Johnson.

Genghis Khan · Jun 6, 2016

2233boys said:
I refuse to vote for Hillary. I will be writing in Bernie Sanders, or voting for Dr. Jill Stein.

I applaud you.

Genghis Khan · Jun 6, 2016

2233boys said:
You Gary Johnson voters do realize he is socially liberal, right?

In fact I agree with many of his social policy stances. Let that sink in.

I do, and I side with him on some social issues though differ with him on some.

I believe my biggest departure from him may be on health care.

L.T. Fan · Jun 6, 2016

Genghis Khan said:
I do, and I side with him on some social issues though differ with him on some.

I believe my biggest departure from him may be on health care.

The thing about health care is that it goes much deeper than just medical issues. It's almost as much about economics as it is administering care and treatment. It's close to impossible to write a program that makes provisions for everyone without affecting various economic groups and their abilities to obtain and pay for coverages.

With that being the case those who can afford health care and have programs in place cannot simply say I will remain status quo. The will be asked (or forced) to assist with the plans for those who cannot afford reasonable health care thus creating a financial burden on them. At that point economics will kick in because money's that was previously utilized in a different segment of the economy will now be diverted elsewhere.

That's just a miniscule point to how the economy will be affected. It's one thing to devise a health care program but the ramifications of what will be affected needs careful attention. So far I haven't seen a plan from anyone that doesn't involve equities being redistributed.

Cotton · Jun 6, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
The thing about health care is that it goes much deeper than just medical issues. It's almost as much about economics as it is administering care and treatment. It's close to impossible to write a program that makes provisions for everyone without affecting various economic groups and their abilities to obtain and pay for coverages.

With that being the case those who can afford health care and have programs in place cannot simply say I will remain status quo. The will be asked (or forced) to assist with the plans for those who cannot afford reasonable health care thus creating a financial burden on them. At that point economics will kick in because money's that was previously utilized in a different segment of the economy will now be diverted elsewhere.

That's just a miniscule point to how the economy will be affected. It's one thing to devise a health care program but the ramifications of what will be affected needs careful attention. So far I haven't seen a plan from anyone that doesn't involve equities being redistributed.

It's the essence of socialism. I am nor ever will be for any type of program that burdens the working man even further to help poor people. There are fucking clinics for that already. Use them.

Jiggyfly · Jun 6, 2016

Genghis Khan said:
No.

Uh yeah.

Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging[edit]

The HUD rigging scandal occurred when Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce and his associates rigged low income housing bids to favor Republican contributors to Reagan's campaign as well as rewarding Republican lobbyists such as James G. Watt Secretary of the Interior.[11] Sixteen convictions were eventually handed down,

EPA scandals[edit]

A number of scandals occurred at the Environmental Protection Agency under the Reagan administration. Over twenty high-level EPA employees were removed from office during Reagan's first three years as president.[20] Additionally, several Agency officials resigned amidst a variety of charges, ranging from being unduly influenced by industry groups to rewarding or punishing employees based on their political beliefs.[21] Sewergate, the most prominent EPA scandal during this period, involved the targeted release of Superfund grants to enhance the election prospects of local officials aligned with the Republican Party.

Rita Lavelle, an administrator at the EPA, misused Superfund monies and was convicted of perjury. She served three months in prison, was fined $10,000 and given five years probation.[22]

Anne Gorsuch Burford, the controversial head of the EPA. Burford, citing "Executive Privilege," refused to turn over Superfund records to Congress.[23] She was found in Contempt, whereupon she resigned.

[/QUOTE]

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا‎‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

Jiggyfly · Jun 6, 2016

NoDak said:
Yeah, just like I said. Unknown as a POLITICIAN.

Moron.

If you know him as a person how the hell would you not know his motivations as a politician?

Talk about moronic.

Jiggyfly · Jun 6, 2016

Iamtdg said:
It's the essence of socialism. I am nor ever will be for any type of program that burdens the working man even further to help poor people. There are fucking clinics for that already. Use them.

Yeah clinics take care of cancer, heart disease, traumatic injury, chronic illnesses and everything else.

Genghis Khan · Jun 6, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
Uh yeah.

[/QUOTE]

Uh, no.

Cotton · Jun 6, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
Yeah clinics take care of cancer, heart disease, traumatic injury, chronic illnesses and everything else.

Nope, but what is the point of Medicaid? Do we need an additional program on top of the one already in place? Now, if you ask me if Medicaid should be overhauled, I would agree with you. But, we don't need an additional program when there already is one in place with Medicaid and free clinics.

Jiggyfly · Jun 6, 2016

Uh, no.[/QUOTE]

Like I said the saint is untouchable, no matter what happened in his administration.

Jiggyfly · Jun 6, 2016

Iamtdg said:
Nope, but what is the point of Medicaid? Do we need an additional program on top of the one already in place? Now, if you ask me if Medicaid should be overhauled, I would agree with you. But, we don't need an additional program when there already is one in place with Medicaid and free clinics.

What program are you talking about and you know free clinics get money from the government as well.

Cotton · Jun 6, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
What program are you talking about and you know free clinics get money from the government as well.

Medicaid. Pretty sure I put that in my other post. And, of course free clinics get money from the gov't. That's my point. We are already being taxed to help the poor. We don't need more money being taken from us for an additional program.

2233boys · Jun 6, 2016

Iamtdg said:
Medicaid. Pretty sure I put that in my other post. And, of course free clinics get money from the gov't. That's my point. We are already being taxed to help the poor. We don't need more money being taken from us for an additional program.

Universal health care would be replace all those systems, not be an additional program.

L.T. Fan · Jun 6, 2016

2233boys said:
Universal health care would be replace all those systems, not be an additional program.

I don't think I am willing to trade my current program for a universal health care program that I am pretty sure will be inferior to what I have. Nor am I interested in being taxed to pay for someone else's health care. Universal health care is just a nice sounding name for socialized medicine unless someone can demonstrate how it is a system that doesn't force me to lower my present program.

Smitty · Jun 7, 2016

I haven't voted for the last two crappy Republican nominees, why would I start now?

Cowboysrock55 · Jun 7, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I don't think I am willing to trade my current program for a universal health care program that I am pretty sure will be inferior to what I have. Nor am I interested in being taxed to pay for someone else's health care. Universal health care is just a nice sounding name for socialized medicine unless someone can demonstrate how it is a system that doesn't force me to lower my present program.

Additional program or new program, it really doesn't make any difference. The end result is a bigger government taking more money from the people so that they can tell everyone what is best for them instead of letting individuals have freedom of choice. The government is the biggest waster of money in America, the last thing we should all do is give them more money.

Genghis Khan · Jun 7, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Additional program or new program, it really doesn't make any difference. The end result is a bigger government taking more money from the people so that they can tell everyone what is best for them instead of letting individuals have freedom of choice. The government is the biggest waster of money in America, the last thing we should all do is give them more money.

Exactly.

Cotton · Jun 7, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Additional program or new program, it really doesn't make any difference. The end result is a bigger government taking more money from the people so that they can tell everyone what is best for them instead of letting individuals have freedom of choice. The government is the biggest waster of money in America, the last thing we should all do is give them more money.

That's essentially what it boils down to.

Cotton · Jun 7, 2016

pdom said:
For ABH trump-voters, Would you then vote for Bernie Sanders if he was candidate?

Nope. Policy-wise, he is even worse than Hillary.

Time to come clean: Are you voting for Donald Trump?

Time to come clean: Are you voting for Donald Trump?

Yes

No

The worst version of myself

The worst version of myself

The worst version of myself

I'm Easy If You Are

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned

Banned

Banned

The worst version of myself

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned

Banned

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Not So New Member

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

Super Moderator

The worst version of myself

One-armed Knife Sharpener

One-armed Knife Sharpener