2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Not a single thing you posted here applies to me or those I know. Are there people whom this applies to sure, in every party and political realm. But the over generalization of Bipo's posted meme is the BS. I stand by the things I wrote. You and Bipo obviously believe otherwise about it but I bet my post is more representative than the meme. More than half of those things apply far more to the left and dems that R so where does that leave us? You'll vote for Hillary or Bernie and the country will continue to lose ground both economically and politically if one of them is elected. The results of their politics is obvious since we've had it the last 7 plus years.
What about the results of the policies of the previous 8 years before that?

I don't think they stack up very well on any of the conservative metrics.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Not a single thing you posted here applies to me or those I know.
I answered you directly, how doesn't it apply to you. Give me a for instance and we can go from there.

Are there people whom this applies to sure, in every party and political realm.
In every party? The things I mentioned. No. In the GOP, this kind of thinking is pervasive as evidence many of your comments here.

But the over generalization of Bipo's posted meme is the BS.
Memes are weak I agree

I stand by the things I wrote.
Good for you, and I stand by what I posted as well.

You and Bipo obviously believe otherwise about it but I bet my post is more representative than the meme.
Your post is justifying the things generalized by the meme, nothing more. It may be your reality, but I it doesn't seem representative of majority of the "Conservative" movement, as evidenced by your leaders, talk shows, and News Channel. I also think that many of the things you said are way off base, as my comments suggested.

More than half of those things apply far more to the left and dems that R so where does that leave us?
Give me a break

You'll vote for Hillary or Bernie and the country will continue to lose ground both economically and politically if one of them is elected. The results of their politics is obvious since we've had it the last 7 plus years.
I'll vote for Bernie and Bernie only. I am not a party whore. Your fear tactics of only the republicans can save us, when the country does better economically under progressive leadership doesn't work with me or anyone that isn't blinded by flashy Neo-Liberal, Neo-Conservative, Establishment politics. You think our country is worse off than when Bush left office? Really?

Anyway, I appreciate the discourse.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The Brutalism of Ted Cruz

David Brooks David Brooks JAN. 12, 2016 1157 COMMENTS



In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

Some justices were skeptical. “Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked. The court system did finally let Haley out of prison, after six years.

The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.

Traditionally, candidates who have attracted strong evangelical support have in part emphasized the need to lend a helping hand to the economically stressed and the least fortunate among us. Such candidates include George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.



But Cruz’s speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear. America is heading off “the cliff to oblivion.” After one Democratic debate he said, “We’re seeing our freedoms taken away every day, and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously.”


As the Republican strategist Curt Anderson observed in Politico, there’s no variation in Cruz’s rhetorical tone. As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everything is described as a maximum existential threat.

The fact is this apocalyptic diagnosis is ridiculous. The Obama administration has done things people like me strongly disagree with. But America is in better economic shape than any other major nation on earth. Crime is down. Abortion rates are down. Fourteen million new jobs have been created in five years.


Obama has championed a liberal agenda, but he hasn’t made the country unrecognizable. In 2008, federal spending accounted for about 20.3 percent of gross domestic product. In 2015, it accounted for about 20.9 percent.


But Cruz manufactures an atmosphere of menace in which there is no room for compassion, for moderation, for anything but dismantling and counterattack. And that is what he offers. Cruz’s programmatic agenda, to the extent that it exists in his speeches, is to destroy things: destroy the I.R.S., crush the “jackals” of the E.P.A., end funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Obama’s executive orders, make the desert glow in Syria, destroy the Iran nuclear accord.


Some of these positions I agree with, but the lack of any positive emphasis, any hint of reform conservatism, any aid for the working class, or even any humane gesture toward cooperation is striking.


Ted Cruz didn’t come up with this hard, combative and gladiatorial campaign approach in isolation. He’s always demonstrated a tendency to bend his position — whether immigration or trade — to what suits him politically. This approach works because in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges court decision on same-sex marriage, many evangelicals feel they are being turned into pariahs in their own nation.


Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Cruz exploits and exaggerates that fear. But he reacts to Obergefell in exactly the alienating and combative manner that is destined to further marginalize evangelicals, that is guaranteed to bring out fear-driven reactions and not the movement’s highest ideals.

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Praps to new Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards. Effective today he will expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to 100,000 poor residents of the state. Now to get rid of the cockroach politicians in 15 other states that have no compassion for the poor, but probably spout off Biblical scripture at their convenience.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
I answered you directly, how doesn't it apply to you. Give me a for instance and we can go from there.
You gave your opinion of what you think a Republican is. Not a single one meme or your of your comments are true for me (conservative person) or any person I know. They are an extreme caricature of what the meme creator think a republican is. And because this country for so many is so far left or right, the far right wing meme would say that they all hate Rs regardless of their political stance, but just because they claim to be a republican. They love Muslims to the point of blindness to the issues a portion of their fanatical believers create. They believe all Blacks and Hispanics are incapable of taking care of themselves or families and need the government to care for them lest the White man enslave them again. Never mind it was Republicans that supported nearly everything that freed them and helped since the Lincoln and mostly supported civil rights. See BS memes are easy to make and throw out nonsense with.

I could care less about Hillary personally. I think she is a conniving, thieving, crooked politician that has no business in the White House. I have no visceral hate for her. I didn't for Obama either, but every time he speaks he makes his attacks personal if you disagree with him, so yeah, I do hate him now. But I do hate her political ideology. I think inviting people from other countries in without vetting them or any of the back ground things that used to be done in immigration is dangerous. But hey, let's bring in more Syrian refugees and "illegal aliens" without controls. It isn't a big deal. Let's lie about getting shot at on a run way. Other politicians will know they can take her at her word because she exudes honesty. Or let's vote for Bernie. Socialism works so well in other countries.

Prove to me that in the long haul the country does better under progressive leadership if it isn't a result of the conservative that came before.

In some ways yes I do think the country is worse off now than before. Economically it is barely stable and fluctuates drastically nearly every single day. Politically, please. In house, our country is sooo unified, out of country, I think others laugh at us.

In every party? The things I mentioned. No. In the GOP, this kind of thinking is pervasive as evidence many of your comments here.
Robert Byrd, Was he a racist? Nearly 40% of the house dems,were they racist when they voted against the Civil Rights act? Or were there some of them that believed it was wrong for some good reason? What kind of thing is pervasive in the conservative (R) movement? BS, it is just they don't agree with you so yes, that may be pervasive.


Memes are weak I agree
:art

Good for you, and I stand by what I posted as well.

Your post is justifying the things generalized by the meme, nothing more. It may be your reality, but I it doesn't seem representative of majority of the "Conservative" movement, as evidenced by your leaders, talk shows, and News Channel. I also think that many of the things you said are way off base, as my comments suggested.
No, my post is directly refuting the meme by what I believe the Conservative movement stands for. You may know people who believe what you have written who claim to be those things that say they are conservative, but this over-generalization of "most" is just that. Your interpretation of what is racist doesn't make it so. I've seen a dealt with true racism and just because you may disagree with what a person says about a person or group does not make it racism. The left's way of dealing with anyone that disagrees with them about a topic of color is to automatically label it as such and it has bastardized and diminished it.

Give me a break

I'll vote for Bernie and Bernie only. I am not a party whore. Your fear tactics of only the republicans can save us, when the country does better economically under progressive leadership doesn't work with me or anyone that isn't blinded by flashy Neo-Liberal, Neo-Conservative, Establishment politics. You think our country is worse off than when Bush left office? Really?
Again, Yay for you because Socialism has worked everywhere it has been tried and is so good for it's citizens.

Anyway, I appreciate the discourse.
Me too! :buddy :towel
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
Democrats scuttle Rand Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill

By*Stephen Dinan*- The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Democrats successfully defended theFederal Reserve*on Tuesday, voting to filibuster Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to force an audit on the secretive central bank as the effort fell victim to election-year politics.

Mr. Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, have made an audit the focus of their presidential campaigns, and the policy has won overwhelming bipartisan support in the House in past votes.

Ads by Adblade

Web Offers

$45/30-Day Unlimited Talk, Text, & Data. First 5GB high speed then 2G

15 minutes is a short time for long term planning.

Buying a business franchise has never been easier. Start yours for under $25k!

No contracts and nationwide coverage on America’s best networks. Learn More Today!

But in its first foray to the*Senate*floor, the policy met with unanimous opposition from Democrats in the upper chamber, who said they feared Republicans were trying to tilt the*Fed’s focus more toward Wall Street concerns and less toward boosting job growth.

“This bill is not about auditing theFederal Reserve. It’s not about transparency or book keeping,” saidSenate*Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “This bill is about giving tea party Republicans and their billionaire donors the authority to control the United States economy.”

He rallied 42 Democrats, one independent and a lone Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, to filibuster the bill, leaving it seven votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.

"" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;">

The bill would have allowed the Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s nonpartisan investigative agency, to review the*Fed’s decision-making on monetary policy and open-market agreements with foreign banks.

The push for an audit took off after the 2008 Wall Street collapse, when theFederal Reserve*made decisions worth trillions of dollars, deeply affecting the U.S. economy.

Ron Paul turned the audit into a campaign slogan, regularly winning huge cheers from crowds during his failed 2012 presidential bid.

His son, Rand Paul, picked up the issue after his father’s retirement from Congress.

He said the bill was needed because topFed*officials regularly refuse to answer questions posed by both Republicans and Democrats about basics such as what foreign banks they have agreements with.

“Both Republicans and Democrats agree that it absurd that we do not know where hundreds of billions of dollars are going,” Mr. Paul said.

The push for an audit had been bipartisan until this year.

The House voted in 2014 for an audit by an overwhelming 333-92 tally, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans alike backing the GAO review.

That legislation was help up by Mr. Reid, who refused to allow a vote on it in theSenate. That marked a reversal for Mr. Reid, who had at one time indicated support for an audit.

Despite*Senate*Democrats’ opposition, the push for an audit remains popular, and is likely good politics.

Three current senators running for president voted for the audit, including Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who is seeking Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Though he usually votes in lockstep with Democrats, Mr. Sanders said the audit was a no-brainer.

“Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the*Fed*each and every year would be an important step toward making the*Federal Reservea more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street,” he said in a statement.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Democrats scuttle Rand Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill

By*Stephen Dinan*- The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Democrats successfully defended theFederal Reserve*on Tuesday, voting to filibuster Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to force an audit on the secretive central bank as the effort fell victim to election-year politics.

Mr. Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, have made an audit the focus of their presidential campaigns, and the policy has won overwhelming bipartisan support in the House in past votes.

Ads by Adblade

Web Offers

$45/30-Day Unlimited Talk, Text, & Data. First 5GB high speed then 2G

15 minutes is a short time for long term planning.

Buying a business franchise has never been easier. Start yours for under $25k!

No contracts and nationwide coverage on America’s best networks. Learn More Today!

But in its first foray to the*Senate*floor, the policy met with unanimous opposition from Democrats in the upper chamber, who said they feared Republicans were trying to tilt the*Fed’s focus more toward Wall Street concerns and less toward boosting job growth.

“This bill is not about auditing theFederal Reserve. It’s not about transparency or book keeping,” saidSenate*Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “This bill is about giving tea party Republicans and their billionaire donors the authority to control the United States economy.”

He rallied 42 Democrats, one independent and a lone Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, to filibuster the bill, leaving it seven votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.

"" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;">

The bill would have allowed the Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s nonpartisan investigative agency, to review the*Fed’s decision-making on monetary policy and open-market agreements with foreign banks.

The push for an audit took off after the 2008 Wall Street collapse, when theFederal Reserve*made decisions worth trillions of dollars, deeply affecting the U.S. economy.

Ron Paul turned the audit into a campaign slogan, regularly winning huge cheers from crowds during his failed 2012 presidential bid.

His son, Rand Paul, picked up the issue after his father’s retirement from Congress.

He said the bill was needed because topFed*officials regularly refuse to answer questions posed by both Republicans and Democrats about basics such as what foreign banks they have agreements with.

“Both Republicans and Democrats agree that it absurd that we do not know where hundreds of billions of dollars are going,” Mr. Paul said.

The push for an audit had been bipartisan until this year.

The House voted in 2014 for an audit by an overwhelming 333-92 tally, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans alike backing the GAO review.

That legislation was help up by Mr. Reid, who refused to allow a vote on it in theSenate. That marked a reversal for Mr. Reid, who had at one time indicated support for an audit.

Despite*Senate*Democrats’ opposition, the push for an audit remains popular, and is likely good politics.

Three current senators running for president voted for the audit, including Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who is seeking Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Though he usually votes in lockstep with Democrats, Mr. Sanders said the audit was a no-brainer.

“Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the*Fed*each and every year would be an important step toward making the*Federal Reservea more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street,” he said in a statement.
There should be a huge deal made of this but I'm sure that our retarded media and public will gloss right over this important topic.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
There should be a huge deal made of this but I'm sure that our retarded media and public will gloss right over this important topic.
It's absolute horseshit to be honest. Everyone knows it is a Bill that is very much needed. Democrats shot it down purely because they didn't want it to look like a Republican got things done. Then they think America is so stoopid that they can throw out an excuse about billionaires and people will buy into that.

This is why I'm so sick of 99% of politicians. They are more concerned with playing a bullshit game then to actually help America become a better country.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
You gave your opinion of what you think a Republican is. Not a single one meme or your of your comments are true for me (conservative person) or any person I know. They are an extreme caricature of what the meme creator think a republican is. And because this country for so many is so far left or right, the far right wing meme would say that they all hate Rs regardless of their political stance, but just because they claim to be a republican.
I agree memes are bad, said as much. Other than that not sure what you are getting at. I've been paying attention and much of what I said, was directed at your "Conservative" movement not you personally.


They love Muslims to the point of blindness to the issues a portion of their fanatical believers create.
Who is they? Conservative leaders in this cycle paint an entire people of a Religion as bad or not to be trusted. Judging a people because of their faith, setting a litmus test for immigration based on religion, profiling Americans for the way the worship are all (IMO) unconstitutional and horrible examples of what your leaders have been saying. There are Christians in this country that are just as fanatical. There are anti government white Conservative wack jobs that are just as fanatical. Should we hold all White Male Conservatives and Christians to the same standards in our Country as many in the Conservative movement want to hold all Muslims. American Muslims are asked to condemn Muslim Terrorist attacks. As a Christian I don't recall being asked to defend Christianity because the guy who attacked Planned Parenthood, or Timothy McVeigh, or that wack job church that protests Military Funerals.



They believe all Blacks and Hispanics are incapable of taking care of themselves or families and need the government to care for them lest the White man enslave them again.
I get it now your generalizing democrats.


Never mind it was Republicans that supported nearly everything that freed them and helped since the Lincoln and mostly supported civil rights. See BS memes are easy to make and throw out nonsense with.
Actually it was a regional thing and if you can't see that the Region (that predominantly opposed the Civil Rights Act and Slavery) isn't mostly Republican/Conservative now, well I am not sure what to tell you.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
I could care less about Hillary personally. I think she is a conniving, thieving, crooked politician that has no business in the White House. I have no visceral hate for her.
Agreed



I didn't for Obama either, but every time he speaks he makes his attacks personal if you disagree with him, so yeah, I do hate him now.
Personal? Really I see a Conservative congress who's personal mission was to block anything the President wanted to do. I see a Conservative Congress that would say the sky was green if the President said it was blue. Do I dislike some of the things he says when addressing opposing politicians yes. Do I understand why he does it, yes. I do think he should be above it.


But I do hate her political ideology. I think inviting people from other countries in without vetting them or any of the back ground things that used to be done in immigration is dangerous.
That isn't happening nor has it ever. Refugees are all vetted certainly vetted more than anyone here trying to buy a gun at gun show. Or the people on the no fly list who are allowed to buy guns.


But hey, let's bring in more Syrian refugees and "illegal aliens" without controls. It isn't a big deal. Let's lie about getting shot at on a run way. Other politicians will know they can take her at her word because she exudes honesty.
There are controls, to suggest otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

Or let's vote for Bernie. Socialism works so well in other countries.
I really don't think you know what Bernie stands for or what Democratic Socialism is. No one is talking about the government controlling all means of production, and that is what you are referring to. Go listen to what Bernie says, and really listen. He has done speeches just on what he believe Democratic Socialism is and it isn't the bogeyman you are afraid of.

Prove to me that in the long haul the country does better under progressive leadership if it isn't a result of the conservative that came before.
I could say the same to you. But let me ask you this, do you really believe that what the Bush administration did allowed the economy to rebound (even if it isn't a great rebound) from the worst recession since the Great Depression?

In some ways yes I do think the country is worse off now than before. Economically it is barely stable and fluctuates drastically nearly every single day. Politically, please. In house, our country is sooo unified, out of country, I think others laugh at us.
Rhetoric nothing more.


Robert Byrd, Was he a racist? Nearly 40% of the house dems,were they racist when they voted against the Civil Rights act? Or were there some of them that believed it was wrong for some good reason? What kind of thing is pervasive in the conservative (R) movement? BS, it is just they don't agree with you so yes, that may be pervasive.
See what I said above, it was regional oriented not party orientated.
View attachment 348
Look at your leaders. Look at what southern conservative governors and legislatures are doing. Look at what is said everyday on your news shows, talk shows, and by many people in your party. You hear it all the time it's pervasive. You may not want to admit it and I don't think it applies to you, but why is Trump leading your party in Presidential race?



No, my post is directly refuting the meme by what I believe the Conservative movement stands for. You may know people who believe what you have written who claim to be those things that say they are conservative, but this over-generalization of "most" is just that. Your interpretation of what is racist doesn't make it so. I've seen a dealt with true racism and just because you may disagree with what a person says about a person or group does not make it racism. The left's way of dealing with anyone that disagrees with them about a topic of color is to automatically label it as such and it has bastardized and diminished it.
Come on really. You're ignoring what your party leaders are saying. Who is leading your party for the office of the Presidency says. What your news media and talk shows say. I don't label someone as racist lightly, you are right some Dems do. It is unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate when people get so wrapped up in an ideology whether it is a political, religious, whatever.



Again, Yay for you because Socialism has worked everywhere it has been tried and is so good for it's citizens.
See above you are confused about what Sen Sanders would like to see, and what you are afraid of.


:buddy
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Democrats scuttle Rand Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill

By*Stephen Dinan*- The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Democrats successfully defended theFederal Reserve*on Tuesday, voting to filibuster Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to force an audit on the secretive central bank as the effort fell victim to election-year politics.

Mr. Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, have made an audit the focus of their presidential campaigns, and the policy has won overwhelming bipartisan support in the House in past votes.

Ads by Adblade

Web Offers

$45/30-Day Unlimited Talk, Text, & Data. First 5GB high speed then 2G

15 minutes is a short time for long term planning.

Buying a business franchise has never been easier. Start yours for under $25k!

No contracts and nationwide coverage on America’s best networks. Learn More Today!

But in its first foray to the*Senate*floor, the policy met with unanimous opposition from Democrats in the upper chamber, who said they feared Republicans were trying to tilt the*Fed’s focus more toward Wall Street concerns and less toward boosting job growth.

“This bill is not about auditing theFederal Reserve. It’s not about transparency or book keeping,” saidSenate*Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “This bill is about giving tea party Republicans and their billionaire donors the authority to control the United States economy.”

He rallied 42 Democrats, one independent and a lone Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, to filibuster the bill, leaving it seven votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.

"" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;">

The bill would have allowed the Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s nonpartisan investigative agency, to review the*Fed’s decision-making on monetary policy and open-market agreements with foreign banks.

The push for an audit took off after the 2008 Wall Street collapse, when theFederal Reserve*made decisions worth trillions of dollars, deeply affecting the U.S. economy.

Ron Paul turned the audit into a campaign slogan, regularly winning huge cheers from crowds during his failed 2012 presidential bid.

His son, Rand Paul, picked up the issue after his father’s retirement from Congress.

He said the bill was needed because topFed*officials regularly refuse to answer questions posed by both Republicans and Democrats about basics such as what foreign banks they have agreements with.

“Both Republicans and Democrats agree that it absurd that we do not know where hundreds of billions of dollars are going,” Mr. Paul said.

The push for an audit had been bipartisan until this year.

The House voted in 2014 for an audit by an overwhelming 333-92 tally, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans alike backing the GAO review.

That legislation was help up by Mr. Reid, who refused to allow a vote on it in theSenate. That marked a reversal for Mr. Reid, who had at one time indicated support for an audit.

Despite*Senate*Democrats’ opposition, the push for an audit remains popular, and is likely good politics.

Three current senators running for president voted for the audit, including Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who is seeking Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Though he usually votes in lockstep with Democrats, Mr. Sanders said the audit was a no-brainer.

“Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the*Fed*each and every year would be an important step toward making the*Federal Reservea more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street,” he said in a statement.

Though he usually votes in lockstep with Democrats, Mr. Sanders said the audit was a no-brainer.:towel
“Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the*Fed*each and every year would be an important step toward making the*Federal Reserve a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street,” he said in a statement.

I think usually is an over-exaggeration. He votes along progressive lines, not generally party lines. I am glad he voted the way he did.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,455
I think usually is an over-exaggeration. He votes along progressive lines, not generally party lines. I am glad he voted the way he did.
You will find that most times I think Bernie is a bit of a nut case but there is one thing I applaud him on and that is he isn't afraid to be different. I don't think he is the kind of guy to just step in line because the Democratic Party told him to do so. It's actually a similar quality in Rand Paul that I really like.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
You will find that most times I think Bernie is a bit of a nut case but there is one thing I applaud him on and that is he isn't afraid to be different. I don't think he is the kind of guy to just step in line because the Democratic Party told him to do so. It's actually a similar quality in Rand Paul that I really like.
Closer to Ron than Rand. Rand is still a party politician who will support something he doesn't want if the party mandates it. If Trump gets the nomination, Rand'll support him over the democratic nominee.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Personally he shouldn't support either. Neither guy represents really anything he believes in.
Yeah. Trump advocates circumventing the constitution consistently. Any Liibertarian should be horrified by his rhetoric.
 
Last edited:

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
Who is they? Conservative leaders in this cycle paint an entire people of a Religion as bad or not to be trusted. Judging a people because of their faith, setting a litmus test for immigration based on religion, profiling Americans for the way the worship are all (IMO) unconstitutional and horrible examples of what your leaders have been saying. There are Christians in this country that are just as fanatical. There are anti government white Conservative wack jobs that are just as fanatical. Should we hold all White Male Conservatives and Christians to the same standards in our Country as many in the Conservative movement want to hold all Muslims. American Muslims are asked to condemn Muslim Terrorist attacks. As a Christian I don't recall being asked to defend Christianity because the guy who attacked Planned Parenthood, or Timothy McVeigh, or that wack job church that protests Military Funerals.
This responding to each paragraph is taking too long so I'll just pick a few.
I've not heard anyone condemn the entire Muslim faith. What I have heard is that a small portion of the faith wants to kill everyone that isn't of the faith and even some that are that don't believe as they do. When that small portion is taken from over a billion people, then you have to be careful with people immigrating from the troubled areas they are coming from lest some of those be the ones that want to kill us all. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Most Christians I know already condemn those sorts of things without being prompted and while there are those types of whackos, 1, they are already citizens here and chances are the Feds are already aware of them, 2. There aren't near as many of them as there are Muslim extremists and 3, those types of folk aren't nearly as dangerous as the Muslim terrorist variety. Shall we compare damage and body counts world wide?






I get it now your generalizing democrats.
I did yeah.




Personal? Really I see a Conservative congress who's personal mission was to block anything the President wanted to do. I see a Conservative Congress that would say the sky was green if the President said it was blue. Do I dislike some of the things he says when addressing opposing politicians yes. Do I understand why he does it, yes. I do think he should be above it.
They absolutely have not opposed everything he wants. As a matter of fact, they have given him nearly everything he wants. They have funded all of his programs (even the illegal ones) through the next years budget. They may talk the game that they won't support him, but when it has come to actual votes, they back down and give in. And on things they absolutely should have fought back they barely whimper.
After his honeymoon period, he may have claimed to want to work with folk, but his tone and words have contained nothing but hostility and contempt for those that do not support him for the vast majority of his tenure as president. As you and I are currently doing, you can disagree without being uncivil, and he cannot hide his superiority complex and vitriol for the other side when he speaks. It oozes from him and as you said, he should be above it.



That isn't happening nor has it ever. Refugees are all vetted certainly vetted more than anyone here trying to buy a gun at gun show. Or the people on the no fly list who are allowed to buy guns.
Really? I watched CSPAN the other day and a hearing was being held regarding this exact thing. The lady who was either the head of the agency doing it or their rep could not answer a single question asked by ANY congress person regarding the process, number of visas given, how many have been retracted, where those people were, how many refugees had been checked, etc. The head of the FBI says it isn't being done nearly comprehensively enough and couldn't be because of the circumstances in their homes.




There are controls, to suggest otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.
I didn't mean "no" controls and should have been more accurate. How about not nearly adequate enough. And as such, I have no problem stopping refugees from coming in the country until they can be made so. That isn't racist, it's self preservation. How about we do more to help them in their own country rather than bringing them here. And as for illegal aliens, That is a no control system. And the president and his folk are being ridiculous to demand "reform" before dealing with the source of the problem you are trying to have a second round of reforms for.


I really don't think you know what Bernie stands for or what Democratic Socialism is. No one is talking about the government controlling all means of production, and that is what you are referring to. Go listen to what Bernie says, and really listen. He has done speeches just on what he believe Democratic Socialism is and it isn't the bogeyman you are afraid of.
Democratic socialism is what a few EU countries have and are dealing with the issues they have created over the years. How does Greece, France and Spain seem to be doing overall with both the government and in some cases refugees? In nearly all of the cases the groups that claim to be democratic socialists are also rebels or extremists in South America and other places. The Democratic Socialist end goal is to convert the capitalist system to a socialist one. In the long run it doesn't work. No thank you.

I could say the same to you. But let me ask you this, do you really believe that what the Bush administration did allowed the economy to rebound (even if it isn't a great rebound) from the worst recession since the Great Depression?
I don't agree with everything Bush and his admin did so please don't be like Jiggy and throw Bush at me as an historical argument. But since you did, He did lots right to help an economy that was hit hard after 911 and he did lots wrong. But the current president acts as if we are back to where we were when Reagan left office and it just isn't so. This economy is only slightly if better at all than it was when he took office and it's 7 plus years later. Some economist say we arEn't even really out of the recession yet.



Look at your leaders. Look at what southern conservative governors and legislatures are doing. Look at what is said everyday on your news shows, talk shows, and by many people in your party. You hear it all the time it's pervasive. You may not want to admit it and I don't think it applies to you, but why is Trump leading your party in Presidential race?
Come on really. You're ignoring what your party leaders are saying. Who is leading your party for the office of the Presidency says. What your news media and talk shows say. I don't label someone as racist lightly, you are right some Dems do. It is unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate when people get so wrapped up in an ideology whether it is a political, religious, whatever.
I am trying to listen to what they are saying, but I am trying to find all of what they are saying not just the sound bites the media is posting and playing over and over again. Plus I listen to follow up conversations I can find for more context. Trump isn't my guy, Cruz is out of what is. But while he is coarse and never politically correct, Trump believes in border control, fighting the terrorists there not here, a better tax code, wants to cut EPA, Education and planned Parenthood funding or eliminate. He believes Obamacare is an anchor. That stuff resonates and while people may not like all his positions, you never have that perfect candidate. Even independents know Hillary is Obama 2 and don't want more of that and there are both DEms and independents that say they would vote for him.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
I'll just finish this by saying great conversation and thank you. We will just keep rehashing the same things so I'm going to respectfully bough out before I get all Nutty since you mentioned "The Penguin" :art.

I disagree about Hillary being Obama 2, she will be more like Bush 3.

She isn't a progressive by any means. Her whole goal is to get elected, and she sways to polls to say what she thinks people want to hear.
She wants power and is ambitious, much like every single candidate on the GOP side. I don't believe they have what is good for the American people in mind.

I will not vote for her, because I don't see her or anyone on the Republican side being anymore than a 1 term president. Will come back to fight for a true champion of the people, in 2020.

Peace out for awhile thanks Fortsbest
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom