2016 POTUS Election Thread

[VA Cowboy]

Jim Webb was actually the best candidate on the stage last night. But he'd have zero chance of winning as a Dem since he's not a socialist.
Dems have a built in advantage because there's enough people willing to vote for 'free' stuff that others will be paying for.

 

[VA Cowboy]

Hillary on the economy: "It hasn't been this bad since the 1920s."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of 7 years of Obama's presidency.

 

[townsend]

Jim Webb was actually the best candidate on the stage last night. But he'd have zero chance of winning as a Dem since he's not a socialist.
Dems have a built in advantage because there's enough people willing to vote for 'free' stuff that others will be paying for.

I wasn't big on Webb. He kinda came off as bitchy.

I have to say that all of these guys felt less like useless windbags than republicans. Possibly because the Dems pander to my demographic whereas the Reps would prefer we not vote and if possible get murdered in a foreign engagement.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I wasn't big on Webb. He kinda came off as bitchy.

I have to say that all of these guys felt less like useless windbags than republicans. Possibly because the Dems pander to my demographic whereas the Reps would prefer we not vote and if possible get murdered in a foreign engagement.

Hard for me to take that comment seriously.

 

[townsend]

I've said it before, I'm a Barry Goldwater kind of guy but if you show me one lineup of people who lean socialist but are willing to address the serious issues such as criminal justice reform, stupid wars in the Middle East, speculaton investing wrecking the economy, and the bail outs of those same shitbag banks that wrecked it.

I'm gonna side with that.

Meanwhile the republicans justify the Iraq war, still think Marijuana is a "gateway drug" that needs to stay illegal, try and shut down planned parenthood because of a hoax video, and in continue shams of political campaigns to get renewed interest in their next ghost written book.

 

[townsend]

Hillary on the economy: "It hasn't been this bad since the 1920s."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of 7 years of Obama's presidency.

And a weird endorsement of the Great Depression.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

And a weird endorsement of the Great Depression.

Hilary is just a name. Surely she couldn't have forgotten about the great depression, she lived through it...

Actually Bernie really almost did.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I've said it before, I'm a Barry Goldwater kind of guy but if you show me one lineup of people who lean socialist but are willing to address the serious issues such as criminal justice reform, stupid wars in the Middle East, speculaton investing wrecking the economy, and the bail outs of those same shitbag banks that wrecked it.

I'm gonna side with that.

Meanwhile the republicans justify the Iraq war, still think Marijuana is a "gateway drug" that needs to stay illegal, try and shut down planned parenthood because of a hoax video, and in continue shams of political campaigns to get renewed interest in their next ghost written book.

That war decision was in.the past albeit wrong but I cannot abide with the economic philosophy of liberals which is a constant and on going process in government.

 

[VA Cowboy]

The part I didn't like about Webb was his constant complaining about the amount of time he had to speak, even though he did have a point.
Policy-wise he was the most moderate out of the 5. The others wanted to pander to their base and see who could look like the biggest leftist.

I wasn't big on Webb. He kinda came off as bitchy.

I have to say that all of these guys felt less like useless windbags than republicans. Possibly because the Dems pander to my demographic whereas the Reps would prefer we not vote and if possible get murdered in a foreign engagement.

 

[boozeman]

I wasn't big on Webb. He kinda came off as bitchy.

I have to say that all of these guys felt less like useless windbags than republicans. Possibly because the Dems pander to my demographic whereas the Reps would prefer we not vote and if possible get murdered in a foreign engagement.

He was just weird. Like creepy weird.

 

[townsend]

That war decision was in.the past albeit wrong but I cannot abide with the economic philosophy of liberals which is a constant and on going process in government.

I agree in principle. But neither party is actually representing small gov't. If Rand Paul (the only Republican opposed to boots on the ground in the next stupid quagmire) were considered even a dark horse, I would be far more interested in Republican politics. But at the moment we are divided between doofuses like Trump, Carson, and Fiorinna, Jeb, and Rubio.

Does anyone have faith that those clowns would decrease spending? Decrease the scope of the government? Expand liberties?

If we're going to have a large gov't (since both parties are resolute on that point) how about we use that size and scope to help our own citizens?

 

[townsend]

He was just weird. Like creepy weird.

My nickname for him was unfrozen caveman lawyer.

 

[boozeman]

I agree in principle. But neither party is actually representing small gov't. If Rand Paul (the only Republican opposed to boots on the ground in the next stupid quagmire) were considered even a dark horse, I would be far more interested in Republican politics. But at the moment we are divided between doofuses like Trump, Carson, and Fiorinna, Jeb, and Rubio.

Does anyone have faith that those clowns would decrease spending? Decrease the scope of the government? Expand liberties?

If we're going to have a large gov't (since both parties are resolute on that point) how about we use that size and scope to help our own citizens?

Honestly, there has not been a President since Reagan that has instituted a damn thing that impacted much.

Everyone since has been bandaids. Clinton was sort of around during the internet boom, but he was along for the ride.

Most of these turds promise change, but they are really just vehicles for the status quo.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I agree in principle. But neither party is actually representing small gov't. If Rand Paul (the only Republican opposed to boots on the ground in the next stupid quagmire) were considered even a dark horse, I would be far more interested in Republican politics. But at the moment we are divided between doofuses like Trump, Carson, and Fiorinna, Jeb, and Rubio.

Does anyone have faith that those clowns would decrease spending? Decrease the scope of the government? Expand liberties?

If we're going to have a large gov't (since both parties are resolute on that point) how about we use that size and scope to help our own citizens?

Because what you state is still a form of socialism and it will tip the scales on a capitalist system of economics. The more government distributes the wealth to create parity the worse the capitalistic system gets and will eventually destroy it. That system is what created the country's wealth and growth. Citizens within this system are to produce in order to share the wealth. Under socialism no production is necessary and therefore will undermine the structure.

 

[townsend]

Because what you state is still a form of socialism and it will tip the scales on a capitalist system of economics. The more government distributes the wealth to create parity the worse the capitalistic system gets and will eventually destroy it. That system is what created the country's wealth and growth. Citizens within this system are to produce in order to share the wealth. Under socialism no production is necessary and therefore will undermine the structure.

I think campaign finance reform is a solely democratic issue that is vital to to sustained success of capitalism, use of tax dollars to subsidize and even bail out faulty but well connected companies is a fundamental failure caused by Gov't intervention and ostensibly worse than any minor form of socialist support of private citizens.
It's all good to say that a party is "for" small government, or capitalism. But frankly the Rs have no real resume to back that up. They're charlatans, for the most part.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I think campaign finance reform is a solely democratic issue that is vital to to sustained success of capitalism, use of tax dollars to subsidize and even bail out faulty but well connected companies is a fundamental failure caused by Gov't intervention and ostensibly worse than any minor form of socialist support of private citizens.
It's all good to say that a party is "for" small government, or capitalism. But frankly the Rs have no real resume to back that up. They're charlatans, for the most part.

I am not sure what campaign reform has to do with anything but the "bail outs" for the most part were necessary and virtually are all repaid. There would have been thousands of people who would have lost their investments and thousands more who would have been unemployed. As for the commercial banking system, the government didn't bail them out. They were capitalized and sold through insurance funds paid by the banking industry. Nearly all the banks were rescued and placed in the handsof New ownership without one penny of government funds involved. I am not sure which bail outs you are referring to that fits your depiction.

 

[townsend]

I am not sure what campaign reform has to do with anything but the "bail outs" for the most part were necessary and virtually are all repaid. There would have been thousands of people who would have lost their investments and thousands more who would have been unemployed. As for the commercial banking system, the government didn't bail them out. They were capitalized and sold through insurance funds paid by the banking industry. Nearly all the banks were rescued and placed in the handsof New ownership without one penny of government funds involved. I am not sure which bail outs you are referring to that fits your depiction.

The pay back is a sleight of hand. 200 Billion dollars of the 400 recouped are government subsidies given to banks for the purpose of subsidizing small business loans. The other 200 and change we made back aren't the same as 'repayment', but profits from investments based on the bail outs.

I'm sure you realize that companies like Goldman Sachs who benefitted greatly from the bailouts are also huge investors into political campaigns. (Both Republican and Democrat) this didn't just help them accrue a lot of free money from the government (a little more than an entire year's welfare budget for the state of Texas) but also was a great help when all the people who leveraged funds to wreck the economy completely escaped prosecution.

I don't know how you can extol saved jobs in one sentence, and denounce socialism the next. Either we should use government funds to benefit the working man, or we should allow the free market to play out. It seems the US has chosen to use government funds when billionaires investments are at stake. (for instance the shareholders in AIG, and Goldman Sachs) but when regular people need help, well that's just big government.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The pay back is a sleight of hand. 200 Billion dollars of the 400 recouped are government subsidies given to banks for the purpose of subsidizing small business loans. The other 200 and change we made back aren't the same as 'repayment', but profits from investments based on the bail outs.

I'm sure you realize that companies like Goldman Sachs who benefitted greatly from the bailouts are also huge investors into political campaigns. (Both Republican and Democrat) this didn't just help them accrue a lot of free money from the government (a little more than an entire year's welfare budget for the state of Texas) but also was a great help when all the people who leveraged funds to wreck the economy completely escaped prosecution.

I don't know how you can extol "saved jobs" in one sentence, and denounce socialism the next. Either we should use government funds to benefit the working man, or we should allow the free market to play out. It seems the US has chosen to use government funds when billionaires investments are at stake. (for instance the shareholders in AIG, and Goldman Sachs) but when regular people need help, well that's just big government.

All of that to end up saying the economy is wrecked? The economy isn't wrecked yet but the companies who have the wealth position are simply waiting to see if the Democratic administration will be ousted and the new regime will give them an incentive to invest in expansion. The private funding is the only way the economy will expand because tax dollars cannot possibly create expanded production. I am not going into an econ 101 diatribe about it but it is ୅not possible to expand the economy with government funds because there is no production derived from it.

 

[Carl]

Honestly, there has not been a President since Reagan that has instituted a damn thing that impacted much.

Everyone since has been bandaids. Clinton was sort of around during the internet boom, but he was along for the ride.

Most of these turds promise change, but they are really just vehicles for the status quo.

This is true. Reagan did start the Jelly Belly phenomenon.

 

[townsend]

All of that to end up saying the economy is wrecked? The economy isn't wrecked yet but the companies who have the wealth position are simply waiting to see if the Democratic administration will be ousted and the new regime will give them an incentive to invest in expansion. The private funding is the only way the economy will expand because tax dollars cannot possibly create expanded production. I am not going into an econ 101 diatribe about it but it is ୅not possible to expand the economy with government funds because there is no production derived from it.

I'm not saying wealth should come from government. Far from it. I don't think the economy is wrecked either, since we are still adding jobs.

However I think you overestimate the role of the super wealthy in the economy. Let's not forget that small businesses account for 2/3rds of jobs generated this last year. Small businesses that are perfectly the right size to fail. I am not content with more wealth being doled out to the wealthy from our tax dollars, while the true job creators are left at a competitive disadvantage. How is that capitalism?

How is it that AIG can pay its executives 218 million dollars in bonuses from bail out money, while the formerly middle class (who are suffering from the damage AIG caused) had to move back in with their parents?

I don't propose that the U.S. Tax itself into prosperity, but we are already heavily taxed, the only problem is that we've spent the money that could have gone to benefit the poor and middle class, and redistributed it to the very most wealthy.

Economic safety blankets are beneficial to the economy because it allows people who might otherwise end up homeless pull themselves out of poverty. We scream socialism, but how much would we save if people were actually able to go to the hospital without going bankrupt? If college students could actually buy homes instead of paying down 5 figure student loans. if the bridges, roads, and highways were actually modernized to facilitate the amount of traffic that travels across it.

Government can't create jobs out of nowhere but it can enhance the economy by investing in the American workforce.