login
Election 2016 (Page 19)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-09-15 9:46 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran  1019  St. Louis |  Subject: RE: Election 2016Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Power has been very open about his disdain for Trump, so that's no surprise. However, his comments about Hillary have been held close. He hasn't endorsed her, but he hasn't spoken out about her either. Did you forget he's a Republican? Why would he have ever endorsed her? If anything, the fact that he's kept his opinions about Hillary quiet tells how much he must dislike his party's candidate. In name only. he endorsed Obama twice and has been a long time advocate of Liberal causes. He says he's a Republican, so I'll take him at his word. Plus he'll be forever associated with Bush & Cheney. I think him having strong opinions (positive or negative) about a Republican candidate carry a lot more weight than any strong opinions he might have on a Democrat candidate.
That's fine. One thing is for sure though, Hillary trying to pin the personal email server on him has horribly backfired. Only if Kellyanne Conway can keep Trump's teeny tiny hands away from Twitter long enough to let the whole national disgrace thing blow over. But he's incapable of turning his cheek to an insult, so I imagine it won't be long before he's tweeting what a loser Powell is. Getting in to a pizzing match with Powell is not going to do him any good. I'll give him credit, he's bit his tongue so far. Maybe we're finally seeing the boring presidential Trump that he's promised to turn in to. The more he goes along the more it seems like the "outrageous" approach was all part of a bigger plan. You're right that he's kept his tongue (and fingers) in check the past several weeks and it's paying huge dividends in the polls. If he does stay on this heading Hillary will have to change her strategy. What did you guys think of Trumps Childcare plan last night? Seems to be a flanking move towards women in the middle. It's like he just can't help himself. Seriously, there is no good that will come out of getting in to an argument with Powell. FFS, just let it go and walk away. His tweet from last night - "I was never a fan of Colin Powell after his weak understanding of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq = disaster. We can do much better!" |
| 2016-09-15 9:53 AM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Pro 9391    Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood You're still not understanding unemployment. My company has a single account that is only for my company that I pay unemployment insurance into. If I never have a claim I don't pay any more into the pot until somebody from my company draws from the account. It is not a state wide pot, it's basically a "checking account" if you will for my company and every company has their own account. If I have a bunch of claims I then pay a lot more in insurance, what I pay doesn't effect any other businesses. It's not an entitlement program in any way, it is more of a workers rights type thing such as paying overtime for people working over 40 hours. The way I read the proposed law isn't that they "draw unemployment" while on maternity leave, it's that an employer can draw upon the funds to pay their employees maternity leave. Maternity leave has always been full pay. I'm not an employer, I am an employee. I pay absolutely nothing for unemployment. If I'm laid off, I can go to the state and receive money, paid for through a mandatory tax on my employer. You defined welfare as "taking money from those who pay taxes and giving it to those that don't". Unemployment is supposed to be forward funded, so you had to pay in to your account. You had no choice, a federal program administered by your state required you to pay, correct? Maybe if you never had any claims you were able to quit paying in to your account, but you don't get your money back. That balance remains held by the state. You paid a tax. And whenever you do lay someone off, they are entitled to receive money that you, not them, paid. On a side note, the federal government paid the states $2.4 billion last year for the operations of their totally not an entitlement unemployment programs. I know that anything Trump does or says you guys will hate, but calling unemployment an entitlement program is the equivalent of saying that me having to pay overtime is an entitlement program. It's a law that I have to follow to hire employees and it factors into the overall cost of running a business. When I do it well, my rates are virtually zero (where they are now) and if I suck and have a lot of turnover I will pay more. Now here's a question for you, why did the federal government have to pay the states $2.4B last year? The amount you pay to the state is earmarked for benefits paid out to the unemployed. The feds pick up the cost of the bureaucracy and pay the states for running the program. And bureaucracy is never cheap or efficient. It is a tax. FUTA & SUTA. There's IRS forms to fill out, 940 & 941. Just because you can lower your rate to virtually zero doesn't mean it's still not a tax. Trump lowered his personal tax rate to virtually zero, but the tiny amount he does pay is still considered taxes. I get that we're arguing semantics. If you want to think of it as just insurance, go for it. But in my opinion, when the government taxes every single business, and then gives that money to people who are not working so they can make ends meet, that to me is an entitlement program. I'm not saying it's a bad program. Much better than welfare. But still an entitlement program. I agree that we're arguing semantics and we both agree that bureaucracy isn't cheap or efficient. lol As I mentioned above it really depends on how it shapes out in the language after passage. It could very well be an entitlement, or maybe it is just using the existing unemployment insurance(tax) system which wouldn't be a new "entitlement" but just an expansion of use of an existing one. Politically, I think it was a good move because most conservatives are kind of meh on it like myself but those in the middle and even some on the left will be massively for it. I remember when W Bush ran I didn't much pay attention to politics at all, but when W said he would give a child tax credit I remember telling my wife that he just bought our vote for $4k a year and I said "sold" out loud. I can definitely see people struggling with childcare expenses being drawn in by this policy. |
| 2016-09-15 12:11 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I think I've found myself agreeing with tuwood on some points, wow, this thread has gone places :P
you all seem to like to call everything "entitlements" What they really are is society. Not everyone is equal. Not everyone has equal life circumstances. Not everyone is equipped to deal with those circumstances. We set up programs and measures to ensure that those people don't die or end up on the street. Because we are human beings. We have a choice to help others around us. Instead of that you want every man for himself? You got fired, haha sucks for you deal with it. You got laid off, should have picked a better company to work for! suckerzzz.
I don't understand this selfish viewpoint. |
| 2016-09-15 12:52 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 I think I've found myself agreeing with tuwood on some points, wow, this thread has gone places :P
you all seem to like to call everything "entitlements" What they really are is society. Not everyone is equal. Not everyone has equal life circumstances. Not everyone is equipped to deal with those circumstances. We set up programs and measures to ensure that those people don't die or end up on the street. Because we are human beings. We have a choice to help others around us. Instead of that you want every man for himself? You got fired, haha sucks for you deal with it. You got laid off, should have picked a better company to work for! suckerzzz.
I don't understand this selfish viewpoint. I guess you can call them entitlements or ham sandwiches or bowling balls.......it doesn't really matter. I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to help those who are in need......100% agreement. Where I fall off the page is when it is given generation after generation after generation with ZERO attempt at education or obligation....and now, after all this time, you can add responsibility. THAT'S criminal in my mind, and it was done intentionally by a political party that NEEDS to keep an uneducated and dependent voter bloc to ensure election victories. Somebody needs to explain to me how welfare, forced busing, equal opportunity employment programs, and on and on did any good at all for minority communities in this country. I'm not talking about individual people who have taken advantage of some of the programs ( let's face it, it's a small percentage when you lay the numbers over those who are still impoverished within those communities and the criminals who are wreaking holy hell on them.) I said it in another post on another thread and I'll say it again here......there is plenty of blame to go around when we look at the current state of affairs in this country........just don't try to tell me that these liberal "ham sandwich" programs have helped the situation......it's a total and utter failure that perpetuates itself in every new generation. The ONLY thing it has accomplished is fooling those uneducated and dependent people to vote for those willing to keep them down in the name of "unselfishness" and "compassion". It's an absolute load of bullchit. |
| 2016-09-15 1:43 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 I think I've found myself agreeing with tuwood on some points, wow, this thread has gone places :P
you all seem to like to call everything "entitlements" What they really are is society. Not everyone is equal. Not everyone has equal life circumstances. Not everyone is equipped to deal with those circumstances. We set up programs and measures to ensure that those people don't die or end up on the street. Because we are human beings. We have a choice to help others around us. Instead of that you want every man for himself? You got fired, haha sucks for you deal with it. You got laid off, should have picked a better company to work for! suckerzzz.
I don't understand this selfish viewpoint. I guess you're talking about me. I'm not opposed to unemployment benefits, and I absolutely think all women should get paid maternity leave. I just find it hypocritical that the party that so adamantly opposes entitlement programs and wants to cut business taxes is now patting themselves on the back for expanding an entitlement program and raising business taxes. |
| 2016-09-15 1:52 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by dmiller5 I think I've found myself agreeing with tuwood on some points, wow, this thread has gone places :P
you all seem to like to call everything "entitlements" What they really are is society. Not everyone is equal. Not everyone has equal life circumstances. Not everyone is equipped to deal with those circumstances. We set up programs and measures to ensure that those people don't die or end up on the street. Because we are human beings. We have a choice to help others around us. Instead of that you want every man for himself? You got fired, haha sucks for you deal with it. You got laid off, should have picked a better company to work for! suckerzzz.
I don't understand this selfish viewpoint. I guess you can call them entitlements or ham sandwiches or bowling balls.......it doesn't really matter. I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to help those who are in need......100% agreement. Where I fall off the page is when it is given generation after generation after generation with ZERO attempt at education or obligation....and now, after all this time, you can add responsibility. THAT'S criminal in my mind, and it was done intentionally by a political party that NEEDS to keep an uneducated and dependent voter bloc to ensure election victories. Somebody needs to explain to me how welfare, forced busing, equal opportunity employment programs, and on and on did any good at all for minority communities in this country. I'm not talking about individual people who have taken advantage of some of the programs ( let's face it, it's a small percentage when you lay the numbers over those who are still impoverished within those communities and the criminals who are wreaking holy hell on them.) I said it in another post on another thread and I'll say it again here......there is plenty of blame to go around when we look at the current state of affairs in this country........just don't try to tell me that these liberal "ham sandwich" programs have helped the situation......it's a total and utter failure that perpetuates itself in every new generation. The ONLY thing it has accomplished is fooling those uneducated and dependent people to vote for those willing to keep them down in the name of "unselfishness" and "compassion". It's an absolute load of bullchit. The poverty rate fell from around 22% to 12% from 1959 to 1970, and has since moved up and down a bit with recessions but otherwise fairly flat, so the "war on poverty" (Medicare, Medicaid, federal housing spending, etc.) was fairly successful in the 1960s, from that measure at least. Edited by ejshowers 2016-09-15 1:53 PM |
| 2016-09-15 1:58 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 You are 50 feet from the bank and drowning. Republicans will throw you 25 feet of rope and expect you to do something for yourself. Democrats will throw you 100 feet of rope but then let go of the other end while they go look for someone else to save.
|
| 2016-09-15 2:03 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio You are 50 feet from the bank and drowning. Republicans will throw you 25 feet of rope and expect you to do something for yourself. Democrats will throw you 100 feet of rope but then let go of the other end while they go look for someone else to save. Republicans will pass the rope to the richest guy, who will save himself and pass it along to his friend and eventually it might trickle down to you before you drown |
| 2016-09-15 2:11 PM in reply to: spudone |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Rogillio You are 50 feet from the bank and drowning. Republicans will throw you 25 feet of rope and expect you to do something for yourself. Democrats will throw you 100 feet of rope but then let go of the other end while they go look for someone else to save. Republicans will pass the rope to the richest guy, who will save himself and pass it along to his friend and eventually it might trickle down to you before you drown
Democrats will take your boat and give it to the drowning victim.....because everybody deserves a boat. :-) |
| 2016-09-15 2:26 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers The poverty rate fell from around 22% to 12% from 1959 to 1970, and has since moved up and down a bit with recessions but otherwise fairly flat, so the "war on poverty" (Medicare, Medicaid, federal housing spending, etc.) was fairly successful in the 1960s, from that measure at least. Here's some light reading if you find the war on poverty interesting: War on Poverty Turns 50: Are We Winning Yet? |
| 2016-09-15 2:36 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by ejshowers The poverty rate fell from around 22% to 12% from 1959 to 1970, and has since moved up and down a bit with recessions but otherwise fairly flat, so the "war on poverty" (Medicare, Medicaid, federal housing spending, etc.) was fairly successful in the 1960s, from that measure at least. Here's some light reading if you find the war on poverty interesting: War on Poverty Turns 50: Are We Winning Yet? And here is one NOT from a conservative/libertarian think tank: http://www.cbpp.org/commentary-war-on-poverty-large-positive-impact... |
| 2016-09-15 2:45 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by Hook'em And here is one NOT from a conservative/libertarian think tank: http://www.cbpp.org/commentary-war-on-poverty-large-positive-impact... Originally posted by ejshowers The poverty rate fell from around 22% to 12% from 1959 to 1970, and has since moved up and down a bit with recessions but otherwise fairly flat, so the "war on poverty" (Medicare, Medicaid, federal housing spending, etc.) was fairly successful in the 1960s, from that measure at least. Here's some light reading if you find the war on poverty interesting: War on Poverty Turns 50: Are We Winning Yet? I don't read that stuff......any of it.....but I have spent a great deal of time in the last 30 years working in those impoverished neighborhoods.......if you somehow think those programs have helped inner city communities then you need to quit reading. Both sides manipulate the data to get what they want......meanwhile.....another generation start their life without a clue how to better themselves or live without govt. aid. Again........don't give me any bullchit about the "benevolent democrats". LMAO.....that's a joke......the same one told on the Republicans. |
| 2016-09-16 6:25 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 "I'm Hillary Clinton and I appove this ad." Scene opens with picture of Trump. So immediantly think, here comes the attack..... they gonthrus a dozen clips of Trump saying various things......and most of them I'm like, yes!! Exactly. Not sure how effective ads are when your opponents supporters cheer your ads.
In in other news.....HC made her first appearance after pneumonia diagnosis to the tune of "I feel good". commentator said James Brown died of pneumonia. |
| 2016-09-16 11:23 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 they gonthrus a dozen clips of Trump saying various things......and most of them I'm like, yes!! Exactly. Not sure how effective ads are when your opponents supporters cheer your ads. Probably by design. This race will be won by maximizing voter registration and turnout of supporters. Turning Rs to Ds and vice versa is a pipe dream. Edited by spudone 2016-09-16 11:24 AM |
| 2016-09-16 11:24 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 |
| 2016-09-16 11:25 AM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone they gonthrus a dozen clips of Trump saying various things......and most of them I'm like, yes!! Exactly. Not sure how effective ads are when your opponents supporters cheer your ads. Probably by design. This race will be won by maximizing voter registration and turnout of supporters. Turning Rs to Ds and vice versa is a pipe dream. Hillary is doing all she can to turn the working class D's to R's but generally speaking I agree with you. |
| 2016-09-18 8:39 AM in reply to: #5180918 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/17/clinton-foundation-spent-millions... I wrote about this here a month or so ago.....when someone said they did not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation. Would you rather take a salary or have an unlimited travel budget? |
| 2016-09-19 3:46 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Looks like Hillary is going to continue coasting until November. Yay for America https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
|
| 2016-09-19 6:40 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Looks like she's still having trouble getting over the pneumonia. https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/09/19/hillary-clinton-cancels-event-california-campaign-says-pneumonia/ I truly want her to get and stay healthy because if she ends up having to drop out due to health reasons (no matter what it is) it will throw this already chaotic political season into complete disarray. |
| 2016-09-19 7:00 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Well, it took me over 2 weeks to get well when I had it when I was 16. I imagine it could be 3-4 for someone her age - and that's assuming she really rests like she's supposed to. |
| 2016-09-20 8:04 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Looks like she's still having trouble getting over the pneumonia. https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/09/19/hillary-clinton-cancels-event-california-campaign-says-pneumonia/ I truly want her to get and stay healthy because if she ends up having to drop out due to health reasons (no matter what it is) it will throw this already chaotic political season into complete disarray.
Conspiracy Theory Alert! The rumor (that I am just starting now) is that The Establishment believes Hillary's coronation is not going as planned and need to take her out before she looses and The Establishment loses power. She is too ambitious to drop out on her own so they infected her with a potent stain of bacterial pneumonia so she would have to drop or maybe even die. Then The Establishment will then come in and put Biden or Kaine or some other puppet The Establishment in the WH.
Wait, I got a million of them.....
Hillary's campaign is fearful she will get hammered in the debates....so they concoct this pneumonia ruse so that when she does poorly in the debate, they can simply blame the pneumonia.
|
| 2016-09-20 8:17 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by tuwood Looks like she's still having trouble getting over the pneumonia. https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/09/19/hillary-clinton-cancels-event-california-campaign-says-pneumonia/ I truly want her to get and stay healthy because if she ends up having to drop out due to health reasons (no matter what it is) it will throw this already chaotic political season into complete disarray.
Conspiracy Theory Alert! The rumor (that I am just starting now) is that The Establishment believes Hillary's coronation is not going as planned and need to take her out before she looses and The Establishment loses power. She is too ambitious to drop out on her own so they infected her with a potent stain of bacterial pneumonia so she would have to drop or maybe even die. Then The Establishment will then come in and put Biden or Kaine or some other puppet The Establishment in the WH.
Wait, I got a million of them.....
Hillary's campaign is fearful she will get hammered in the debates....so they concoct this pneumonia ruse so that when she does poorly in the debate, they can simply blame the pneumonia.
I read that the Russians are poisoning her, and here's even some video to show that she is really a vampire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDSithNYwhw
|
| 2016-09-20 8:25 AM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone Well, it took me over 2 weeks to get well when I had it when I was 16. I imagine it could be 3-4 for someone her age - and that's assuming she really rests like she's supposed to. I am not a doctor and truly don't have a clue, but her symptoms just seem weird for the pneumonia to me. When she completely passed out due to dehydration from the pneumonia and then a few hours later was walking around on the street as cheery as ever it just seemed weird. As I said though, I'm not a doctor so I don't know and I do hope that she gets healthy so she can get beat fair and square versus on a weird technicality. |
| 2016-09-20 2:36 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I know we've beat the enthusiasm gap topic to death regarding crowd sizes, but yowzers... The contrast is almost unbelievable. Donald Trump Packs Arena, Hillary Draws 200 at Dueling Events The part I truly can't figure out is where are her supporters at? We talk about the silent majority with Trump, but Hillary seems to have an invisible majority. Any online poll I've ever seen she barely gets 10% (even on liberal news sites). Her book is getting pummeled in reviews. I see zero positive things on FB about her. I have yet to see a Hillary sign in any yard. Any news story with comments is just non stop bagging on Hillary no matter what the site. I finally saw my first bumper sticker, but it was a Bernie 2016 sticker with "ok fine, Hillary I guess" over the top of it. lol I know a few of you guys are going to vote for her, but I don't think any of you are exactly excited about it. I know there are many others that feel the same way, but I really have a tough time believing that half the country is in the camp of "I guess I'll vote for her". |
| 2016-09-20 4:00 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood I know we've beat the enthusiasm gap topic to death regarding crowd sizes, but yowzers... The contrast is almost unbelievable. Donald Trump Packs Arena, Hillary Draws 200 at Dueling Events The part I truly can't figure out is where are her supporters at? We talk about the silent majority with Trump, but Hillary seems to have an invisible majority. Any online poll I've ever seen she barely gets 10% (even on liberal news sites). Her book is getting pummeled in reviews. I see zero positive things on FB about her. I have yet to see a Hillary sign in any yard. Any news story with comments is just non stop bagging on Hillary no matter what the site. I finally saw my first bumper sticker, but it was a Bernie 2016 sticker with "ok fine, Hillary I guess" over the top of it. lol I know a few of you guys are going to vote for her, but I don't think any of you are exactly excited about it. I know there are many others that feel the same way, but I really have a tough time believing that half the country is in the camp of "I guess I'll vote for her". hopefully I can give you a perspective. Hillary is not a charismatic candidate (like Obama was). However, she's incredibly experienced, thoughtful, has worked her entire life for her causes and to help others, is a diplomat and is a true policy wonk. I would go to a Trump rally- just to take it in. And I will vote for Hillary because she's so far and away the best man for the job. I am frankly appalled that Trump - that thin skinned, self aggrandizing, xenophobic, racist, hateful, juvenile man-child, who has spent his life lining his own pockets at the expense of others, is garnering such popularity from so many americans that apparently don't understand what our country stands for and what truly has made it great. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK