Hillary (Page 2)

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, but I think we need a good shake up. Rumors are he'll only enter if Sanders gets the dem slot and as a left leaning independent I think Sanders is pretty extreme.

That's an interesting strategy and one that makes sense, I think. I don't think there's any question that he'll draw more votes from Democrats than Republicans. His stance on guns and his tendency to lean towards "nanny-state" government would make him a no-go for a lot of conservatives. Plus there's the whole New York Values thing... On the other hand, he is a billionaire, and, unlike The Donald, a self-made billionaire. And, if you believe, as some apparently do *cough* Tony *cough* that being a billionaire is the only prerequisite needed to be president, I have to believe he'd be a more attractive option for some than Trump. At least he's held a job in government before and done a good job. The economy of NYC (or at least aspects of it) grew pretty robustly, considering the economy during his tenure. He, not unlike the Donald, doesn't seem to care much what people think. He's gotten under the skin of conservatives for his stance on guns and his soda ban, but he's also rankled liberals with his support of charter schools and stop-and-frisk. I'd consider voting for him in principle, but not at the risk of losing the White House to Trump or Cruz.

You raaaang.  

I do agree that his business experience makes him infinitely more qualified than Hillary or Bernie.  In comparison to Trump though, he still loses handily for me based on the ideals you mentioned above.  And did I mention banning sodas?  He can pry my soda out of my cold dead hands....

We could probably digress into comparisons of self made or not, but it really doesn't matter to me because they both have done amazing things in the business sector and proven they can build and manage a large successful organization. 

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, but I think we need a good shake up. Rumors are he'll only enter if Sanders gets the dem slot and as a left leaning independent I think Sanders is pretty extreme.

That's an interesting strategy and one that makes sense, I think. I don't think there's any question that he'll draw more votes from Democrats than Republicans. His stance on guns and his tendency to lean towards "nanny-state" government would make him a no-go for a lot of conservatives. Plus there's the whole New York Values thing... On the other hand, he is a billionaire, and, unlike The Donald, a self-made billionaire. And, if you believe, as some apparently do *cough* Tony *cough* that being a billionaire is the only prerequisite needed to be president, I have to believe he'd be a more attractive option for some than Trump. At least he's held a job in government before and done a good job. The economy of NYC (or at least aspects of it) grew pretty robustly, considering the economy during his tenure. He, not unlike the Donald, doesn't seem to care much what people think. He's gotten under the skin of conservatives for his stance on guns and his soda ban, but he's also rankled liberals with his support of charter schools and stop-and-frisk. I'd consider voting for him in principle, but not at the risk of losing the White House to Trump or Cruz.

You raaaang.  

I do agree that his business experience makes him infinitely more qualified than Hillary or Bernie.   

And Cruz. You forgot Cruz. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the two political lifers on the Democratic side are less qualified than the two billionaires but not the political lifer on the GOP side just because he's on your team.

I've always said I like Cruz because he was the "least" bought of the political class (prior to Trump getting into the race).  Rand was my number two.
Trump got in and I was a bit hesitant at first, but he won me over big time.  Cruz is still my 2, but you're correct he has a lot more political baggage like Clinton and Bernie than the others.
You do pose an interesting dilema for me because I would have to weigh political ideology of Cruz over being "less bought" with a Cruz vs. Bloomberg.
I'd have to listen to his overall platform before making a final decision but I would be open.

Corruption and wasteful spending trump all things for me.  You can be a atheist, pro choice, anti military, anti gun, but truly fiscally responsible then you've got my vote.  How's that for messing up your preconceived notions of me.  haha

I guess it's possibly a little insight to why Trumps shortcomings and quirks don't really bother me.  I feel he's the most fiscally responsible/anti-corruption candidate on both sides (by a mile).

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Moonrocket I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, but I think we need a good shake up. Rumors are he'll only enter if Sanders gets the dem slot and as a left leaning independent I think Sanders is pretty extreme.

That's an interesting strategy and one that makes sense, I think. I don't think there's any question that he'll draw more votes from Democrats than Republicans. His stance on guns and his tendency to lean towards "nanny-state" government would make him a no-go for a lot of conservatives. Plus there's the whole New York Values thing... On the other hand, he is a billionaire, and, unlike The Donald, a self-made billionaire. And, if you believe, as some apparently do *cough* Tony *cough* that being a billionaire is the only prerequisite needed to be president, I have to believe he'd be a more attractive option for some than Trump. At least he's held a job in government before and done a good job. The economy of NYC (or at least aspects of it) grew pretty robustly, considering the economy during his tenure. He, not unlike the Donald, doesn't seem to care much what people think. He's gotten under the skin of conservatives for his stance on guns and his soda ban, but he's also rankled liberals with his support of charter schools and stop-and-frisk. I'd consider voting for him in principle, but not at the risk of losing the White House to Trump or Cruz.

You raaaang.  

I do agree that his business experience makes him infinitely more qualified than Hillary or Bernie.   

And Cruz. You forgot Cruz. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the two political lifers on the Democratic side are less qualified than the two billionaires but not the political lifer on the GOP side just because he's on your team.

I've always said I like Cruz because he was the "least" bought of the political class (prior to Trump getting into the race).  Rand was my number two.
Trump got in and I was a bit hesitant at first, but he won me over big time.  Cruz is still my 2, but you're correct he has a lot more political baggage like Clinton and Bernie than the others.
You do pose an interesting dilema for me because I would have to weigh political ideology of Cruz over being "less bought" with a Cruz vs. Bloomberg.
I'd have to listen to his overall platform before making a final decision but I would be open.

Corruption and wasteful spending trump all things for me.  You can be a atheist, pro choice, anti military, anti gun, but truly fiscally responsible then you've got my vote.  How's that for messing up your preconceived notions of me.  haha

I guess it's possibly a little insight to why Trumps shortcomings and quirks don't really bother me.  I feel he's the most fiscally responsible/anti-corruption candidate on both sides (by a mile).

That's great. I gotta say, though, when I look at Trump Tower, "fiscally responsible" aren't the first words that come to mind.

lol, you do have a point but it is analogous to putting the feds on a balanced budget.  I really don't care what dumb things they spend money on as long as they do it on a budget.
Trump is most certainly a big spender, but he's doing it on a budget where he's not continuing to spiral into more debt year after year.  I know it seems weird, but you can be wildly excessive and fiscally responsible.  Him buying a $50M airplane is like you and I buying a Tri Bike. (probably a smaller percentage for Trump)

Not replying to your post Renee but I am wondering what the odds are of Hillary going to jail vs the white house? 

Sounds like she has big problems with the emails.

I saw one poll where Bloomberg appeared to primarily draw votes from Sanders in a Trump/Sanders/Bloomberg race.

Even if Trump didn't do well in the general, if the Democrat vote is split in two he would obviously win big (think Ross Perot)

I don't know much about him, but I would certainly be willing to give him a fair shake.  I am worried about his "Nanny State" tendencies, but admittedly a lot of that is Republican propaganda more than reality.

Between Hillary and jail I would vote for jail.

After experiencing how bad jail is first hand I couldn't agree more.  haha

I love this Ted Cruz ad about Hillary!

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/new-campaign-ad-from-ted-cruz-hilariously-spoofs-iconic-office-space-scene-watch/

He just won some points with me for that ad alone!!!!!!!!!

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 **edit**

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of government employees.  Honestly I could care a less how many employees we have, what I care about is how much money the government is spending.  I blame everyone in Washington so it is not just Obama.  I honestly think stopping deficit spending is something we can all come together on because it effects us all.  I can come up with 20 stupid things Obama spends on and you can come up with 20 things that Bush did.  The simple fact is they both (and the rest of congress) are just as bad and it needs to stop.

Here's a decent article that talks of the bigger problem:
http://crfb.org/document/fy-2015-deficit-falls-435-billion-debt-continues-rise

This is why I'm more into guys like Trump/Bloomberg (and even Sanders over Clinton) because they're actually talking about the spending and corruption.  Clinton will most definitely keep the status quo which most certainly isn't good.

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 

Between Hillary and incompetent I would vote for incompetent.

CD,  if Bernie was president, what laws do you think he would be able to get passed? 

Or

Do you think he would follow in the current potus footsteps and just do all of this by executive order? 

I think he's an honest person and I would rather have an honest incompetent person in there than a proven liar and corrupt person who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, bribe and take bribes. 

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 **edit**

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of government employees.  Honestly I could care a less how many employees we have, what I care about is how much money the government is spending.  I blame everyone in Washington so it is not just Obama.  I honestly think stopping deficit spending is something we can all come together on because it effects us all.  I can come up with 20 stupid things Obama spends on and you can come up with 20 things that Bush did.  The simple fact is they both (and the rest of congress) are just as bad and it needs to stop.

Here's a decent article that talks of the bigger problem:
http://crfb.org/document/fy-2015-deficit-falls-435-billion-debt-continues-rise

This is why I'm more into guys like Trump/Bloomberg (and even Sanders over Clinton) because they're actually talking about the spending and corruption.  Clinton will most definitely keep the status quo which most certainly isn't good.

The oddity here is that while many republicans will preach fiscal responsibility, they are also the first to expand our military reach around the world and sink us into more debt through that avenue.  I don't know where you stand on foreign policy but the "world policeman" title costs us a lot.

And then there's the whole issue of economic theory.  Having observed all the attempts at trickle-down economics since Reagan, I'm fairly convinced it doesn't work.  Every single time an administration has cut taxes on the rich, our deficit / debt have climbed, and the middle class wage earners saw little to no benefit.

Now go find me a republican candidate who's a) somewhat isolationist, and b) willing to balance spending cuts with (reasonable) taxation and I'm probably on board.

Ron Paul was the closest in recent years, I think.

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 **edit**

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of government employees.  Honestly I could care a less how many employees we have, what I care about is how much money the government is spending.  I blame everyone in Washington so it is not just Obama.  I honestly think stopping deficit spending is something we can all come together on because it effects us all.  I can come up with 20 stupid things Obama spends on and you can come up with 20 things that Bush did.  The simple fact is they both (and the rest of congress) are just as bad and it needs to stop.

Here's a decent article that talks of the bigger problem:
http://crfb.org/document/fy-2015-deficit-falls-435-billion-debt-continues-rise

This is why I'm more into guys like Trump/Bloomberg (and even Sanders over Clinton) because they're actually talking about the spending and corruption.  Clinton will most definitely keep the status quo which most certainly isn't good.

The oddity here is that while many republicans will preach fiscal responsibility, they are also the first to expand our military reach around the world and sink us into more debt through that avenue.  I don't know where you stand on foreign policy but the "world policeman" title costs us a lot.

And then there's the whole issue of economic theory.  Having observed all the attempts at trickle-down economics since Reagan, I'm fairly convinced it doesn't work.  Every single time an administration has cut taxes on the rich, our deficit / debt have climbed, and the middle class wage earners saw little to no benefit.

Now go find me a republican candidate who's a) somewhat isolationist, and b) willing to balance spending cuts with (reasonable) taxation and I'm probably on board.

Ron Paul was the closest in recent years, I think.

The funny part is I'm in a lot closer agreement with you you than you might think.  I am pro military, but there's a ton of waste and abuse when it comes to the process.  We need to cut the budget and most certainly need to stop being the worlds policeman.

Economics is a subject that I've always enjoyed, and there are truths to both arguments really.  Trickle down economics does work in the sense that you give more money to the people then they spend more money so more businesses make more money and hire more people etc.  However, what you're describing is the amount of taxation income the government receives verses what they spend (the deficit increasing) which is completely different than money trickling down to poorer people.
The Laffer curve in economics describes a curve from 0% tax rate to 100% tax rate.  If we tax the people 100% then nobody will work and the government will get nothing.  If we tax the people at 0% everyone will work, but the government will still get nothing.  As you move the rate up and down the curve the entire economic environment changes for the people and that ultimately effects the governments revenues.  I've read some pretty good studies that suggest you can raise it fairly high and you can drop it fairly low and it doesn't have a huge effect on government revenues overall.
Anyways, Trickle up economics works, trickle down economics works, the simple fact of putting more money in the hands of the people is what works.
Where the deficits come in is when the federal government spends more money than they make.  I'm personally to the point that I honestly don't care what the tax rates are, what I care about is how our government spends the money.  If you forced me to take a stand I'd say I'm for a flat income tax because it truly is the most fair tax.