KozmoFox

ELECTION THREAD!

160 posts in this topic

I think Obama will be remembered as a great leader

It will be remembered as the one who destroyed at least one sovereign country and supported spreading chaos in others, uselessly struggled against (or, depending on your paranoia, actively supported) DAISH and started Cold War 2. Even warmongering bitch and loudmouthed manchild would be better than this creature, because it's impossible to be worse.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^In all fairness, the United States has been meddling in the politics of less developed Nations almost constantly since WWII, yet Bush Jr. is the only president in that time frame I ever hear attached to a War the US fought during their presidency. The US played a part in the Vietnam, Korean, Iraq-Iran, and Soviet-Afghan wars among others, yet I couldn't tell you who was president during any of them without looking it up, and I imagine most Americans couldn't have named that many late 20th century wars off top of their heads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be remembered as the one who destroyed at least one sovereign country and supported spreading chaos in others, uselessly struggled against (or, depending on your paranoia, actively supported) DAISH and started Cold War 2. Even warmongering bitch and loudmouthed manchild would be better than this creature, because it's impossible to be worse.

 

Obama has done a good job. Not the best, and he isn't even close to what he promised but the only the only ones who say this are the bitter conservatives who hate all his policies. History tends to forget the bad things anyways, and he is extremely charismatic and an actual great down to earth person.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has done a good job. Not the best, and he isn't even close to what he promised but the only the only ones who say this are the bitter conservatives who hate all his policies. History tends to forget the bad things anyways, and he is extremely charismatic and an actual great down to earth person.

 

Dude.

 

Those things are not a good job.

 

"Bad things" is a weird way to spell "war crimes".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude.

 

Those things are not a good job.

 

"Bad things" is a weird way to spell "war crimes".

Yes they are and no he did not start "Cold War 2", you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^And how many people do you see calling Truman a war criminal for deciding to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hell, how many remember that decision was under Truman's watch? I'd argue that was the single greatest war crime in recorded history or at least in the top ten, but few Americans see it that way.

In the long run, I suspect Obama will be regulated to the long list of presidents only people who study the presidents will know anything about and his one bit of trivia in the minds of people who know one bit of trivia about each president is that he was the first black president(though he might lose that title if anyone whose unquestionably black rather than mixed gets in office). Similarly, I doubt Clinton or either Bush will ever have long-term fame anywhere near Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelt's, or Kennedy(and even Kennedy's fame might fade once there's no one alive who was alive when he was assassinated). Most presidents have been completely overshadowed by the historical events that occurred during their presidency if the time they were in office is part of the US's popular history at all.

Granted, accurately predicting what of the living history will endure when the last witness dies is like trying to predict anything about the future: difficult and imperfect at best and simply a wild-ass guess at worst.

Edited by Jeffery Mewtamer
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be remembered as the one who destroyed at least one sovereign country and supported spreading chaos in others, uselessly struggled against (or, depending on your paranoia, actively supported) DAISH and started Cold War 2. Even warmongering bitch and loudmouthed manchild would be better than this creature, because it's impossible to be worse.

 

A bunch of nonsense here.

 

Trump would end up causing World War 3 and cause the U.S. to become as isolated as North Korea

 

To your point Obama has not been one of our best presidents but he hasn't been a bad one either.

 

*Better then George W Bush who left so much shit on Obama in 2008*

 

*Better then Mccain who's health care plan WAS LITERALLY OBAMA CARE JUST RENAMED and how he presented himself was god awful*

Edited by Finzy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about guys like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. What are our thoughts of those guys?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about guys like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. What are our thoughts of those guys?

Christie is a corrupt scumbag, just Google "Bridgegate" to see what I mean.

Rubio and Kasich are the least offensive of the GOP candidates, but they still have issues.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Bernie is finally out of the race. 

Anyone who says that bread lines and soup kitchens are a better means to distributing food to grocery stores isn't fit to run this country.  Add in his economic plan which looks like it was based on a much higher GDP than the US currently has, as well as co-sponsoring a bill that would make an area not far from a small, minority town in Texas, Sierra Blanca, a nuclear waste dump for Vermont's waste (for this, I have heard three results of this, one of which being another site was found that was truly remote, one being that the bill never came to a vote, and the other being that Sierra Blanca was the site they used), and lastly, his praise for communist dictators because he felt they did great things for health care in those countries (but ignoring the poor treatment of the people in a country like Cuba).  He also supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (which may or may not have been a bad thing). And that is just what has been revealed (I don't consider his Cold War era honeymoon in Russia too troublesome).

Also, he lied about about the entirety of his plan to bring in single payer (remember, only those making above $250,000 were going to have their taxes raised, when the reality is that everyone was going to see a 2% raise - which would get some people ahead in health care costs, but not everybody - and the $.60 or $1.60 - I can't remember which - for paid leave).  Also, looking at tax calculators, it looked like that wasn't the extent of the tax increases the middle class (like my wife and I, who combine to make about $60,000 per year right now) was going to be more than what Bernie was initially saying.

Bernie would be a train wreck if he had a complicit Congress. 

And the reason he appeals to many is very obvious.

Obama is not, and hasn't been, a good President.  He spent a lot of time complaining about the situation that was left, even though the most damage was started when the Democrats took over office in 2007, two years before Obama was inaugurated.  Obama lacks real leadership qualities, which is why I can't find him to be good at all.  He had a Congress that should have been able to do whatever he wanted in terms of his vision, but couldn't get the Democrats together before Kennedy's death, to be able to do anything effective.  Obama tried to get Congress to pass his bills on the basis of "just because" (you need to pass this bill, but not explaining why).  He hasn't shown any desire to work across the aisle (though the Republicans show that same issue).  And he would always stare down his nose at everyone (you know, where he would lean his head back and look straight up his nose).

He has two things he said that turned me against him, as both affected my employment situation at the time.  First (in order of importance) was his talking about necessarily bankrupting the coal industry, as I worked for a company that supplied parts to many industries, including coal.  The other was when he was talking to Joe the Plumber (and I won't get into Joe's issues) where Obama said we needed to make everybody's piece of the pie more equal, instead of saying we need to grow the whole of the economy so everyone could get more of the pie that way.  People should know the power of the President, but with the Congressional tide showing that the Democrats were almost guaranteed to be in power, companies got scared and business slowed. 

Obama also does appear to be trying to appease DAISH and cool relations with Israel.  He also gives the appearance of being a blind BLM supporter and not caring about the cops that are gunned down at all.  I listened to most of his speech about Nice, and he is clueless.  He believes diplomacy and jobs and reducing global warming will make them stop being terrorists.  Problem is, DAISH and all other similar groups are following a form of Islam that is not really Islam and is very dangerous, and they want nothing more than to have their belief be the ONLY one.

Obamacare is an awful disaster.  It did nothing to lower the costs of healthcare, and insurance really isn't getting less expensive.  While it has it's positives (free yearly physicals and raising the age a dependent can be on their parents health insurance to 26 to help college students out), forcing participation in purchasing a private sector product is sketchy (any other forms of insurance can be avoided where it's mandated that you participate by buying health insurance or pay a fine), no matter what the Supreme Court says.

Now, I'm not going to say Bush was a saint (or even really a good President, especially since it seemed Cheney was the real President during W's first term), but he was about as dumb as Obama is unable to lead from the front.  W always looked lost and unsure of himself, and had a multitude of issues.  But now I'm going too far into the past and will move this to the candidates at hand.

I'm going to start with Hilary.  The fact that she wasn't brought up on charges for her email scandal appears to be purely political.  When Comey said that she was careless and possibly exposed classified information, but didn't intend to, it didn't add up, as anyone else in that situation would be facing charges.  Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch prior to that announcement, and it could be seen as him trying to convince her to let Hillary off, with the possibility of getting a higher, or even cabinet, position should Hillary be elected (this is my speculation based on how the events look to the outside eye).  Hillary also shows poor judgment in her choice of words and how she answered to Benghazi (saying who cares at this point when you're being investigated for your role in their deaths isn't the proper way to answer for anything).  She also may have poor judgment skills, considering she has been linked to rumors saying she had been disbarred twice, one of which is a legit concern (the one for her role in the Watergate investigation, which was an odd situation which may have merited it as the other was in 2002 when she let her law license lapse since she was no longer a practicing attorney).  She also strikes me as angry and bitter and not a stable person.

Donald Trump, I have nothing to add about how bad he is.  He's either racist, misogynist, etc. or stupid and doesn't understand what he is saying because it doesn't seem his words take the time to go through the filter between his brain and mouth.

I can't see the United States making it well through either a Hillary or Trump presidency, especially since we know Trump's running mate it the disaster governor from Indiana.  Hillary probably isn't going to do much better picking her VP running mate.

I'm firmly in the Libertarian camp and am going to vote for Gary Johnson.  He has the positives of Bernie (pro LGBT, against discrimination) and the positives of what the Republicans would be if they hadn't drifted so far to the right (smaller government, true religious freedom, improve the economy by reducing - and hopefully eventually eliminating income taxes) and reducing the clutter of alphabet offices in Washington to a reasonable level.  He is also the only third party candidate to be on the ballot in all 50 states, and can end up President (even though the chance is very slim) if the 12th Amendment is evoked.

 

Sorry this is so long, but I figured with the fact the nominees are about to become official, it could be time to resurrect this thread with talking points.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am currently leaning Gary Johnson. I find Jill Stein at least as agreeable, if not more so, but Johnson did out perform Stein by a significant margin in 2012, plus, I don't think I've ever heard of a minor party candidate getting ballot access in all fifty states before.

Not that I realistically expect Johnson to do better than third place, but maybe the Republicrats have finally fallen far enough that enough Americans will wake up and We'll have something approaching a proper three-way race.

Regardless of who becomes the next president, given how unlikely we are to get a good congress, I'd rather we kept a mostly deadlocked congress rather than gain a congress capable of pushing through bad laws with impunity.

Also, I'm not sure how complete elimination of income tax could possibly be a good thing. Sure, the government is very wasteful with spending, but even if they could optimize every aspect of the budget, I don't see how they could maintain even the most basic public services without some form of income tax short of humanity achieving post-scarcity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has been a damn good president, he's gotten plenty of things done.

Hilary was not brought up on charges because she didn't do anything wrong, so tired of people spreading false information about this nonsense.

Obamacare is not a "disaster" at all, it's helped me out quite a bit. Without the ACA I would not have any health insurance at all right now, but thanks to it I have Medicaid.

Obama DOES care about the police(If he didn't, he never would've condemned what that one person in Texas did) and BLM is not a terrorist organization like people like you seem to think it is, so I for one am happy he supports them. Police do kill lots of minorities solely because of their race, that is a fucking fact, deal with it, you can't just close your eyes and pretend that racism doesn't fucking exist, it does.

He had plenty of desire to "work across the aisle" but the republicans refused to compromise on anything.

He is not "clueless at all"(though your post certainly is).

The supreme court is right about the ACA and you are dead fucking wrong.

Hilary would be a great president, i'll happily vote for her. 

The U.S. can make it through anything, if nothing else we'll never be as bad off as the U.K. is right now, as they'll never get back into the E.U. ever again most likely. 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/email-scandal-crushed-fbi-finds-evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

 

Edited by vexer6
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insulting other people while swearing your ass off while doing nothing to back up your claims makes you look like a child. Good god man, for once in your time in the debate forums please be mature?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vexer: Not to pry, but is Medicaid useful for your circumstances? Does its benefits outweigh its costs? If so, it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones.

For myself, the Affordable Care Act hasn't improved things on the health care front. My primary insurance(Medicare) remains mostly useless thanks to a prohibitively high deductible and has seen at least one premium hike during Obama's administration that resulted in a net cut in my disability benefits(my medicare premiums are a pre-deposite deduction). My secondary insurance(NC State Employee's Health Insurance via Blue Cross/Blue Shield), which has an even higher deductible has never paid one red cent on anything other than prescription drugs and is only useful in that it allows me to opt-out of the UNC System's Student Health Insurance, and it isn't the 26-year-old clause that keeps me on this(it's actually my dad's policy) since I'm 29. Furthermore, as crappy as my current insurance is, all indicators say they're the best I can afford.

That said, as I understand it, I'm still among the lucky ones and while a disaster might be exaggeration, the Affordable Care Act has hurt more people than it helped unless you count insurance company executives among those helped.

Of course, Obama really isn't to blame for the Affordable Care Act. At worst, he just signed off on it and was likely unaware of most of it's contents. Congress are the ones that actually wrote the damn thing, but I have my doubts anyone will vote to keep or remove the actual authors based on their thoughts on the act, if it's even public record which senators or representatives authored it.

And if the President getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for Congress's blunders wasn't bad enough, most Americans, myself included, can't even tell you who their senators and representative are or when they're up for re-election, and I'm not confident I could find such information for all three.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2016 at 5:24 PM, Jeffery Mewtamer said:

@Vexer: Not to pry, but is Medicaid useful for your circumstances? Does its benefits outweigh its costs? If so, it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones.

For myself, the Affordable Care Act hasn't improved things on the health care front. My primary insurance(Medicare) remains mostly useless thanks to a prohibitively high deductible and has seen at least one premium hike during Obama's administration that resulted in a net cut in my disability benefits(my medicare premiums are a pre-deposite deduction). My secondary insurance(NC State Employee's Health Insurance via Blue Cross/Blue Shield), which has an even higher deductible has never paid one red cent on anything other than prescription drugs and is only useful in that it allows me to opt-out of the UNC System's Student Health Insurance, and it isn't the 26-year-old clause that keeps me on this(it's actually my dad's policy) since I'm 29. Furthermore, as crappy as my current insurance is, all indicators say they're the best I can afford.

That said, as I understand it, I'm still among the lucky ones and while a disaster might be exaggeration, the Affordable Care Act has hurt more people than it helped unless you count insurance company executives among those helped.

Of course, Obama really isn't to blame for the Affordable Care Act. At worst, he just signed off on it and was likely unaware of most of it's contents. Congress are the ones that actually wrote the damn thing, but I have my doubts anyone will vote to keep or remove the actual authors based on their thoughts on the act, if it's even public record which senators or representatives authored it.

And if the President getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for Congress's blunders wasn't bad enough, most Americans, myself included, can't even tell you who their senators and representative are or when they're up for re-election, and I'm not confident I could find such information for all three.

The benefits definitely outweigh the costs for me, all my other healthcare options are impractical.

I definitely do not believe for a microsecond that the ACA has hurt more people then it's helped, that's just another conservative rumor that people keep repeating(like the Benghazi "conspiracy).

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the primary limitation of the ACA was that in order to get it passed, too many compromises had to be made. It requires active participation in the program, and it eliminates some (not all) of the loopholes that allowed insurance companies to collect money from people for years or even decades when they were relatively healthy, and then force people to shift to more expensive plans when they got to the age where they were likely to have more health problems in order to offset the cost of actually providing the services they advertise in the first place. I am aware that I am oversimplifying that part of the issue, so don't feel obligated to point that out.

The problem is that the health care industry now has a captive market, and while they are forced to accept people they would normally have turned down before the ACA went through, they still have a huge number of healthy people they can basically leech money from. What's worse, because people can't walk away from the whole thing and decide to risk not having insurance if the costs are too high, then there's no reason for insurance companies to make their services "competitive". I don't think for a minute that Obama intended to give these companies a collective monopoly, but that appears to be what happened. Presumably there were parts of the original draft that would have given people recourse against price gouging or failure to deliver services as promised, but that was something somebody had to drop in a vain attempt to make the package more amenable to the Republicans in the House and Senate.

My own insurance premiums have increased each year since the act was passed, a fact that cannot be attributed entirely to me getting older. And a friend of mine who got a life saving organ transplant was in dire trouble at one point when it came to getting the aid to cover the costs of the anti-rejection medication because of how the industry reacted to the sudden changes. So it hasn't all been good, and some people have been hurt by it. But the idea that the Affordable Care Act has done nothing good and only hurt people? From where I stand, that sounds like something a lobbyist for a health insurance company would say.

And I've mentioned before that I think we could solve a lot of problems in this country just by grabbing every lobbyist in DC, no matter who or what they support, and launching them into the Atlantic using a trebuchet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue the insurance companies need to be cut out of the health care equation altogether as they serve a role similar to a middle man in a supply chain who adds no value to a good or service, or at the very least, forced to operate as non-profits rather than profit earning businesses. However, to my knowledge, the only things the ACA does to crack down on insurance companies is make it harder for them to turn down new clients and making it harder to drop children from family policies, and on the latter of these two, it only ups the minimum age to 26 instead of making it outright illegal for an insurance company to drop someone from a family policy for any reason other than the head of the family refusing to continue paying premiums.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the new requirements of what qualifies as an adequate level of coverage in plans subsidized by employers, instead of putting the burden on insurance companies to make basic plans meet these requirements, the burden is placed on employers to make sure their company is paying for an adequate plan.

And even if the ACA genuinely lowers the cost while improving the availability of health insurance across the board, it still doesn't guarantee that people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder can afford useful insurance, yet my understanding is that it requires people to have health insurance even if they can't afford it.

And setting aside the insurance issue, as I understand it, the ACA does nothing to address any of the following issues that inflate health care costs:
-A disturbingly low percentage of Americans with current first aid training. Seriously, first aid training should be a required part of the K-12 curriculum with a goal of all Highschool graduates having a full-set of Red Cross Certifications within a generation, but I get the impression most Americans wouldn't even think to pull out their cellphone and call 911 if they found themselves as a bystander at ground zero of a medical emergency.
-Pharmaceutical companies that abuse patents to maintain monopolies on life-saving medicine and charge exorbitant prices that patients must either pay or die.
-Corruption in the FDA that leads to cases of new drugs being approved/declined not on effectiveness/safety but on who's offering the bigger bribes.
-Doctors who treat the symptoms and keep their patients coming back instead of treating the cause and curing their patients.
-Probably a myriad of other things I can't think of at the moment.

There's some good things in the ACA, but I'm not convinced they outweigh the bad when taken at the level of society, and even if it was all good, it feels like using a band-aid to treat a ward full of gunshot victims. Perhaps Obama's original vision would've been a confident, resolute step in the right direction, but what we got feels like a drunken stumble orthogonal to the right direction at best.

Also, I kind of like the trebuchet solution to the lobbyist problem, but I'm not convinced getting rid of the lobbyists would be enough to get Congress acting in the best interests of the general population. Hell, I'm not sure a category five hurrican hitting DC while congress is in session, killing everyone and forcing an entirely new Congress would be enough to clean up the political landscape.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually wouldn't reply to people who use swearing as their only means to make a point in a debate thread, but I'm making an exception as vexer6 did kind of do as I hoped and contributed something to the discussion. 

But I'm going to start with @Jeffery Mewtamer first, since he brings up a great point.

Income taxes are just one means in which the government collects taxes.  The way income taxes would be removed is if there was a "Fair Tax", or a national sales tax on the consumption of new goods (recycled goods would not be subject to this tax, and necessities also would not be as well).  This would put the tax burden on those who are consumers of items.  This would be a regressive tax on it's own, which is why there would be a "prefund", in which you would be given a certain amount of money from the government inverse to your income.  So, the less you make, the more you would get in this prefund so that the sales tax is not drowning you financially the way it could be.  At a certain point, you would not receive any prefund.  I think tariffs would also be raised as well so that more goods and services could be reshored or performed in the United States as well.

Now, to get to some of vexer6's comments. 

I don't know where you got that Hillary did nothing wrong.  They are saying she didn't WILLFULLY do anything wrong, which means they believe she did but not intentionally.  Intent should not be the determination on whether she faces charges or not.  And the appearance of bribery or tampering is strong with Bill meeting with Loretta Lynch in a closed door meeting between just the two of them, and her getting "cleared" a couple days later.  I'm just saying it gives a bad look, not that anything related to the investigation happened in that meeting.  I also don't know if I believe this or not, but she may have done it to avoid any FOIA requests she would have to honor if she had everything on the government server. 

Obamacare is becoming what it was trying to fight in private insurance.  If you aren't eligible for a subsidy, it can very easily get very expensive.  I've looked into plans on the exchange and they were not very budget friendly, and my wife and I wouldn't have gotten a subsidy.  I'm lucky I get insurance through work, but in the law of unintended consequences (or maybe intended, I don't know), my high deductible plan at work, with a reasonable deductible, would be considered a Cadillac plan in the next few years.  At this point, I'm not 100% sure what the outcome of that will be, but if it's less coverage, it's hurting private sector workers with even manageable plans in some way.  And as I write this, Jeffery Mewtamer's reply popped up with some very good points on the shortfalls of Obamacare that I have failed to address.

I never said BLM was a terrorist group.  But, the good part of BLM might want to start reigning in the idiot portion that blocks highways and endangers lives doing it.  In fact, I have seen what the good side of BLM does do - and they need to be the ones taking the lead in the movement.  There are videos out there of BLM and police departments getting together to have open Q and A sessions, BLM and ALM getting together to protest the senseless acts of police shootings, etc...  I was just saying that Obama doesn't seem to be very much behind law enforcement when someone starts gunning down police officers - it almost feels like he is giving a canned speech with some campaigning thrown in.  Everyone on both sides - the police who are committing murders and the people murdering cops - both need to equally be taken to task by Obama. 

I already pointed out that neither side was really willing to work with the other.  The Republicans became the "Party of No" because that's the only thing they could do at that point.  Under W, Congress became less about doing what is right for the people and more about party identity and power.  That continued under Obama, as it's Congress and nothing is going to change there until there is a strong President who will get Congress in line.

I said Obama is clueless about the causes or terrorism.  When he talks about diplomacy with a group whose goal is to spread their way of life as the only way, giving jobs to people in other countries as a means to stop terrorism, and the role climate change is playing in their attitudes, that makes him clueless.  DAISH hates freedom, celebrations of freedom, and wants everyone to follow their bastardized version of Islam (because what they preach is not truly Islam).

Please tell me how the Supreme Court is correct.  Also, please tell me how they did not go against the 10th Amendment.  I am curious about when health insurance became an enumerated power of the Federal Government.  And for those wondering, this is why "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts is not a problem.

Please explain why Hillary would be a great President.  I only see turd sandwiches in Trump and Clinton and see both as dropping the respectability of the United States.

Brexit is not relevant to anything.  I don't see where Britain has invoked Article 50, so all that has happened is a non-binding resolution has passed.  Britain also wouldn't be leaving the EU for 2 years and both sides would probably work on shoring up their economies to make sure the leave doesn't hurt them (if it happens at all).  Everything about Britain's economy right now is just panic about what could happen - even the best economists won't know for sure until it does.  And even if Article 50 is invoked, Britain may be able to change their minds and stop the proceedings, with approval of all the other EU states.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have to consider things revealed today such as all those leaked DNC emails (Thanks wikileaks!)

The DNC was plotting against Bernie Sanders from the start, in a manner violating multiple of its own charters. The DNC were conspiring with Clinton to get her into the nominee seat as early as March 2015. There was even money laundering involved. This is all super illegal, yet I doubt anything will be really done about this. But its now fact that Clinton AND the DNC violated multiple laws and charters, undermining other candidates and rigging multiple strings from within. This is not a myth. This is not a rumor. This is not a conspiracy. This is now fact that is out for everyone to see. Its not even up for debate! The DNC emails are out, the cat is out of the bag, I've been sifting and reading and what I'm seeing is despicable. Thank GOD I'm not american, I'd be absolutely livid. Secretary Clinton should be ashamed of herself, as should all of the members of the DNC involved in this illegal activity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KozmoFox said:

We also have to consider things revealed today such as all those leaked DNC emails (Thanks wikileaks!)

The DNC was plotting against Bernie Sanders from the start, in a manner violating multiple of its own charters. The DNC were conspiring with Clinton to get her into the nominee seat as early as March 2015. There was even money laundering involved. This is all super illegal, yet I doubt anything will be really done about this. But its now fact that Clinton AND the DNC violated multiple laws and charters, undermining other candidates and rigging multiple strings from within. This is not a myth. This is not a rumor. This is not a conspiracy. This is now fact that is out for everyone to see. Its not even up for debate! The DNC emails are out, the cat is out of the bag, I've been sifting and reading and what I'm seeing is despicable. Thank GOD I'm not american, I'd be absolutely livid. Secretary Clinton should be ashamed of herself, as should all of the members of the DNC involved in this illegal activity.

Well I am American and when I see something underhanded involving the government I usually roll my eyes. "So whats the difference this time?"

But lord this is new. Corruption? Okay. What's new. Corruption up at this level? Never heard of it before. Holy shit. Trying to rig an election? In this country? I already don't want Hilary as the leader of this country because god forbid we need to know something and we need to execute a subpoena to find out, and I most certainly don't now.

And some people look at me funny for wanting to move away.

I usually don't get involved in political discussions but what KozmoFox brought up is alarming to me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious.

Anyways, I don't really care what scandal Clinton and Trump get caught in as their allegiance to a major party is already a big, black mark that makes it nearly impossible for me to take either of them seriously or at their word. The only way either is likely to ever get a vote from me is if preferential voting is implemented, and it would take someone pretty awful for either of them to get better than a second to last choice vote from me.

Not that preferencial voting is likely to be implemented in my life-time and would probably be impossible to implement before November even if the people with the power to enact electoral reform voted unanimously for it, here's how I'd be tempted to rank the candidates I've thus far formed an opinion of:

1. Jill Stein
2. Gary Johnson
3. Hilary Clinton
4. Donald Trump

With Trump and Clinton likely to fall further if I bothered to add anyone else to the list. Do note that I've only included candidates that, to the best of my knowledge, have recieved ballot access in enough states to be in the running for a winning number of electoral votes.

As for the Tenth Amendment, when was the last time the Federal Government didn't trample all over it? I'm no history buff, but best I can tell, erosion of state and personal sovereignty in favor of greater federal control has been a major trend in US politics since at least Lincoln. That said, I can only think of two supreme court decisions off top of my head I agree with(Striking down separate but equal and upholding gay marriage), and the latter of those two I can only agree with on moral terms and can't agree with on Constitutional terms(I'm long overdue to re-read the Constitution, but the only part of the Constitution that seems remotely relevant to Marriage is the First Amendment and that can only be used to say religious and legal marriage should be completely separate institutions).

To list some SCOTUS decisions I disagree with:
Upholding the death penalty(intentionally killing a person is an act of cruelty, and executions are uncommon enough to qualify as unusual, thus violating both of the Eighth Amendment's criteria for outlawing a form of punishment and I read the amendment as one criteria being enough).
Upholding prohibition of presently illegal recreational drugs. Prohibition of Alcohol took an amendment, implying the Federal government didn't have the authority to outlaw alcohol without it. Why would it be any different for other drugs?

Okay, I think I need to read up on Supreme Court decisions because I can't think of that many on either side of the agree/disagree line.

As for taxes, I wouldn't mind a federal sales tax too much, even if it would mean a significant increase in my personal tax burden(my regular income is tax-free social security disability), but I'm not sure what, if any advantages, a sales tax has over an income tax. That said, it would be nice if the taxes on the sale of services were as easy to over predict as taxes on the sale of goods or if advertised prices were required to include all relevant taxes. It would also be nice if income tax was a set percentage of total income that varies only with the ratio of income to the annual minimum wage(which I'd calculate from the hourly minimum wage based on a 40 hour work week and a 50 week work year) eliminating all this mumbo jumbo about dependants and deductions and make it so, for most people, what employers withhold from their paycheck and forward to the government being their only contact with the income tax system and filing taxes being something only the self-employed have to do. I do think property taxes should be eliminated, as it seems quite unfair that someone can lose something they own free and clear just because their income drops to the point they can't pay the property taxes on it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is not "clueless" about the cause of terrorism, I certainly hope you're not suggesting that all muslims are terrorists. His speeches condemning the murder of cops didn't feel "canned" to me at all, I think you're overanalyzing things.

Here's why Hilary would be a great president:http://archives.bluenationreview.com/top-reasons-vote-hillary/

Edited by vexer6
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's probably an interesting read. I've always wondered how the mind of someone who makes such an unusual electoral decision operates. But before we discuss this article, let's make a little background check on this site itself, so we could get a better understanding of their standing. Let's start with the good old wikipedia. While it's not a very reliable source of information on sensitive things like politics, it's a good starting point. So, what can it tell about this "blue nation review"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Nation_Review

> Blue Nation Review was formerly owned by Moko Social Media Limited, a multi-media platform developer. Blue Nation Review was sold to Media Matters for America founder David Brock on November 25, 2015.

Alright, that's a pretty good start.

> After Blue Nation Review's sale, almost all of its staff were terminated.

Oh no, what did they do? Well, I don't really care, Dave is the boss, so he can do whatever he wants.

> After its acquisition by David Brock, the website's content has been largely critical of Bernie Sanders and supportive of Hillary Clinton.

That's normal, everyone wants to have their pet media outlet. Now what is this "media matters" thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

> MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center.

Hi, Dave! Whew, it seems that you've been quite busy over the course of all these years. But who exactly are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

> David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the liberal blog Media Matters for America. He has been described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.”

A demo supports a demo, how surprising.

>Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter during the 1990s who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. In the late 1990s he switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Uwa!

>The Nation has described Brock as a “conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder”; National Review has called him a “right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin”; and Politico has profiled him as a “former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader.”

Uwawa!

>Brock was active in Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency in 2008. “David is immensely valuable to Hillary,” a leading Democrat told Newsday in 2006. “It’s like having your former prosecutor running around saying you were wrongfully prosecuted.”

Uwawawa!

>Brock is gay.

S-sheate thy sword, crusader! I've got the message, I won't research you any further!

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even remotely surprised he works/worked for Clinton. If he's done any writing on it since then he should be made to say so in the article. Conflict of interests!!!! Journalists have so little integrity these days

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the time to read the link Vexer posted, and ignoring that the article is probably trying to paint Clinton in the most positive light possible, here are some of my thoughts:

1. Honestly, her being a trained Lawyer is a point against her in my opinion, though that does seem like a fairly impressive resume otherwise. Actually, looking up the education of Trump(Bachelor's in Economics), Johnson(Bachelors in Political Science), and Stein(Undergrad in psychology, sociology, and anthropology, Doctorate in Medicine), I argue Stein is the only of the candidates I named above that actually has education remotely suitable to holding public office.

2. Sounds like some good work.

3. This section simplifies the stances mentioned to the point I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with most of them. Though to summarize my views on some of them:

I'm in favor of equal rights for GLBT and most other groups the prudes would condemn for sexual deviancy. This extends to legal recognition for all spousal units regardless of number or gender and by extention all nontraditional family structures, and an official policy of what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults being none of the government's business.

A complete ban on guns is unfeasible, and the kind of guns targeted by most partial ban proposals make up a small minority of guns used to commit crimes, and even if you could convince every non-criminal to hand over their guns, that only increases the power a gun-owning criminal has over potential victims, and even if we could magic away all the guns belonging to criminals, that just means more criminals will employ other weapons. In my opinion, it would be more productive to improve the quality and availability of proper training in the safe use of not only firearms, but all personal weapons. After all, the militia in the sense that the Framers of the Constitution would have used it, consists of every citizen willing to take up arms in the defense of home and country and surely a well-regulated militia is one where every member is well-versed in the use of their chosen arms. Besides, the more people that can properly defend themselves against a mugger, the more muggers that will be incapacitated long enough for police to arrive and the fewer people will think it worth the risk to mug someone. It is also probably worth examining the Swiss to see how they manage to have the second highest number of guns per capita after the US yet have gun crime statistics that compare favorably with countries that have had "successful" gun bans.

The legal system in the US is indeed broken. By some estimates, the majority of the US prison population have committed no true crime, and even among the true criminals in prison, many are nowhere dangerous enough to justify imprisonment, and many paroled inmates come out worse human beings than they were when they went in, and yet people scratch their heads when treating criminals and non-criminals that don't live up to the standards of those on their moral high horses like animals causes them to act like animals. And the police waste so much time and effort on non-criminals that many real criminals slip through the cracks.

An abortion is never a good thing, but banning abortions is counter productive. Instead, emphasis needs to be placed on universal availability of effective contraception and quality sexual education. In an ideal world, there would be no abortions with no need for a ban because everyone not actively pursuing parenthood would be on contraceptives.

4. I'm not convinced the first spouse has any inherent importance. Hell, the only First Ladies I can name are the first, the current, the one running for president, and the ones married to the Bushes(not that I could tell you which First Lady Bush was married to which President Bush).

5. I agree we're overdue for a female president. I even voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and I'm only leaning Johnson over Stein in the current election because he has better odds of doing well enough to put a dent in the perception that the Republicrats are invincible. Not convinced Hilary Clinton is a good choice for our first female president.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.