Presidential Race 2016

[Slice of Life]

Trump is Hitler, Hillary is Hitler, Cruz is Hitler, Sanders is Hitler, Kasich is irrelevant. 

 

Does that sum up internet arguments on the Presidential Race? :D

[rehmwa]

2 hours ago, Slice of Life said:

Trump is Hitler, Hillary is Hitler, Cruz is Hitler, Sanders is Hitler, Kasich is irrelevant. 

Does that sum up internet arguments on the Presidential Race? :D

Almost -

You put that out and everybody will vigorously agree with you on 4 of 5 of them and congratulate you on your insight and intelligence.

But then they'll painfully try to explain why THEIR guy is different. 

AND, even though at the beginning of the conversation they thought you were super smart and insightful, they will now call you nasty names, accuse you of being a lemming, a cool aid drinker, possibly you hate babies or small puppies...., maybe try to ruin your life via social media

One interesting point - each person that argues with you picks a different "Their guy" from the others

 

Oh - and at least one guy will take this list and replace the various Hitler references with other historical characters just to show he's good at history.  Except for HIS guy, anyway, he'll replace them with their name and be outraged.

 

 

P.S.---- I'm not cynical,

[Braivo]

41 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Almost -

You put that out and everybody will vigorously agree with you on 4 of 5 of them and congratulate you on your insight and intelligence.

But then they'll painfully try to explain why THEIR guy is different. 

AND, even though at the beginning of the conversation they thought you were super smart and insightful, they will now call you nasty names, accuse you of being a lemming, a cool aid drinker, possibly you hate babies or small puppies...., maybe try to ruin your life via social media

One interesting point - each person that argues with you picks a different "Their guy" from the others

 

Oh - and at least one guy will take this list and replace the various Hitler references with other historical characters just to show he's good at history.  Except for HIS guy, anyway, he'll replace them with their name and be outraged.

 

 

P.S.---- I'm not cynical,

The problem with this election cycle, as @iacas has pointed out, is that very few people are picking a candidate besides Trump supporters. Everyone seems to fall into a anti-Trump sort of vacuum where they can't articulate why they'd support any other candidate, only that they DON'T want Trump. 

On the flip side, most Trump supporters are very committed to their candidate and can articulate the main issues that make them a supporter. I am pretty tired of the anti-Trump stuff, I want to hear more pro - xxxx stuff. 

[vangator]

My main reason for Trump being number one for me is the possibility he isn't bought and paid for by special interests.  I like the fact he's a contrarian.  My immigration policy would consist of Claymores and Brownings.

Every other candidate will do as their told.  Without real campaign finance reform, we're screwed.  Just grab a big jar a Vaseline.

I like Cruz the best as far as being the most conservative.  I like that the establishment GOP don't like him.  That's a good thing.  I like his reference to the "Washington cartel".  Maybe Cruz will.

I voted for Trump in the primary and will in the general election.  I wouldn't be disappointed with Cruz though and would vote for him. 

[Lihu]

6 hours ago, Braivo said:

The problem with this election cycle, as @iacas has pointed out, is that very few people are picking a candidate besides Trump supporters. Everyone seems to fall into a anti-Trump sort of vacuum where they can't articulate why they'd support any other candidate, only that they DON'T want Trump. 

On the flip side, most Trump supporters are very committed to their candidate and can articulate the main issues that make them a supporter. I am pretty tired of the anti-Trump stuff, I want to hear more pro - xxxx stuff. 

Sanders voters are pretty solidified as well.

[Gator Hazard]

I have in the past been upset with the field of candidates, but never as much as I have in this election cycle.  I really believe we need to institute a system much like the US Open where you start locally and regionally and get exposure based on merit and public funds available for it as opposed to popularity, rank, or the amount of money and or influence one has.

Nothing against professional politicians but our government was never really meant to be run by persons who made politics a career and forgot that it was first and foremost supposed to be a public service and not ones entire life ambition.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Gator Hazard

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Gator Hazard said:

I have in the past been upset with the field of candidates, but never as much as I have in this election cycle.  I really believe we need to institute a system much like the US Open where you start locally and regionally and get exposure based on merit and public funds available for it as opposed to popularity, rank, or the amount of money and or influence one has.

Nothing against professional politicians but our government was never really meant to be run by persons who made politics a career and forgot that it was first and foremost supposed to be a public service and not ones entire life ambition.

The concept of public service is out dated, the only people politicians serve is themselves and their families.   Most politicians see their personal wealth increase over the term of their service, we know what their salaries are so where does all the addition income come from?  I know some write books and others get paid for public speaking engagements but that doesn't account for all the personal wealth they gained.   We know there's under the table money from lobbyists and business, but they all cover for themselves because no one wants the gravy train to end.  

The Clintons have earned $221M since 2001  Here's a breakdown of their income from 2000 to 2014:

• 2000 = $357,629
• 2001 = $16,165,110
• 2002 = $9,556,550
• 2003 = $8,033,374
• 2004 = $20,264,179
• 2005 = $18,056,395
• 2006 = $16,063, 908
• 2007 = $21,199,212
• 2008 = $5,573,351
• 2009 = $10,223,318
• 2010 = $13,244,484
• 2011 = $14,899,484
• 2012 = $19,993,299
• 2013 = $27,093,859
• 2014 = $28,336,212  Seems Bill and Hillary have done pretty well for themselves.  

Obama was worth $1.3M in 2007 and they are now worth around $7M.  Not bad for two lawyers that gave up their right to practice law before Barack entered politics, Michelle surrendered her license in 1993 and Barack in 2008.  

I singled out Obama and Clinton because we know Bush had plenty of money before POTUS.   I'm sure you could look up most politicians from both sides and see that their net worth has grown significantly since they entered office.  

These individuals and many politicians blame big business for the growing divide between the 99% and the 1% but it seems they as much a part of the 1% as big business, where is their culpability .  

[rkim291968]

12 hours ago, Braivo said:

On the flip side, most Trump supporters are very committed to their candidate and can articulate the main issues that make them a supporter. I am pretty tired of the anti-Trump stuff, I want to hear more pro - xxxx stuff. 

I am pro Kasich, anti Clinton, Trump, and Cruz.  Neutral on Sanders.

Polls after poll shows that Trump will lose against anyone put up by the DEM.   70% of women has negative view of Trump.  He does not have support from Hispanics, and other minority groups.   He can't win the general election and will hurt GOP's chances for maintaining senate majority.

[Ernest Jones]

7 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

I am pro Kasich, anti Clinton, Trump, and Cruz.  Neutral on Sanders.

Polls after poll shows that Trump will lose against anyone put up by the DEM.   70% of women has negative view of Trump.  He does not have support from Hispanics, and other minority groups.   He can't win the general election and will hurt GOP's chances for maintaining senate majority.

Not true, if Trump can secure 185% of the angry, old white man vote, he'll have it locked up. 

[Mr. Desmond]

11 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The concept of public service is out dated, the only people politicians serve is themselves and their families. 

I singled out Obama and Clinton because we know Bush had plenty of money before POTUS.   I'm sure you could look up most politicians from both sides and see that their net worth has grown significantly since they entered office.  

These individuals and many politicians blame big business for the growing divide between the 99% and the 1% but it seems they as much a part of the 1% as big business, where is their culpability .  

Public service ... I agree. Don't know how many do this for public service, even Congress, who accumulate or gain a great retirment after not a lot of time, if memory serves. And then there are the deals one pushes that gets them money after office.

Haven't read much about what is unseemly about Obama's accumulation of wealth --  did a little searching -- apparently, he is a decent writer, lol, and having a few books and building a celebrity brand translates into  a couple of million of book sales even before he was Prez. I remember a questionable real estate deal with a friend on a plot of land in Chicago but don't think we were talking substantial amounts. It appears he invested in funds in which you and I can also invest, and he makes $400k/yr as Prez for 7 years, and made about $175k per year as US Senator for 4 yrs. As Prez, doubt if he spends much of his money. If his worth is $7m+, it doesn't seem unreasonable especially if it was in a stock index fund the last 7 years.

Bush also had a questionable oil deal or two so no one is above scrutiny. Bush had friends who looked after him and got him into the Tx Ranger Ownership Deal in which they built a nice stadium with the assistance of public money. So no one is Mr. Clean.

Public service? They may start with that idea, but I think  many lose their way.

[Gator Hazard]

12 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The concept of public service is out dated, the only people politicians serve is themselves and their families.   Most politicians see their personal wealth increase over the term of their service, we know what their salaries are so where does all the addition income come from?  I know some write books and others get paid for public speaking engagements but that doesn't account for all the personal wealth they gained.   We know there's under the table money from lobbyists and business, but they all cover for themselves because no one wants the gravy train to end.  

The Clintons have earned $221M since 2001  Here's a breakdown of their income from 2000 to 2014:

• 2000 = $357,629
• 2001 = $16,165,110
• 2002 = $9,556,550
• 2003 = $8,033,374
• 2004 = $20,264,179
• 2005 = $18,056,395
• 2006 = $16,063, 908
• 2007 = $21,199,212
• 2008 = $5,573,351
• 2009 = $10,223,318
• 2010 = $13,244,484
• 2011 = $14,899,484
• 2012 = $19,993,299
• 2013 = $27,093,859
• 2014 = $28,336,212  Seems Bill and Hillary have done pretty well for themselves.  

Obama was worth $1.3M in 2007 and they are now worth around $7M.  Not bad for two lawyers that gave up their right to practice law before Barack entered politics, Michelle surrendered her license in 1993 and Barack in 2008.  

I singled out Obama and Clinton because we know Bush had plenty of money before POTUS.   I'm sure you could look up most politicians from both sides and see that their net worth has grown significantly since they entered office.  

These individuals and many politicians blame big business for the growing divide between the 99% and the 1% but it seems they as much a part of the 1% as big business, where is their culpability .  

It comes from insider trading amongst other places. 

[Dave2512]

Day after day of cable news tripping over their tongues with constant Trump talk. Getting old. Really doesn't matter because it's starting to look like we'll get our first female POTUS. Which is fine I'd rather her and all her baggage as this point, safer bet than the maladroit posturing coming from the others.

Trump has diarrhea of the mouth, Kasich is on another planet of crazy with his 140ish delegates and Cruz reminds me of the manager at Chick-fil-A, anything good he says never sounds confident. Hopefully the next five years go somewhat smooth and DC learns something. This is scary shit.

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The concept of public service is out dated, the only people politicians serve is themselves and their families.   Most politicians see their personal wealth increase over the term of their service, we know what their salaries are so where does all the addition income come from?  I know some write books and others get paid for public speaking engagements but that doesn't account for all the personal wealth they gained.   We know there's under the table money from lobbyists and business, but they all cover for themselves because no one wants the gravy train to end.  

The Clintons have earned $221M since 2001  Here's a breakdown of their income from 2000 to 2014:

• 2000 = $357,629
• 2001 = $16,165,110
• 2002 = $9,556,550
• 2003 = $8,033,374
• 2004 = $20,264,179
• 2005 = $18,056,395
• 2006 = $16,063, 908
• 2007 = $21,199,212
• 2008 = $5,573,351
• 2009 = $10,223,318
• 2010 = $13,244,484
• 2011 = $14,899,484
• 2012 = $19,993,299
• 2013 = $27,093,859
• 2014 = $28,336,212  Seems Bill and Hillary have done pretty well for themselves.  

Obama was worth $1.3M in 2007 and they are now worth around $7M.  Not bad for two lawyers that gave up their right to practice law before Barack entered politics, Michelle surrendered her license in 1993 and Barack in 2008.  

I singled out Obama and Clinton because we know Bush had plenty of money before POTUS.   I'm sure you could look up most politicians from both sides and see that their net worth has grown significantly since they entered office.  

These individuals and many politicians blame big business for the growing divide between the 99% and the 1% but it seems they as much a part of the 1% as big business, where is their culpability .  

Facts on this statement. Can can reapply for status at any time. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

 

[rkim291968]

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Not true, if Trump can secure 185% of the angry, old white man vote, he'll have it locked up. 

Trump will take mass immigration from Canada to make it happen ... 

34 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Day after day of cable news tripping over their tongues with constant Trump talk. Getting old. Really doesn't matter because it's starting to look like we'll get our first female POTUS. Which is fine I'd rather her and all her baggage as this point, safer bet than the maladroit posturing coming from the others.

That's true.   Clinton is predictable. So are Cruz, Sanders, and Kasich.  We know what their policy will be in general.   We don't know what the maniac (aka Trump) will do.   He flip flops faster than any politician out there.  So far, he as gotten away though.

[newtogolf]

9 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Facts on this statement. Can can reapply for status at any time. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

 

I didn't mention anything about the allegations under which they surrendered their license, nor did I state they couldn't reapply.  I was merely pointing out that neither one of them was earning an income at their profession (law) during the time their net worth increased 7 times.  

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I didn't mention anything about the allegations under which they surrendered their license, nor did I state they couldn't reapply.  I was merely pointing out that neither one of them was earning an income at their profession (law) during the time their net worth increased 7 times.  

Thanks. I just wanted other readers understand there was nothing nefarious about them not practicing. 

Former Presidents can and have made a lot of money on speaking engagements. Reagan wasn't able to due to health, but I would have guessed he would have made a lot too. I don't begrudge any of them for making money this way. They have seen a lot and have a lot to share. And I find it refreshing that they all seem to bond very close after their terms are over.

[Braivo]

On 4/2/2016 at 10:10 AM, Ernest Jones said:

Not true, if Trump can secure 185% of the angry, old white man vote, he'll have it locked up. 

He will get 100% of it for sure. It took blacks turning out in huge numbers to elect Obama, I am guessing the same can happen with whites for Trump. He will get a lot of crossover from working class Dems as well. 

On 4/2/2016 at 0:43 PM, Dave2512 said:

Day after day of cable news tripping over their tongues with constant Trump talk. Getting old. Really doesn't matter because it's starting to look like we'll get our first female POTUS. Which is fine I'd rather her and all her baggage as this point, safer bet than the maladroit posturing coming from the others.

Trump has diarrhea of the mouth, Kasich is on another planet of crazy with his 140ish delegates and Cruz reminds me of the manager at Chick-fil-A, anything good he says never sounds confident. Hopefully the next five years go somewhat smooth and DC learns something. This is scary shit.

It has all been on purpose, and it has worked. See this quote from an excellent NYMag article on the Trump campaign. 

Quote

Which is how Trump’s scorched-earth strategy coalesced. To break out of the pack, he made what appears to be a deliberate decision to be provocative, even outrageous. “If I were totally presidential, I’d be one of the many people who are already out of the race,” Trump told me. And so, Trump openly stoked racial tensions and appealed to the latent misogyny of a base that thinks of Hillary as the world’s most horrible ballbuster.

...

Ivanka also pushed him to act more “presidential,” but in one of our conversations, Trump said he disagrees: “You know, there’s a difference between being presidential when you’re now president of the United States than being presidential when you’re running against 17 other people.”

 

[Ernest Jones]

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He will get 100% of it for sure. It took blacks turning out in huge numbers to elect Obama, I am guessing the same can happen with whites for Trump. He will get a lot of crossover from working class Dems as well. 

It has all been on purpose, and it has worked. See this quote from an excellent NYMag article on the Trump campaign. 

 

So the guy who is doing this:

And so, Trump openly stoked racial tensions and appealed to the latent misogyny of a base that thinks of Hillary as the world’s most horrible ballbuster.

Gets your vote? That's kinda...gross. 

Oh, and by the way, bonus points for using the terms the Blacks and the Whites. That sure takes me back!

:smh: