Presidential Race 2016

[newtogolf]

21 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Rape? Pretty sure that was never on the table.

It's been reported, just not sure how good the sources are.  

[Lihu]

50 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Rape? Pretty sure that was never on the table.

Sure it was. . .I even posted this.

 

29 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's been reported, just not sure how good the sources are.  

Good enough for Fox network, anyway. In this particular case, it seems trustworthy enough.

 

 

[Dave2512]

45 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sure it was. . .I even posted this.

 

Good enough for Fox network, anyway. In this particular case, it seems trustworthy enough.

 

 

The JB claims never gained traction because of when it happened 1978 and when it was reported 1999. Not suggesting it's impossible but in 78 Clinton was pretty far from the WH. He was behind the presidential firewall back then.

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

The JB claims never gained traction because of when it happened 1978 and when it was reported 1999. Not suggesting it's impossible but in 78 Clinton was pretty far from the WH. He was behind the presidential firewall back then.

The old saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" probably applies here. . .

[Chilli Dipper]

22 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The old saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" probably applies here. . .

38-year-old smoke.

Hillary's enemies must hope there's Centralia smoldering underneath the surface.

[Dave2512]

28 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The old saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" probably applies here. . .

Yes but in BC's case it's a history of affairs. It's not like the Cosby thing where there are many detailed accounts. That's why people are calling bunk on the Trump attack, because he was the BC figure in his own affairs.

[saevel25]

By Politifact, Trump is must more dishonest in terms of the false things he says compared to what Hillary has said. 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

versus

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

[9wood]

[Dave2512]

Pretty much agree this is the year of WTF . I am going to sit this one out. 

[saevel25]

Rational doesn't sell ad time. 

[9wood]

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

Pretty much agree this is the year of WTF . I am going to sit this one out. 

I personally believe that everyone who voted twice for Obama should be sitting this one out

Edited May 14, 2016 by 9wood

[Dave2512]

Just now, 9wood said:

I think everyone who voted twice for Obama should be sitting this one out

I'd sign up for a lifetime of Obama before I'd choose anyone still in this race. The country is in a better place than it was 8 years ago.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I'd sign up for a lifetime of Obama before I'd choose anyone still in this race. The country is in a better place than it was 8 years ago.

I would only if we had a republican controlled congress. 

The primary reason the country is better is because nothing got passed. There is some thing to be said about just keeping things from fluctuating so much businesses can't get a footing required to stable out. 

[Dave2512]

Some things got passed others didn't, it hasn't been 8 years of total gridlock.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Some things got passed others didn't, it hasn't been 8 years of total gridlock.

Placing a value on them in terms of how influential they were is something else entirely. 

[Dave2512]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Placing a value on them in terms of how influential they were is something else entirely. 

Sure but so far my measuring stick is before 2008 and after. Turned out the sky didn't fall.

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Placing a value on them in terms of how influential they were is something else entirely. 

As I recall at least one of them was very influential. That one alone might have gotten Trump where he is now.

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Sure but so far my measuring stick is before 2008 and after. Turned out the sky didn't fall.

Sorry to say this, that is horrible logic when trying to determine if a president was good or not. 

If want to take his biggest achievement, his healthcare bill, and why it's not really a good bill. 

Spoiler

 

1. Insurance companies that only make 5-6% profit margins are dropping out because they are losing money on the Obamacare market. 
2. Healthy young people rather pay the penalty each year than get health insurance. The penalty isn't big enough to cover cost of having so many risky people in the Obamacare market pool. The government will not raise the penalty to cover the cost because it would look bad. Obama hasn't been able to get a tax change passed to cover this cost. 
3. Businesses rather pay the penalty and dump their employee into Obamacare. 

This bill did nothing but increase the cost of health care because it increased access, but primarily increased the risk to the market. It also never covered the cost of medical school, the frivolous law suits against doctors, and the fact we'll have a doctor shortage in about 10-20 years.

Then you have this knock on Obamacare, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-court-ruling-20160512-snap-story.html

The Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.

"Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution," she wrote. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."

Basically this means that Obama can't have the executive branch pay out subsidies with out it being appropriated by congress. If you have a GOP controlled congress they can slash the budget of the subsidies. 

 

I don't see much on what he's done other than sit back and let the economy work itself out of the mess the banks and the government put ourselves in.