The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Quite true. But the question then is, do you like her track record on the matters she attended to while Secretary? Experience is invaluable, but people also have to like what she did while she was in place.[/quote]

I often wondered if the animosity between her and Obama was why he appointed her to a position that she would fail spectacularly at, thus preventing her from becoming a POTUS as he saw her as the next D-candidate.[/quote]

Bill Clinton is widely regarded as the most successful Democratic President we have had in recent times, should Barack Obama do well, Bill risks losing that prestige. His ego could not fit in the hull of the Titanic.

Hillary will need to do a delicate balancing act of distancing herself from Obama while not alienating his voters.

But she is dodgy, inconsistent, and worst of all lacks an awareness that lets your everyday American connect with her. Not that I can speak highly of the Republican candidates either.

262

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Suspicious because I doubt that this was all so clear-cut and simple.

No big deal.

GOP all the way in 2016 for me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Curious what changed your tune Muf? I know you were not a Dem cheerleader, but I always thought you leaned left?[/quote]

It’s time, UL.

It’s time for the GOP and Conservatives to “step up to the plate” and govern.

I’m not only pulling for the GOP in 2016; I want them to have the most Conservative candidates that can be elected, and a Veto-proof majority in both Houses, while also occupying the White House.

The time for talk, obstruction and rhetoric is over.

Mufasa[/quote]

Fair enough.

264

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I posted at the end of the original thread, but perhaps it was too much of a train wreck at that point.

Do you think Rand Paul has ANY chance of getting the nomination? [/quote]

I doubt it. I think any independent is a wasted vote. You might as well vote Democrat.[/quote]

If not now, when? If not Jesse Ventura, who?

He’s the only one who can save the republic from the globalists, xenoestrogens(the gay bomb) and fluoridated water(mind control). At least that’s what Jesse says. It would be interesting to see how many votes he would get if he actually ran.[/quote]

It’ll be 1992 all over again. Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote (yet carried no states), Bush got 37%, and Clinton got 43%.

If Perot wasn’t in there distracting things (although I felt he was a better candidate) the Republicans WOULD have won.

If Bush had won, he probably would have taken that shot at Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn’t have the balls to make and 9/11 could have been avoided.

There is NO ROOM for a “third party” as long as one of the three is Democrat. The third party would only serve to siphon votes from the Democratic opposition. In a few decades if the Democrats are defeated and people come to their senses, THEN there may be room for a third party, but not now.[/quote]

If Bush had won, he probably would have taken that shot at Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn’t have the balls to make and 9/11 could have been avoided.

Why didn’t “the decider” get Bin Laden when 9/11 happened on his watch. Just imagine if 9/11 happened on a Democrats watch and a Republican actually got him. All of you fools would have been all over it.

Not to mention that if the U.S. had a different foreign policy 9/11 probably never would have happened. But since the U.S. lives by a foreign policy that everything in the world is ours for the taking we create hatred for our country.

265

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]

OK, so you are citing her S of S experience as a reason to vote for her as Prez. Fine. I don’t have a problem with someone using that as a reason other than…has it been a successful one?

BTW, I did no scoffing.[/quote]

Given the global landscape, foreign policy is likely to be an issue of critical importance among voters in 2016. Walter Russell Mead writes that “Clinton brought a clear vision of U.S. interests and power to the job, and future presidents and secretaries of state will find many of her ideas essential. Yet she struggled to bring together the different elements of her vision into a coherent set of policies. The tension between America’s role as a revolutionary power and its role as a status quo power predates Clinton; the struggle to reconcile those two opposed but equally indispensable aspects of American foreign policy has survived her tenure at the State Department.” I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.

I didn’t intend to criticize you, only to convey that that her tenure was impressive in longevity and scope.

266

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Quite true. But the question then is, do you like her track record on the matters she attended to while Secretary? Experience is invaluable, but people also have to like what she did while she was in place.[/quote]

I often wondered if the animosity between her and Obama was why he appointed her to a position that she would fail spectacularly at, thus preventing her from becoming a POTUS as he saw her as the next D-candidate.[/quote]

Remember that secretaries of state don’t control U.S. foreign policy. Clinton wasn’t following her own grand strategy when she reigned in Foggy Bottom; her job was to implement President Obama’s ideas. Any failure on her part would have harmed Obama more than her.

267

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Could you remind me why you like Ted Cruz?

269

Interesting article on where the Huckster might fit in in the race.

I don’t think he has any chance of being the nominee, but he could shake things up for other social conservatives.

270

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.
[/quote]
So Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus. So it never works?

271

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.
[/quote]
So Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus. So it never works?[/quote]

So, if you’re poor you can rob a bank. If you get away with it you have increased your wealth…it worked right? But was it the correct way to do it?

Don’t play the fool. Taking from those of us who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it harms both parties!

There is a right way and a wrong way to “create a surplus”.

272

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.
[/quote]
So Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus. So it never works?[/quote]

So, if you’re poor you can rob a bank. If you get away with it you have increased your wealth…it worked right? But was it the correct way to do it?

Don’t play the fool. Taking from those of us who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it harms both parties!

There is a right way and a wrong way to “create a surplus”.[/quote]

Did the bankers in the mid-2000’s earn it?

Besides the poster says it NEVER works.

273

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.
[/quote]
So Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus. So it never works?[/quote]

So, if you’re poor you can rob a bank. If you get away with it you have increased your wealth…it worked right? But was it the correct way to do it?

Don’t play the fool. Taking from those of us who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it harms both parties!

There is a right way and a wrong way to “create a surplus”.[/quote]

Did the bankers in the mid-2000’s earn it?

Besides the poster says it NEVER works.
[/quote]

Some of the bankers did some did it the wrong way, like my example above of robbing a bank.

And it NEVER works LEGITIMATELY!

275

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]
I’m going to have to use a sick day today unfortunately. Got bad migraine headaches this morning. Can I be marked as sick?

The ability to hold a position does not constitute as experience. Her accomplishments are:

  1. Her gender (supposed)
  2. Her husband
276

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Quite true. But the question then is, do you like her track record on the matters she attended to while Secretary? Experience is invaluable, but people also have to like what she did while she was in place.[/quote]

I often wondered if the animosity between her and Obama was why he appointed her to a position that she would fail spectacularly at, thus preventing her from becoming a POTUS as he saw her as the next D-candidate.[/quote]

So cabinet members do not advise and consult? They do not influence? Please…

Remember that secretaries of state don’t control U.S. foreign policy. Clinton wasn’t following her own grand strategy when she reigned in Foggy Bottom; her job was to implement President Obama’s ideas. Any failure on her part would have harmed Obama more than her.[/quote]

277

[quote]pushharder wrote:
O’Malley?

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-hillary-rodham-romney/[/quote]

Just as good a guess as any assuming HRC doesn’t weather the current storm to secure the nomination.

What will be interesting is if the Dem’s decide to run her warts and all without making her go through the ringer. I have the feeling the left is quickly falling out of love with her.

278

[quote]pushharder wrote:
O’Malley?

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-hillary-rodham-romney/[/quote]

No thanks.

279

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.
[/quote]
So Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus. So it never works?[/quote]

So, if you’re poor you can rob a bank. If you get away with it you have increased your wealth…it worked right? But was it the correct way to do it?

Don’t play the fool. Taking from those of us who earned it and giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it harms both parties!

There is a right way and a wrong way to “create a surplus”.[/quote]

Did the bankers in the mid-2000’s earn it?

Besides the poster says it NEVER works.
[/quote]

Some of the bankers did some did it the wrong way, like my example above of robbing a bank.

And it NEVER works LEGITIMATELY![/quote]

Can you list the so called bankers who did it the right way? And what happened to the bankers who did it the wrong way?

So it never work LEGITIMATELY? So raising taxes is not legit?

280

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).
[/quote]

Although I agree with you in principle; you would have to have an household AGI over 385,000 yr before those rates would affect you. Considering the 200 million per day that was spent for over a decade in Iraq/Afghanistan…