[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]
[/quote]
They don’t create their own grand strategies. They implement the President’s. Pretty simple stuff.
[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:
Her gender (supposed)
Her husband [/quote]
Four years as the second highest ranking American diplomat, second only to the Diplomat in Chief. She traveled more than any Secretary of State to date, visiting an average of 28 states per year during her tenure. Nearly 1,000,000 miles. But she doesn’t have any foreign policy experience, especially vis-a-vis the rest of the contenders in 2016?
[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:
Her gender (supposed)
Her husband [/quote]
Four years as the second highest ranking American diplomat, second only to the Diplomat in Chief. She traveled more than any Secretary of State to date, visiting an average of 28 states per year during her tenure. Nearly 1,000,000 miles. But she doesn’t have any foreign policy experience, especially vis-a-vis the rest of the contenders in 2016?[/quote]
Really? The fact that she has TRAVELED makes her successful? So is she a Statesman? No. Can she manage the department? No. See Kissinger and Baker about how they can influence foreign policy. Don’t give he that “she serves at the behest of the president” crap.
She has been an abysmal failure. But hell, she has got a lot of stamps on her passport!
Fiorina, Huckabee most likely, Carson all in. At this point it may be quicker to list the Republicans NOT running for President. Primary debates going to have to take place in football stadiums to fit all the candidates
[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…
[/quote]
Okay let’s do it this way:
Read both of these sites.
I am not for any politician who is for increasing taxes…PERIOD!
I am for those who want to increase the tax base by growing the economy.
Obama is without question the worst modern day President. Worse than Jimmy Carter and even worse than LBJ who first started the war on poverty. By the way throwing billions and billions to the poor did what? We have more poor now than we did before LBJ’s war on poverty.
By the way up to Obama LBJ was the worst President.
[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…
[/quote]
Okay let’s do it this way:
Read both of these sites.
I am not for any politician who is for increasing taxes…PERIOD!
I am for those who want to increase the tax base by growing the economy.
Obama is without question the worst modern day President. Worse than Jimmy Carter and even worse than LBJ who first started the war on poverty. By the way throwing billions and billions to the poor did what? We have more poor now than we did before LBJ’s war on poverty.
By the way up to Obama LBJ was the worst President.
[/quote]
Your ideology is easy to see…your a Norquist disciple and you’re honest about it. If the country is going to go to war; it is only reasonable that it is paid for. Your position on increasing the tax base sounds great on the surface; however the US hasn’t had anything beyond an artificial economy built on credit and bubbles since the recession of Bush-1. There is no MFG base left to create growth. We are a consumer economy now.
[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…
[/quote]
Okay let’s do it this way:
Read both of these sites.
I am not for any politician who is for increasing taxes…PERIOD!
I am for those who want to increase the tax base by growing the economy.
Obama is without question the worst modern day President. Worse than Jimmy Carter and even worse than LBJ who first started the war on poverty. By the way throwing billions and billions to the poor did what? We have more poor now than we did before LBJ’s war on poverty.
By the way up to Obama LBJ was the worst President.
[/quote]
Your ideology is easy to see…your a Norquist disciple and you’re honest about it. If the country is going to go to war; it is only reasonable that it is paid for. Your position on increasing the tax base sounds great on the surface; however the US hasn’t had anything beyond an artificial economy built on credit and bubbles since the recession of Bush-1. There is no MFG base left to create growth. We are a consumer economy now.
I’m not going to try to dispute your opinion on LBJ because I feel the same way in many ways.
[/quote]
I’m a disciple of keeping my own money and I don’t like it when the semi-socialist Obama wants to steal more of it. As I said there are better ways. We are not hurting because we don’t collect enough money at the government level. We are hurting because we have a very large corrupt machine in Washington. Spending far more than we should.
By the way throwing billions and billions to the poor did what? We have more poor now than we did before LBJ’s war on poverty.[/quote]
How is it that every city government in the world knows that giving out free food to the pigeons and squirrels will result in them breeding out of control and becoming disease-spreading nuisances, dependent on humans for their very survival, but the federal government fails to see the same potential problems inherent in welfare programs?
By the way throwing billions and billions to the poor did what? We have more poor now than we did before LBJ’s war on poverty.[/quote]
How is it that every city government in the world knows that giving out free food to the pigeons and squirrels will result in them breeding out of control and becoming disease-spreading nuisances, dependent on humans for their very survival, but the federal government fails to see the same potential problems inherent in welfare programs?[/quote]
Excellent comparison.
I got into a bit of a political debate recently with one of my son’s Poly Sci teachers. He also has a degree in Psychology. And he’s a rabid Obama defender.
I asked him isn’t it true that when you reward a behavior that you tend to get more of that particular behavior?
He said “True”
Then I quickly shifted to the topic of government handouts welfare being one of them.
So, we pay people essentially not to work…then we wonder why they can’t find a job?
Uh huh…the answer is in Psych 101 and everyone knows it including the democrats. But they have to continue to build their constituency.
Unfortunately I started at the bottom of your links…
Is this the level of “documentation” contained in the others? Because if so, clicking the rest isn’t necessary, and the assumption of your position being off is warranted.
Unfortunately I started at the bottom of your links…
Is this the level of “documentation” contained in the others? Because if so, clicking the rest isn’t necessary, and the assumption of your position being off is warranted.
[/quote]
My position would be this…There is plenty to criticize the Obama administration for; I’m certainly not a fan; didn’t cast my vote for him in either election. However, acting like either of his opponents would have done things much different is fantasy land thinking IMO. Changes at the margins perhaps, anything substantial…not a chance. I felt no different when Bush 2 was in office and had to listen to the constant garbage from the left…stolen election, war criminal, etc. I agree with Zeb regarding political corruption, but acting like that is a right or left thing is nonsense. It matters little which party is in power, they each behave the same. Economics is hardly a science…all administrations play the shell game…give a little back here, take a little more there. Dogmatic adherence to ideology is always easier than exercising judgement. If there is any chance of dealing with the mess we are in as a country we need a serious leader; one that understands how to spread the pain around.
If you look back at the predictions made by the Global Warming Alarmist crowd, and see which came true, it would be more than fair to say that that crowd should be laughed off the stage.
Unfortunately I started at the bottom of your links…
Is this the level of “documentation” contained in the others? Because if so, clicking the rest isn’t necessary, and the assumption of your position being off is warranted.
[/quote]
My position would be this…There is plenty to criticize the Obama administration for; I’m certainly not a fan; didn’t cast my vote for him in either election. However, acting like either of his opponents would have done things much different is fantasy land thinking IMO. Changes at the margins perhaps, anything substantial…not a chance. I felt no different when Bush 2 was in office and had to listen to the constant garbage from the left…stolen election, war criminal, etc. I agree with Zeb regarding political corruption, but acting like that is a right or left thing is nonsense. It matters little which party is in power, they each behave the same. Economics is hardly a science…all administrations play the shell game…give a little back here, take a little more there. Dogmatic adherence to ideology is always easier than exercising judgement. If there is any chance of dealing with the mess we are in as a country we need a serious leader; one that understands how to spread the pain around.
[/quote]
I’m not saying that the republicans don’t have their problems they most certainly do. But saying there is no difference is ridiculous.
-A republican President would not be trying to strike a nuclear deal with a terrorist state.
-A republican President would not turn his back on Israel.
-A republican President would not have raised my taxes. In fact, under the most recent republican President I got a nice tax cut.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you look back at the predictions made by the Global Warming Alarmist crowd, and see which came true, it would be more than fair to say that that crowd should be laughed off the stage. [/quote]
Climate change is the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the American people…No wait that would be social security.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Changes at the margins perhaps, anything substantial…not a chance. It matters little which party is in power, they each behave the same. Economics is hardly a science…all administrations play the shell game…give a little back here, take a little more there.[/quote]
I’m not saying that the republicans don’t have their problems they most certainly do. But saying there is no difference is ridiculous.
-A republican President would not have raised my taxes. In fact, under the most recent republican President I got a nice tax cut.
[/quote]
National Debt on the day they took office and on the day they left…
Reagan -1.00 trillion-2.86 trillion
Bush1 -2.86 trillion-3.4 trillion
Clinton -3.4 trillion-5.7 trillion
Bush2 -5.7 trillion-11.8 trillion
Obama -11.8 trillion-18 trillion to date
Perhaps you believe deficits don’t matter?? Looks similar to me.
I’ve managed to do well regardless of who’s in office myself; I worry more about the devaluation of my dollar due to the debt than I do about income tax rates. Reduce that debt and I’m onboard for tax cuts.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is it that every city government in the world knows that giving out free food to the pigeons and squirrels will result in them breeding out of control and becoming disease-spreading nuisances, dependent on humans for their very survival, but the federal government fails to see the same potential problems inherent in welfare programs?[/quote]
Because all of those things are viewed as positives when we’re talking about humans. Breeding out of control creates a massive workforce. Becoming disease-spreading nuisances prevents the population from getting too out of control(and is also beneficial in eliminating the weakest). Being dependent on (other, in this case)humans for their very survival makes for compliant slaves. Maybe it’s not about failing to see anything; it’s about creating the illusion of failure to see.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is it that every city government in the world knows that giving out free food to the pigeons and squirrels will result in them breeding out of control and becoming disease-spreading nuisances, dependent on humans for their very survival, but the federal government fails to see the same potential problems inherent in welfare programs?[/quote]
Because all of those things are viewed as positives when we’re talking about humans. Breeding out of control creates a massive workforce. Becoming disease-spreading nuisances prevents the population from getting too out of control(and is also beneficial in eliminating the weakest). Being dependent on (other, in this case)humans for their very survival makes for compliant slaves. Maybe it’s not about failing to see anything; it’s about creating the illusion of failure to see.
[/quote]
Well, that would be right in line with the perceived “failure” of the educational system… which accomplished all of its goals: to create a dumb, docile and obedient workforce.
