The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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]

Oh I agree that both parties have allowed the deficits to run wild. But again as I said the republican party has its problems, that happens to be one of them. But, looking at one thing that both parties are guilty of without paying attention to the rest is like saying cats and dogs are the same because they both have four legs.

And yes I’ve done well under both parties too. But I’ve done well in spite of the democrats stealing more of my money.

In short, we spend far, far more than we should. And this needs to stop sooner rather than later as time is running out.

302

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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.[/quote]

(Applause)

303

[quote]ZEB wrote:

In short, we spend far, far more than we should. And this needs to stop sooner rather than later as time is running out. [/quote]

I agree. However you would be hard pressed to find evidence from the last 35 years that a President from either party is going to get this done. People may not want to be told that the results are similar, but it is true especially if we are talking national debt. Acting as if a vote for a Republican or a vote for a Democrat in the next election is a vote against increasing or reducing the debt would have to be solely based on faith and not recent history.

Assuming a Republican in office will lower the national debt completely ignores the last 20 years of Republican presidents and the results that came from them.

FWIW I’d vote Republican before Democrat in the next question (though I will likely vote Libertarian), but for the Republicans to accomplish what you say is so important they would have to be completely different than they have been.

304

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

In short, we spend far, far more than we should. And this needs to stop sooner rather than later as time is running out. [/quote]

I agree. However you would be hard pressed to find evidence from the last 35 years that a President from either party is going to get this done. People may not want to be told that the results are similar, but it is true especially if we are talking national debt. Acting as if a vote for a Republican or a vote for a Democrat in the next election is a vote against increasing or reducing the debt would have to be solely based on faith and not recent history.

Assuming a Republican in office will lower the national debt completely ignores the last 20 years of Republican presidents and the results that came from them.

FWIW I’d vote Republican before Democrat in the next question (though I will likely vote Libertarian), but for the Republicans to accomplish what you say is so important they would have to be completely different than they have been. [/quote]

As I said in terms of national debt the republicans have a problem. However, when was the last time that we had a republican President and also both houses of Congress republican as well?

I do believe if this should occur that you would see progress in that area. Just as Obama passed his nutty health care legislation because both houses of Congress were democrat.

However, my original point was aside from this sad similarity generally people who want to keep more of their hard earned money get a better shake under a republican President.

305

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

In short, we spend far, far more than we should. And this needs to stop sooner rather than later as time is running out. [/quote]

I agree. However you would be hard pressed to find evidence from the last 35 years that a President from either party is going to get this done. People may not want to be told that the results are similar, but it is true especially if we are talking national debt. Acting as if a vote for a Republican or a vote for a Democrat in the next election is a vote against increasing or reducing the debt would have to be solely based on faith and not recent history.

Assuming a Republican in office will lower the national debt completely ignores the last 20 years of Republican presidents and the results that came from them.

FWIW I’d vote Republican before Democrat in the next question (though I will likely vote Libertarian), but for the Republicans to accomplish what you say is so important they would have to be completely different than they have been. [/quote]

As I said in terms of national debt the republicans have a problem. However, when was the last time that we had a republican President and also both houses of Congress republican as well?

I do believe if this should occur that you would see progress in that area. Just as Obama passed his nutty health care legislation because both houses of Congress were democrat.

However, my original point was aside from this sad similarity generally people who want to keep more of their hard earned money get a better shake under a republican President. [/quote]

Something like this:

The track record of both major parties in reducing the size of government is simply not good. One can put their faith that 2016 would be different and Republicans would step up to the plate and I hope they are right (assuming they win the Presidency which is likely). Based off recent history? Lose, lose either way.

Hopefully someone bucks the trend!

306

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

In short, we spend far, far more than we should. And this needs to stop sooner rather than later as time is running out. [/quote]

I agree. However you would be hard pressed to find evidence from the last 35 years that a President from either party is going to get this done. People may not want to be told that the results are similar, but it is true especially if we are talking national debt. Acting as if a vote for a Republican or a vote for a Democrat in the next election is a vote against increasing or reducing the debt would have to be solely based on faith and not recent history.

Assuming a Republican in office will lower the national debt completely ignores the last 20 years of Republican presidents and the results that came from them.

FWIW I’d vote Republican before Democrat in the next question (though I will likely vote Libertarian), but for the Republicans to accomplish what you say is so important they would have to be completely different than they have been. [/quote]

As I said in terms of national debt the republicans have a problem. However, when was the last time that we had a republican President and also both houses of Congress republican as well?

I do believe if this should occur that you would see progress in that area. Just as Obama passed his nutty health care legislation because both houses of Congress were democrat.

However, my original point was aside from this sad similarity generally people who want to keep more of their hard earned money get a better shake under a republican President. [/quote]

Something like this:

The track record of both major parties in reducing the size of government is simply not good. One can put their faith that 2016 would be different and Republicans would step up to the plate and I hope they are right (assuming they win the Presidency which is likely). Based off recent history? Lose, lose either way.

Hopefully someone bucks the trend! [/quote]

I agree but I feel that GW was certainly not a real conservative. As I mentioned in another thread I don’t want anymore Bush’s in the White House. That goes for Christie and all others who are middle left in my opinion. If Reagan had both houses of congress republican you would have seen an amazing shift in spending but it was not to be.

Keep in mind it’s not just the party but the right man/woman in that party. No question it will be difficult to do. But the only way we turn this mess around is if it happens.

307

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Keep in mind it’s not just the party but the right man/woman in that party. No question it will be difficult to do. But the only way we turn this mess around is if it happens.
[/quote]

Agree, but you have more faith than I do if you truly believe either party is actually dedicated to small government. Even Democrats talk small government while they are out of power, but both sides have shown they are not willing to decrease government when they have the keys to the castle.

I agree that we need it to happen, but will it? I won’t hold my breath as long as we continue to elect one of the two major parties neither of which have shrank the federal government in my entire life.

308

Anyways, enough digression.

Huckabee is officially in the ring now as well. I want to count him out, but something about him always makes me wonder if he has a run in him. I like many of the things the man says except for his social views which make me want to vomit. He’s got a populist tone at times that could either turn off the base or help to separate himself from the pack. Thoughts on another Huckabee run?

309

1555×806 144 KB

H:

Huckabee is a “Base Stimulator”…but a very limited one at best, much like Santorum was/(is?) and Bachmann was. He will have a limited run that will last as long as his ego will take him. (Much like it did Gingrich the last election cycle).

I do want to go on-record as saying this (and I know I’m repeating myself, but it deserves repeating…)

If all this election becomes is “Anti-Hillary/Obama”…then you can expect Hillary to win.

I feel strongly that the GOP has to come up with their own “Vision and Plan” for America…and “Anti-Hillary/Obama” is not a plan or vision.

People may even buy something as Hokey (AND effective) as “It’s Morning in America Again”…but it HAS to be some kind of vision.

Mufasa

310

By the way, H:

I also don’t think Ben Carson will go very far.

Mufasa

312

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, H:

I also don’t think Ben Carson will go very far.

Mufasa[/quote]

In a direct sense, no. Indirectly, very much so, I hope. I think he will serve as a model to blacks that they don’t have to toe the Democratic line. He is a class act, it appears.[/quote]

Carson is a hypocrite. In his book he praises a government program that got him glasses. He praises the government assistance his mother received saying she couldn’t have provided or kept her house without the help from the government. He said he couldn’t have made it without food stamps. And now he wants to run as an anti-government candidate?

The pro government views espoused in his book do not line up with his current rhetoric and it will not be difficult for his opponents to point out the fact that he has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He also wants to get rid of for profit insurance companies which I don’t think will fly well with the base. He wants the government in charge of catastrophic health care. He will be quite easy for primary opponents to pick apart if he gains momentum.

313

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, H:

I also don’t think Ben Carson will go very far.

Mufasa[/quote]

In a direct sense, no. Indirectly, very much so, I hope. I think he will serve as a model to blacks that they don’t have to toe the Democratic line. He is a class act, it appears.[/quote]

Carson is a hypocrite. In his book he praises a government program that got him glasses. He praises the government assistance his mother received saying she couldn’t have provided or kept her house without the help from the government. He said he couldn’t have made it without food stamps. And now he wants to run as an anti-government candidate?

The pro government views espoused in his book do not line up with his current rhetoric and it will not be difficult for his opponents to point out the fact that he has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He also wants to get rid of for profit insurance companies which I don’t think will fly well with the base. He wants the government in charge of catastrophic health care. He will be quite easy for primary opponents to pick apart if he gains momentum.

[/quote]

Being anti-government doesn’t mean gutting the programs that work or eliminating things that help people. Unless he’s come out and said, in exact language, he wants to cut those very programs he isn’t a hypocrite.

But aside, none of what you wrote really argues against Push’s point.

I see his value in the race, but don’t want to see him win as his stance on the 2nd sucks massive balls.

314

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, H:

I also don’t think Ben Carson will go very far.

Mufasa[/quote]

In a direct sense, no. Indirectly, very much so, I hope. I think he will serve as a model to blacks that they don’t have to toe the Democratic line. He is a class act, it appears.[/quote]

Carson is a hypocrite. In his book he praises a government program that got him glasses. He praises the government assistance his mother received saying she couldn’t have provided or kept her house without the help from the government. He said he couldn’t have made it without food stamps. And now he wants to run as an anti-government candidate?

The pro government views espoused in his book do not line up with his current rhetoric and it will not be difficult for his opponents to point out the fact that he has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He also wants to get rid of for profit insurance companies which I don’t think will fly well with the base. He wants the government in charge of catastrophic health care. He will be quite easy for primary opponents to pick apart if he gains momentum.

[/quote]

Being anti-government doesn’t mean gutting the programs that work or eliminating things that help people. Unless he’s come out and said, in exact language, he wants to cut those very programs he isn’t a hypocrite.

But aside, none of what you wrote really argues against Push’s point.

I see his value in the race, but don’t want to see him win as his stance on the 2nd sucks massive balls. [/quote]

I wasn’t responding to Push’s point. I agree that he is a class act. In a sense it’s a shame that he can’t keep his arguments straight because if he could I think he might have a chance of making some noise in the primary.

I think it’s hypocritical to talk essentially in his book (which is great btw) about how much the government helped him and then try to be the anti-government candidate that the Republicans will undoubtedly nominate. This is something his opponents will pounce on as well as his ideas on health care.

If he starts to gain steam his opponents have plenty to hammer him for that I’m not sure the base will forgive.

I don’t disagree with Push, but we are talking about the potential next President of the United States. I’ve laid out things that I think have the potential to derail Mr. Carson. Not to mention I just don’t think he can stand out in this crowded of a field.

315

[quote]H factor wrote:

I think it’s hypocritical to talk essentially in his book (which is great btw) about how much the government helped him and then try to be the anti-government candidate that the Republicans will undoubtedly nominate. [/quote]

So one has to be an anarchist?

I don’t get it. I don’t see how “hey the government does some things right, like XYZ. We just need to be diligent that we don’t ask, require or allow government to do too much. In the areas it does well enough, and it actually helps people move forward, we should be okay with, in other areas, without ignoring the first to allow runaway costs, we need to remain diligent and apprehensive before we just assume government should be involved” is hypocritical.

I’m not claiming that is what he said, but if you’re going to hold an impossible standard for republicans, please refer to my Great Experiment thread… We’re doomed.

316

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I think it’s hypocritical to talk essentially in his book (which is great btw) about how much the government helped him and then try to be the anti-government candidate that the Republicans will undoubtedly nominate. [/quote]

So one has to be an anarchist?

I don’t get it. I don’t see how “hey the government does some things right, like XYZ. We just need to be diligent that we don’t ask, require or allow government to do too much. In the areas it does well enough, and it actually helps people move forward, we should be okay with, in other areas, without ignoring the first to allow runaway costs, we need to remain diligent and apprehensive before we just assume government should be involved” is hypocritical.

I’m not claiming that is what he said, but if you’re going to hold an impossible standard for republicans, please refer to my Great Experiment thread… We’re doomed. [/quote]

I’m not sure where you are heading with this. I’m talking about political opponents in the Republican primary using Mr. Carson’s words against him. I believe he has said some things that could be easy attack fodder against him. If you disagree that is fine, I’m just laying out what I think.

I think you are getting confused, I’m not talking about holding him myself to any standard merely laying out reasons why I think fellow Republicans have some ammo to attack him with in the primary.

I’m talking about the race for the next President of the United States and what I think about the new candidates chances of securing the nomination. I believe you are trying to talk about something else. Mufasa said he didn’t think Mr. Carson would go very far and I was agreeing and pointing out why I think he will have trouble.

317

Ben Carson is nothing more than an interesting distraction. Also, one of the few republican candidates that if nominated would certainly lose to Hillary Clinton.

318

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but I feel that GW was certainly not a real conservative. As I mentioned in another thread I don’t want anymore Bush’s in the White House. That goes for Christie and all others who are middle left in my opinion. If Reagan had both houses of congress republican you would have seen an amazing shift in spending but it was not to be.[/quote]

Erm… What about all the Republicans in the House and Senate who must have voted to pass all those measures?

Are they all RINOS too?

319

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but I feel that GW was certainly not a real conservative. As I mentioned in another thread I don’t want anymore Bush’s in the White House. That goes for Christie and all others who are middle left in my opinion. If Reagan had both houses of congress republican you would have seen an amazing shift in spending but it was not to be.[/quote]

Erm… What about all the Republicans in the House and Senate who must have voted to pass all those measures?

Are they all RINOS too?[/quote]

If he had a majority you would have seen a different outcome.

320

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but I feel that GW was certainly not a real conservative. As I mentioned in another thread I don’t want anymore Bush’s in the White House. That goes for Christie and all others who are middle left in my opinion. If Reagan had both houses of congress republican you would have seen an amazing shift in spending but it was not to be.[/quote]

Erm… What about all the Republicans in the House and Senate who must have voted to pass all those measures?

Are they all RINOS too?[/quote]

If he had a majority you would have seen a different outcome.
[/quote]

This is exactly what the left says about Obama. If Republicans hadn’t obstructed him he would have been able to make more good things happen.

Maybe Republicans when in power just aren’t very small government like they want you to believe? You don’t have a lot of evidence that Republicans are serious about changing the Patriot Act. You can’t buy beer in the town I live in on Sunday because of Republicans. Wonder why you can’t play internet poker? Republicans. You certainly have plenty of them who love to give away tax payer money whenever the Pentagon or a big agribusiness comes calling.

If you want to sell me that Republicans are better than Democrats on the whole I’m not sure I’d fight you my man. If you want to act as if things will be amazing with Republican control and sucky with Democrats in charge you don’t have much evidence from recent history. Essentially the Republicans get to say put us back into power because “Reagan rocked” and the Democrats get to say put us back into power (or keep us) because “Clinton rocked.”

He wasn’t a conservative is the Republican party of the 2010’s cop out. Ignore what we did in the past because those people weren’t us. Maybe you’re right and they all had a big epiphany and it will be small government nirvana when they take the White House in 2016 (which I anticipate). I know where I’ll lay my money…

IMO at this point after the last 16 years if you still think a huge difference exists in what the political parties will do while in power it’s because you want desperately want to believe something.