The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
She took advantage of diversity hiring/ affirmative action which is more cut and dry and almost for the integrity of the tribe should be confirmed. This would render her a burn the bridge after you cross it, limousine liberal.

No she did not. That is a lie from the reichwing.
Facts matter.
Indian non-sense
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...zabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

http://archive.boston.com/news/poli...ritage/cPMflfaOlndM1jFbimJ4tM/singlepage.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think if Trump thinks he's going to lose he may try to really fuck things up so there might be another candidate at the Rep Convention. He doesn't want to look like a loser in the national presidential election. They are talking a bit about that on CNN. An interesting question. We've talked about it here. Does he really want to be president? I know he wants to win.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Does he really want to be president? I know he wants to win.
These articles don't think so, at least they're giving him a big out if he wants it...

Ex-Trump Insider: Donald Doesn’t Want to Be President

In an open letter to voters supporting Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary, the former communications director of Trump’s now-defunct Super PAC said that the former reality television star not only never expected to be the Republican nominee, much less president, but never even wanted to be.



Donald Trump Does Not Want to Be President
Now that Donald Trump has won the South Carolina Primaries by a considerable margin, we must accept as possible what seemed long inconceivable: He might be our next president. It seems that many, many people actually want that to be the case.



Donald Trump is over this whole presidency thing
Sometimes it looks like Donald Trump really doesn't want to be president of the United States. The unconventional nature of his campaign — dependent on free media, self-financing, and attention-grabbing — seems more and more like a kind of calculated malpractice or negligence. When he should be consolidating his hold over the party, he is instead repelling endorsements and muddying his own message. It makes you think he wants this road show to end — and soon.



Stephen Colbert explains why he thinks Donald Trump doesn't really want to be president at all

Stephen Colbert with Donald Trump, inset, before and after the presidency

Stephen Colbert has an interesting theory about Donald Trump's desire to run for president. He thinks the politician's outlandish comments are cries for help.

He laid out the theory on Monday's "Late Show" after
Trump told an audience in Iowa over the weekend that his voters are so loyal, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"


There Is No Trump Campaign
The presumptive Republican nominee has little staff, hardly any state organizations, tiny fundraising, and fantasy plans to win in New York.


Donald Trump: The Art of Self-Sabotage

The Trump Brand, Win or Lose


:zombie::rip::rofl:
 

neverforget711

Well-Known Member
She did what I would do. Find and use any loophole possible to make the best out of my money. I do it all the time with my taxes, small investments, etc.

If I was 1/64 Cherokee I would run with it and get as much free as possible. Unfortunately for me the bulk of my ancestry are white alcoholics, so no federal funding. My wife is 1/32 Iroquois, so maybe my kids will get free college too.


I'm not holding it against her, she's just as capable of a hustler as Trump to play on even terms. It almost negates and disarms each side.
 
neverforget711,

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I think if Trump thinks he's going to lose he may try to really fuck things up so there might be another candidate at the Rep Convention. He doesn't want to look like a loser in the national presidential election. They are talking a bit about that on CNN. An interesting question. We've talked about it here. Does he really want to be president? I know he wants to win.
You mean, he'd be doing things differently from now if he wanted to screw things up??? :lmao:

(You must understand, I don't watch television (RIP OTA broadcasting) - news in particular, and "current-affairs/political analysis" most especially, so I'm struck by the 'divorce' between the wake left by Trump and the coverage (so-called) of said wake: suddenly it all seemed like speculating on Godzilla's proximal motivation as he approaches downtown...where the TV station is. (NOI) )

If we assume he's capable of knowing his situation is impossible, and if we assume (with safety, I think) that he doesn't want to "die like a bitch" ($1 to Samuel Jackson), there's really only one course he can take:

- SHAME HIS FOLLOWERS: point out the times he's lied baldly, the obvious duplicities; recall the enthusiastic response of racists to his clumsily-obvious dog-whistling by verbally and physically attacking others "NOT-Trumpish"

- CONFRONT THEM with the sheer number of times he's suggested or advocated actions or positions that completely disregard the Constitution and the 'rule of law' - with a special emphasis on those that encourage violence - and rub their noses in the fact that their pose as 'patriots' is a squalid lie

- REJECT THE NOMINATION while excoriating the party and the wealthy kingmakers who are more plainly exposed now than they have been in our history, and...

- VOTE FOR SANDERS and urge everyone who's sick of the horrific circus exposed by this election season so far to vote for Sanders - and for candidates who will publicly commit to working with Sanders in office.

THEN we would have change that makes a difference - and Trump would become a freaking Hero of the People, with a solid-gold brand, just like he wants. Until then, Trump defines himself as a JOKE and a BLOWHARD by not have the self-awareness and self-respect to shave off that ridiculous tribble....​
 

HellsWindStaff

Dharma Initiate
Some new polls (Washington Post/ABC) has Clinton ahead of Trump by 12 points. Widest spread yet.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/26/dont-believe-any-headline-showing-hillar

Journalism at it's finest, with regards to the 12 point lead.

Ironically enough, read an article earlier today about how polls are pretty useless until they get closer to the election. And also, how there are groups of people who are more likely to poll, which inherently makes them a skewed resource. If Repubs are 20% more likely to poll, then I'd reckon it would lean Republican? Just tossing numbers out there, I have no clue who polls more between Dem/Repubs and by what %.

Brexit was never gonna happen based on the polls.
 

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
I'm just glad I got a new job. Moving to IT and software sales. The results of the ACA dropped my pay by almost 15% in two years, even though my sales were drastically increasing. Now I just get to complain about my healthcare premiums being out of control as opposed to it directly affecting my income. Oh wait, it still does

Best/worst part, new job is small privately owned firm, so no THC testing required. Although I've been on a break for a few weeks just in case. Dang it lol.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I get so sick of republicans bragging about Ronald Reagan. Jeffry Lord, Trump's spokesperson on CNN always has a picture of Reagan behind him while he's talking from his office. Like Trump is even a tiny bit like Reagan.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980’s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.
 
Last edited:

Maitri

Deadhead, Low-Temp Dabber, Mahayana Buddhist
I get so sick of republicans bragging about Ronald Reagan. Jeffry Lord Trumps, spokesperson on CNN always has a picture of Reagan behind him while he's talking from his office. Like Trump is even a tiny bit like Reagan.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980’s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

Exactly. It seems like the Republicans want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he is their Kennedy. On the other hand, he would be pretty thoroughly unelectable today. Go figure...
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The republicans wanted to take away free breakfast for low income school children. How can they say that they are the more evangelical party? I don't even want religion involved in politics. Separate between church and state it says in the constitution.

I just saw Trump give a "big boy speech" I heard someone say. Not that I agree with everything he said. I was listening to Ali Velshi on CNN. I had already thought of this but Trump out sources to other countries all the time.
 

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
How can they say that they are the more evangelical party?

They want people to take care of their community by choice, not the government by force. We have turned from a society of charity to a society of government programs. And government redistribution is NOT charity.

I'll use the case study of Joe Biden. I out-donated to charities by a factor of 10 even though I take in 1/10th of his income. His response was in essence, "that's what my taxes are for." That's bullshit. People getting money from a faceless entity has an incredibly different psychological impact than from local community charities/churches. And, the benefit of the giver both in personal and spiritual development is immeasurable. Forcing someone to give someone else money demeans both parties involved as well as the middle man (ie, the government).
 
Last edited:
yogoshio,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
They want people to take care of their community by choice, not the government by force. We have turned from a society of charity to a society of government programs. And government redistribution is NOT charity.
So, what, in the communities that don't show "the generosity of spirit" that you do the people who need help should just starve to death? Really?

I don't see that as a reasonable alternative, but maybe I'm just a bleeding heart...
 

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
It's the way things were before we decided the government should pay for everything. It was the way the US worked for almost 160 years before we started adding welfare and social services. And if you look at the history of economic mobility, it started to stagnate shortly after most social programs were initiated. It's a lagging indicator.

In Chicago, local churches had breakfast service for free all over the city before it was federally funded. And if you look at efficiency levels from private charities to government programs, almost 3x as much money was actually getting to those in need compared to most bloated distribution systems.

Hell, we were more successful in our education system when it was more localized and not federally funded, but that's just history and facts. The more we have moved to nationalizing public services the worse they have become.

I am not arguing for the complete eradication of welfare and social services, but they certainly aren't the overall solution to these problems easier. If it were, then these problems wouldn't exist anymore, since there are programs supposedly fixing all of these issues right now. I mentioned earlier my favorite example is the War on Poverty. We have spent 70 years and 22 trillion dollars waging this war, and the amount of people below the poverty line has only increased despite continually increasing expenditures to fight against it.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Seeing children begging on the street in America is a pretty uncommon sight today. I don't have a lot of interest in bringing it back. Nor do I want to return to a time that many elderly and ailing died of malnutrition and hunger.

You may pine for the "good old days". I do not, thank you very much.
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
"In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program.

That's just ten cents a day!

That's less than the cost of a gumball.

But Republicans think that's still too high a price to pay to help the neediest and most vulnerable Americans.

And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.

Simply put, the American taxpayer isn't paying much for social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicare.

But we are paying a lot for the billions of dollars the U.S. government gives to corporate America each year.

The average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to Republican-friendly big business."

More:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19844-food-stamps-are-affordable-corporate-welfare-is-not
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
My tax money goes for some pretty stupid stuff. Having school children get reduced or fee breakfast and lunch is where I want some of my taxes to go. If their parents are using the money elsewhere at least we know they are getting some food at school.

I understand some of your feelings but helping to feed children. Come on. This is of course is subject for another thread.

I want people like Donald Trump to pay his fair share of taxes. I cannot state that enough. It pisses me off every time I think about it. Since he hasn't showed us his tax statements I will assume it's true.
 
Last edited:

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
Oh trust me, I hate corporate welfare infinitely more than the bloated social welfare system. At least some money gets to people that need it, no matter how inefficiently. The amount of money given to corporations that have no business to it is infinitely worse.

And I am not arguing against feeding kids, I'm just saying lets let people do it who are better at it. The mindset of "throw more money at it" just doesn't work. The idea that if there's a need no one will fill it but the government is just not true. If you want your money going to help the poor, would you rather the group were $0.95 gets to the kids per dollar, or the one where $0.45 per dollar? Why is that such a terrible argument?
 
Last edited:
yogoshio,
  • Like
Reactions: Snappo

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Trump combines Sanders’ questions with Romney’s answers
06/28/16 04:19 PM—Updated 06/28/16 07:03 PM

If you put aside everything you know about Donald Trump, ignore everything in his platform, and simply read the text of today’s speech as it exists on the page, you’d think the presumptive Republican nominee was offering little more than old-school protectionism.

Donald Trump told supporters it’s time for the U.S. regain its “economic independence” and promised to reverse decades-worth of U.S. trade policies pushed by Hillary Clinton that he says have hurt workers.

“We have become more dependent on foreign countries than ever before,” Trump said Tuesday during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. “Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s time to declare our economic independence once again.”

Trump blasted “globalization,” the TPP, “financial elites,” and “the people who rigged the system for their benefit. MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin noted that “a lot of this speech … could be delivered by [Bernie] Sanders.”

That’s absolutely true. Sanders’ speeches tend to be a lot more honest – as usual, the fact-checkers had a field day with the GOP candidate, and he continues to lie almost uncontrollably about U.S. tax rates, among other things – but the broader messages in Trump’s remarks, read carefully from his trusty teleprompter, seemed designed to appeal to economic populists who were persuaded by the Vermont senator.

Even if we leave questions about the merits of trade and globalization for another day, there are two problems with Trump’s pitch that shouldn’t be overlooked.

The first is his jarring lack of credibility. To hear a billionaire land developer whine about “the people who rigged the system for their benefit” would be laughable if it weren’t so ridiculous.

Trump expressed concern today for the millions of Americans workers who’ve been left with “nothing but poverty and heartache,” overlooking the inconvenient detail that Trump enterprises have been striking one-sided deals that have hurt workers over and over again.

In the same speech, Trump lamented, “Skilled craftsmen and tradespeople and factory workers have seen the jobs they loved shipped thousands of miles away.” The problem isn’t that this is wrong, but rather, it’s Trump who’s been part of the job-shipping process, celebrating the purported virtues of outsourcing and foreign manufacturing.

The disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and Trump’s record was so jarring, it’s tempting to think someone put the wrong speech in the teleprompter and the Republican candidate just played along out of habit.

But let’s say for the sake of conversation that Trump has seen the light. Let’s say he’s turned over a new leaf and he’s now ready to stop looking out for himself and start looking out for working-class families. The outsourcer no longer likes outsourcing. The billionaire who exploited his workers now wants to be their champion. Trump is ready to run to Hillary Clinton’s left on trade. Sure.

The broader problem, which far too much of the coverage overlooks, is Trump’s actual economic agenda that serves as the basis for his campaign. Aside from his newfound concerns about trade, let’s not forget that the New York Republican is pushing:

* Massive tax breaks for the hyper-wealthy;
* Deregulation for Wall Street;
* No minimum wage hike;
* The elimination of health care benefits for millions of struggling families.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Donald J. Trump isn’t running on a populist platform. Policy and substance still count, and the presumptive Republican nominee’s vision combines Bernie Sanders’ questions with Mitt Romney’s answers.

To focus on the former, while ignoring the latter, is to see an incomplete picture.
 

Silat

When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
I get so sick of republicans bragging about Ronald Reagan. Jeffry Lord, Trump's spokesperson on CNN always has a picture of Reagan behind him while he's talking from his office. Like Trump is even a tiny bit like Reagan.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was.

Reagan a steaming pile

Ronald Reagan represents all of the worst elements of the American political experience of the last 50 years. All of them. He was, and always will be, nothing but a steaming hot pile of filthy hyena puke.

Intellectually, Reagan gave chimpy a run for his money. He was vacuous. He was shallow. He was incurious. He was a puppet and a door stop for a group of sick ideologues who really ran the country. He was a bad actor and foolish tool.

Ideologically, he was a hater and an imperialist and far-right loony-tune. He hated the poor. He hated gays. He hated leftists. He hated communists - and he was pretty sure you were one if you disagreed with him. He hated and he hated and he hated. Just ask his own kids. He hated them and himself and his ex-wife. Ronald Reagan was a twisted unrepentant closed-minded waste-bag hate monger. And that's just for starters.

The foreign policy of Ronald Reagan did more to impoverish and kill the poor and helpless humans of the world than any world leader before or since - with the possible exception of our Bush. Reagan just didn't give a hoot. He was going to defeat communism (which was already falling of its own weight) and he didn't care how many children were burned alive or how many people starved to death on the way. Let em die. Reagan was a friggin dirtbag.

On Reagan's watch the military budget of the U.S. grew to the proportions of a heaping pile of 10,000 week-old dead and bloated Blue Whales. And it stunk just as bad. The practice of rewarding incompetent cronies with gigantic useless contracts for unneeded military hardware was elevated to art form under Reagan. Reagan's legendary megalomania, hubris and abject ignorance led him to believe the tales of any crackpot who managed to slither past the goons who comprised his inner circle. Star-wars missiles, atomic shields, space-age death rays. You name it - that loon would fall for it - and blow billions of your tax dollars on it.

And on the domestic front - holy crap the domestic front. Ronald Reagan was a force for the rampaging evil of anti-human destructiveness. He never met a social program he didn't scorn. He never met an American in need he didn't have a bowel movement directly upon. His response to the AIDS epidemic is one of the most sickening cold-blooded expressions of pure murderous political evil in the history of the earth. Genghis Khan could only dream of such depravity and indifference to human suffering. There is so much more, but, hell, if you don't already know about this crap, then go read a book or two.

Then there was Iran-Contra - the infamous orgy of unfettered criminality at the heart of the Reagan legacy. Again, look it up. Rogues, liars, crooks, murderers and ignorant heartless scum surrounded Reagan at all times. Ali Baba would've been shamed. But Ronald Reagan was shameless.

Oh, did I mention The War on Drugs and it's ballooning of the prison/criminal industrial complex and the rise of brainless goon-like authoritarianism? Or the destruction of the modern labor movement including the cowardly firing of the Air Traffic Controllers? Or the beginnings of the current trend of packing the Judiciary with corrupt freakish pseudo-fascist stoolies? Or the repugnant rapes of Lebanon and Grenada? Or the dim-witted goofball junk science that came to known as "Reaganomics?" Or grant rigging at the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Or James Watt and the whole-hearted attempt to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants at the expense of greed mongers and corporate whores? Or the largest white collar theft in the history of planet Earth - the Savings and Loan Bailout? Or his giving the Christian Taliban a foothold? And on and on and on and on.

So let me conclude,

Ronald Reagan will forever be remembered as one of the most idiotic, vile, worthless leaders of any any nation in any era. He presently occupies a special place in Hell beside Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. And I promise you, they all think he's an idiot too. Screw Ronald Reagan. And then screw him again.
 

yogoshio

Annoying Libertarian
(oh good lord I can't believe I'm about to argue in favor of something related to Trump, but I feel this is one instance where its worth it. JUST ONCE)

I think one thing this article overlooks is that what Trump wants to do to get skilled workers back to work is make America more competitive in terms of cost vs outcomes. Companies ship jobs overseas for efficiency, taxation, and cash flow reasons, not some lack of patriotism and ingratitude. If their products were more expensive Americans would buy something else, plain and simple. It's happened time and time again.

If we could bring back those jobs because we are both more effective and efficient in house, then it would be a win-win. Companies would bring back those jobs and they wouldn't move money overseas into tax havens.

Those are the arguments Trump is making, and while he has most definitely pushed jobs overseas, I am not so sure we should blame the companies for responding to what consumers demand. That's OUR fault. If we actually gave a shit we would all buy American made no matter what. But then again, none of us would have a TV... (last tv made in the USA was circa 1995, when Zenith shut down their last plant, although I think LG has been making some here recently)

I didn't hear the whole speech, I hate Trump, and I hate his lying fat hair, but just taking those words in part is where I come to this argument.

Bleh, I need a shower.

Vote Johnson! Oh... that feels better...
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
YES! Churches and charities not TAXES! Because that's how bridges, roads, shelters and prisons are built.
No taxes, also no wages, no utilities, no services, no hope for the under/unemployed masses of those nearly and fully-homeless (begging children are on US streets) families.

No problem. Are there no more charities and churches? Have the ladies of aid societies languished?
Surely the debtors prisons have not been shuttered?

I get furious at the taxed-too-much types. If you are so taxed, then you have income. The big incomes ARE under-taxed. This country is not (FACT) an over-taxed nation. We are living under the governance of 35 years of piss-on-you Republican tax policy (Democrats have barely fought back).

This nation is not a compassionate country. We protect and honor guns, but accept homelessness and failed schools (see what is the matter with Kansas- a real world laboratory of F*ck$d-&p Republican TAX-LESS-ness. Google is your friend.)

Only a national government is capable of taking care of national problems; or big local problems like flooded West Virginia.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Help is there in the heart of your neighbor. Sorry his wallet washed away along with the church were we had planned to shelter you.

Everyone educated since WW2 has been exposed to anti-tax propaganda. Too many have accepted the lies. I see some of them here.

It is useless to point out the obvious to those who deny the obvious.

My wife was two years in the Peace Corp in a place that should be a tax-hating, regressive Republican apologist's dream. No! Not Somalia.

At one time the play-place of the Soviet rich and famous, after the collapse and the wars of Balkanization,
the Republic of Georgia become a second-world country where people shirk paying their taxes and any sense of a social-safety net is gone along with the USSR. Safety-nets keep the poor from rising up in riot and righteously eating the children of the rich.

When my wife was there, flowing water at the faucet was irregular and lumpy brown.
Electricity was also sporadic but needed for the water-pump when that utility functioned.
Pot-holes in the street were fixed when the nearby residents could buy a truck load of gravel together.
Street sweeping with straw brooms was the service of the old women around.
Neighbors helped themselves to free electricity (when that utility functioned) by splicing power from someone else.
People died doing this.
No emergency services were around to respond to accidents on the inter-city roads.
Animal control wasn't there to coral the cattle and horses crapping on the streets (see above).
Schools were collapsing, kids were likely being lead poisoned. Air, like the water, was not getting healthier.

The government of the USA can and should do more with taxes. And we could if it were not for selfish people of all stripes; red, white and blue-blooded.
Our social safety-net societal responsibility began with the blue-blooded President Roosevelt.
He accepted Jesus' words about the least of us. From his administration up to today, the anti-tax, regressive Republicans have been trying to undo safety-nets for all but themselves.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@cybrguy i noticed a bit of Bernie's statements with Trump's speech. I agree with bringing jobs back to the U.S but some things are still going to be made in China. If we made TVs over here it would cost a fortune. People want cheap merchandise but they also want things made here. Maybe there can be some sort of a happy medium.

Trump is hoping to snag some of the Bernie folks.

Did you notice how he started his speech? He said, "I'm going to make America love me again.":shrug:I thought Trump still felt America still loved him. He acted a little less confident.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom