Quest for the Presidency (2016 Edition)

[savage560]

Originally Posted by rodak

And yet you have no problem with President Hussein name calling citizens.
Also Limbaugh is merely a radio host and citizen with one vote just as you and I.
He is not a liberal socialist nightmare like Heir Obama in charge of an entire country.

By the way I must have really struck a nerve with you.
I see you have taken to calling me names!
That alone makes me a very happy person indeed!

Meanwhile here is a list of words and phrases Hillary Clinton has forbid the mainstream media from using about her.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/25/he...t-let-you-say/

I noticed that "sniper fire" "private server" and "cankles" were not on the list.

No daky your wrong again as usual!Not calling you names,but here in our country, that's called a "nick name" or an abbreviated name.We Americans do that a lot!In case you do not understand .Daky=dak=RodakThe Brits must do it too,because several times here "Scoundy" called me Sav or Savy!Did'nt ruffle my feathers,sory you are so thin skinned!Its just our western culture that allows some light hearted harmless teasing in it,maybe its not that way in the ME,I don't know?

No again to the charges of striking a nerve,just trying to enlighten a bunch of IMO, lemmings, of what is happening to our country,by charlatains & liars ,that both of our parties here,are not doing things favorable to the life blood of America,its once thriving middle class.Facts show which party is more in line to this degradation,but facts are not a criteria that most heed here.I post facts & others here are confounded & are fact deniers,& get their feathers ruffled by those facts,they just blindly accept what das party feeds them,too bad.


Hey you think BO is socialist?You don't know what socialist is!I guess with the DOW at record levels & corporate profits based in the US too,that "Communist" Prez, must know his socialist chit!Yah, who likes low gas prices,a strong S&P, better economic times by far over the idiot gwb ,who did wonders to bankrupt the US,via 2 totally useless wars.Oh wait ,maybe one, who just wants his gold to go up,& thinks nothing about the well being of the US ,as a country & its masses of citizens?

[tsunamiSD]

I 'reckon' that this covers just about all of the weird things that the Republicans/Tea Partiers/Fellow Travelers have come up with

[savage560]

IMHO this issue of so called ,"conservative vs. liberal ", pointed out by a few here, in most cases of important American issues for the masses of Americans does not apply.It is the important issue of who supports American citizen's best interests now, of saving good paying jobs,primarily in the all important good living wage/salary sector of industry/manufacturing.We know which party has done more to damage that by stats here,posted & sourced by the USD of Labor.If anyone is in doubt, go there & research yourselves.Who now is banging the drum the most for the TPP for example?

A strong tax base requires a thriving MC that has a good income,that in turn can pay taxes,yes that dirty word taxes, is of paramount importance here.That is what will pay for a strong military,possibly having a HC sys. that can be national ,& on par with the rest of the non turn world,that has NHC,not for the top 1% exclusively but for our masses. Both parties, I have stated again & again have not done a good job for OUR citizens who are citizens now,even in the fairly recent past.In 2016 we need a candidate that will do so,protect America's life blood,its jobs that made America great,the sector that actually makes American products to keep them that way.IMHO, unless Sanders or Warren runs,I cannot see any of the GOP hopefulls or Democrat in the "wings" now, who will do so?Hillary would be a poor choice too,but in the scope of our interests of the masses here, not you 1%ers, may be a more "accommodating" choice to our people who will need GOOD paying,non-service sector slave wage jobs,the likes that small business produces?& of course one who will implement some form or keep our present form,of what the rest of the non impoverished countries WW have/had for several decades, a HC sys. that can be good for our masses ,not just the elite, & available to all ,not just Ted Cruz.

Also a candidate that supports a military that won't be the world's "free policeman",at the enormous expense of the ave. American tax payer only.Our infrastructure too must be put foremost before repairing the such of other countries, by any candidate that runs for our highest job.I really never heard any Republican, well maybe bar Ron Paul,whom I would,ve voted for in 2008,but he wasn't on the ballot in his home state, come close to those policies!I really don't think Clinton will support such a platform ,in it fullest either.Maybe again ,like the lesser of evils,a little more than a mongering for war party here,at least I hope?

How "conservative" can one be who is on a "Porn Forum"?I think we all here are not truly conservative for all issues,maybe we ,as our politicians here,who both parties truthfully are, liberal for their own agendas?If one is against contraception or abortion ,like the GOP new politicos advocate,simply don't participate in such practices,but why impose your brand of morality ,mandated by the "big brother" GOP on all? Gay marriage not your bag?Many of us believe it shouldn't be termed that,but a civil union.But with so many other much more important issues, in terms of a rapidly declining country, populace,with a ridiculous lax immigration policy to millions of people here,why do we dwell on the much lesser of issues, but not ones that impact our nation, & its well being so enormously?

WE THE PEOPLE,AS IN OUR MASSES!

Yes ,I would have voted for Paul,in 2008!How "liberal" am I ,really?!

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by savage560

IMHO this issue of so called ,"conservative vs. liberal ", pointed out by a few here, in most cases of important American issues for the masses of Americans does not apply.It is the important issue of who supports American citizen's best interests now, of saving good paying jobs,primarily in the all important good living wage/salary sector of industry/manufacturing.We know which party has done more to damage that by stats here,posted & sourced by the USD of Labor.If anyone is in doubt, go there & research yourselves.Who now is banging the drum the most for the TPP for example?

The most difficult aspects of defining good vs. bad in this debate is what are the metrics going to be? A strong middle class, strong entrepreneurial environment, quality of life, level playing field, policies that promote a strong corporate sector? Most political lackeys will tell you that their ideology at its core incorporates all of those metrics in a positive manner even though in reality they cannot co-exist together with equal expressiveness. A strong middle class means wages are high which means the stock market it down which dilutes earning for the big pension plans which undermines quality of life which in turn reduces entrepreneurial investment which directly imposes a chilling effect on the level playing field which makes it possible for the corporate structure to fill the void which has the automatic effect of them cutting the middle class work force which negatively impacts the middle class.

You can pretty much insert any of the above factors and almost immediately find yourself into the same cycle since what we define as a successful country is at its core in contrast with the very measures that define it as a success.

That said did the Conservatives do bad things to the economy? Sure but because in their mind a different condition listed above had to be given priority its end cause had could end no other way. The alternative would result in the same consequence only with a different set of paths.

So how do we measure success? The US has the world's largest public company in Apple but it has achieved that end producing what is essentially almost irrelevant add-ons to an existing communications technology and marketed those products at a huge mark-up by moving all of the work to foreign countries and production to appalling labour conditions. The US banking industry accounts for 40% of the US GDP but where is most of their earnings coming from? Making loans for consumes and/or business or just playing their version of roulette with the knowledge that thanks the Republican Congress just a few weeks ago their most risky derivative and black pool investments are once again covered by the American taxpayer in case of failure? Conservatives decry Obama as anti-Wall Street and yet under his two terms not only has the stock market caught up from the Bush fiasco but has resulted in new levels of wealth for the 1% and essentially the very people who claim they have been targeted unfairly?

Essentially America's success financially has come at the expense of the poor and the middle class because all of the focus has been on creating nothing of value. In the case of Apple there is a rush to invest in the latest hot thing which is nothing more than a replication of the tech bubble only rather than this thing called the Internet it is phone apps. Financial institutions create investment tools that consider whether another failed corn crop in Oklahoma due to global warming when correlated to Greece getting its debt to GDP ratio down from 1.77 to 1.48 as applied to the implementation of a GST to India in an attempt to diminish the current perishable rate of 40% of all transported food due to a current Feudal tax collection system. Get those right, (and a few dozen other factors), and it is billion dollar bonus time for Wall Street but how is that banking anymore than going to Macau and putting $1 billion on black and how does any of that feed the economic engine? To Wall Street that just lately has demonstrated to the world that when it comes to oil there is no capitalism just fixed pricing as when the price starts to go too low the industry just pretends it is being shorted so it increases the at the pump cost regardless of the old pretense that market price and pump price were ever directly related.

So what exactly are we measuring here?

Originally Posted by savage560

A strong tax base requires a thriving MC that has a good income,that in turn can pay taxes,yes that dirty word taxes, is of paramount importance here.That is what will pay for a strong military,possibly having a HC sys. that can be national ,& on par with the rest of the non turn world,that has NHC,not for the top 1% exclusively but for our masses. Both parties, I have stated again & again have not done a good job for OUR citizens who are citizens now,even in the fairly recent past.In 2016 we need a candidate that will do so,protect America's life blood,its jobs that made America great,the sector that actually makes American products to keep them that way.IMHO, unless Sanders or Warren runs,I cannot see any of the GOP hopefulls or Democrat in the "wings" now, who will do so?Hillary would be a poor choice too,but in the scope of our interests of the masses here, not you 1%ers, may be a more "accommodating" choice to our people who will need GOOD paying,non-service sector slave wage jobs,the likes that small business produces?& of course one who will implement some form or keep our present form,of what the rest of the non impoverished countries WW have/had for several decades, a HC sys. that can be good for our masses ,not just the elite, & available to all ,not just Ted Cruz.

But there is where the underlying dogma comes into play. Both parties fully realize that if the the middle class thrives and the jobless rate plunges that the stock market takes an equivalent nose dive so each has to provide an ideological premise to answer a way to alter this inevitable conundrum. John McCain best surmised the conservative belief when he looked at that 50 year old woman who was having a hard time making ends meet by saying "I want everyone to be a millionaire!" Well obviously conservatives don't really want that since if everyone was a millionaire then your double grande latte from Starbucks would cost $225 so what they are really saying is that it is necessary to set up the conditions such that a slightly higher percentage of Americans than is currently the case could be come millionaires. You know people like Mitt Romney who made it on his own, well not withstanding the fact that his father was the President of a car company, paid for two Ivy League degrees and loaned him the seed money for future enterprise. You know just your average American. Conversely the Democratic dogma speaks to trying to level out the playing field only without actually changing anything at the institutional level that makes that change meaningful. So from their perspective make the game fair but in no meaningful way detract from Apple still exporting jobs, making banks fulfill their mandate and/or reduce Government spending that enhances corporate entities.

How can you make a change when essentially both parties claim they can bring new life into a system while fundamentally keeping the old structure
in tact and in charge?

Originally Posted by savage560

Also a candidate that supports a military that won't be the world's "free policeman",at the enormous expense of the ave. American tax payer only.Our infrastructure too must be put foremost before repairing the such of other countries, by any candidate that runs for our highest job.I really never heard any Republican, well maybe bar Ron Paul,whom I would,ve voted for in 2008,but he wasn't on the ballot in his home state, come close to those policies!I really don't think Clinton will support such a platform ,in it fullest either.Maybe again ,like the lesser of evils,a little more than a mongering for war party here,at least I hope?

You have fallen into that trap of believing that military spending has anything to do with the military and especially the troops that each party so lauds at any chance. How did Walter Reid et. al fall into such disrepair under Republican control? Why did the Republican Congress slash on base benefits for army personnel and their families? Aren't the Republicans pro military? Well of course they just not when it has anything to do with the actual service men and women. During one of the debates Mitt Romney indicated that job one would be cutting Planned Parenthood and not because of its contentious perception within the Republican party but because the only way to get the budget under control was to look at everything and that $440 million a year, (to provide mammograms and other medical services to low income Americans... no not abortions), was a good start. In that same month four military corporations under Contract Delinquency paid over $900 million in executive bonuses. Oddly enough not a word about that? When the Abrams tank contract was to be put on hold simply because the US Army indicated that "we haven't used a tank in battle since 2003" both Republican and Democratic Congressman demanded the army continue to buy more tanks, (and then ship them to the Arizona desert for storage).

The US decries foreign countries for their subsidies to assist regional disparity or help out industrial/agricultural entities, (odd that Republicans who hate big Government never seem to have a problem in the Red States cashing those "Farm Bill Cheques" every year), and yet refuses to believe that Military spending is nothing more than the biggest socialist program on the planet, albeit amusing to watch Texas that gets the lion's share of the money use that revenue to steal private jobs from other states. Expecting America to stop military spending is akin to asking the Japanese to stop subsidizing rice farmers even though the Japanese Government admits that it is enormously cheaper and more logical to simply import rice it is a matter of national pride. So I wouldn't expect much from this sector anytime soon.

Originally Posted by savage560

How "conservative" can one be who is on a "Porn Forum"?I think we all here are not truly conservative for all issues,maybe we ,as our politicians here,who both parties truthfully are, liberal for their own agendas?If one is against contraception or abortion ,like the GOP new politicos advocate,simply don't participate in such practices,but why impose your brand of morality ,mandated by the "big brother" GOP on all? Gay marriage not your bag?Many of us believe it shouldn't be termed that,but a civil union.But with so many other much more important issues, in terms of a rapidly declining country, populace,with a ridiculous lax immigration policy to millions of people here,why do we dwell on the much lesser of issues, but not ones that impact our nation, & its well being so enormously?

Since around 2000 there is a 'list' of supposedly 'in the closet Republicans' that everyone simply agrees never to expose unless they do something really outlandish that lands as the lead story on CNN. Given that phenotype expression of gay behavior runs at around 11-14% we would expect somewhere around 75 members of Congress are gay so I presume this makes sense. As such how many are are right/left? The few studies I have come across seem to suggest that while deniability is higher in conservatives the phenotype ratio is even between both ideologies. So given that people are right/left gay/straight porn lovin/porn hatin it probably doesn't mean anything. I do think it is more amusing to watch how the right seemingly wants to present this image of solidarity, ie: are you Conservative enough means you must check all of these conditions and attitudes, so we see what are considered lapses in conservatism when someone like Dick Cheney says 'being a lesbian is okay' when in essence it is the cornerstone of the human condition to rationalize why social aberrations are okay if they affect us personally.

So be on a porn site as a conservative? I would suggest that a hard lined left wing demagogue would propose that it is more contradictory for one their breatheren to be on a site that in so many opposes their sense of social value. Ultimately I only come here to read the articles.

As per the hypocrisy you outline above? For the most part Jon Stewart is lambasted by the right for being anti-conservative when in fact the majority of his most cutting moments are merely the juxtaposition of what a conservative said is the absolute truth today against what he said six months ago. Gotcha' journalism is Republican speak for "just because I said that publicly does not mean you can hold me to that". Nancy Pelosi claimed she was being unfairly targeted by 60 Minutes when they asked her to explain how it was fair for her to be on Finance Committees and yet allowed under Congressional Exemptions to buy stock, (which she did), in VISA etc. in advance of secret reports from these committees would promptly result in a boost in stock upon their release? Is that not insider trading at its core?

I suppose at some level one has to decide what is worse when it comes to hypocrisy. The current status quo is that a bunch of Republicans go to Iowa and put on a dog and pony show to demonstrate just how stupid they are to get the nomination while it is implicitly understood that following that nomination they will go to Moe's Tavern and have the crayon removed from their brain and behave in a rational manner as they attempt to assuage the American independents that when they said they believed that the earth is 6500 years old that the media took them out of context. Is that worse than a party who claims it is for the people but essentially panders to the same donors only during its nomination process proclaims all of the good things it will do and that the universe is actually 14.5 billion years old and then when appealing to the American population suggest that there is still nothing wrong with believing that the sun revolves around the earth.

Ultimately when the smoke clears one has to remember that with the exception of almost every non-universal moral value everything conservative will be proven wrong and dismissed. That is what conservatism is; holding on to traditional values without challenge, whereas liberalism, (not to be confused with Democratic), is the open challenge of ideas, and just like we once thought that a rock tossed into the air returns to the earth due to its innate nature subsequent investigation proved otherwise. This why I prefer right/left over conservative/liberal since every conservative value will be lost in time.

[SanteeFats]

Gee latest polls (yes I know) show Hilly is loosing many points in what is called swing states. Any thoughts.?

[jumbo prawns]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Gee latest polls (yes I know) show Hilly is loosing many points in what is called swing states. Any thoughts.?

While trends are important and are interesting. Of more interest is that in all of those polls she is still "womping" all Republican hopefuls save one... Rand Paul... where she is in the lead within a single percentage point. And of course his position on the military, Israel and recreational drug means that he will never get the nomination.

So far not a single republican hopeful has won a single poll against Hillary.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

So far not a single republican hopeful has won a single poll against Hillary.

That is true but right now there is only Hilly for the D's and a whole slew for the R's. It will become very interesting when it gets down to one on one.

[turat]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

While trends are important and are interesting. Of more interest is that in all of those polls she is still "womping" all Republican hopefuls save one... Rand Paul... where she is in the lead within a single percentage point. And of course his position on the military, Israel and recreational drug means that he will never get the nomination.

So far not a single republican hopeful has won a single poll against Hillary.

Polls aside, can you tell us what Mrs. Clinton, from the time she entered the limelight, has done to further the better interests of the United States and Americans?

Not a gotcha question or anything of that sort. I am just seriously curious what you and, I guess the majority of Americans, given your poll results, make her so worthy of being the next US President.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by turat

Polls aside, can you tell us what Mrs. Clinton, from the time she entered the limelight, has done to further the better interests of the United States and Americans?

Not a gotcha question or anything of that sort. I am just seriously curious what you and, I guess the majority of Americans, given your poll results, make her so worthy of being the next US President.

It's not a question of being worthy but of Who can get themselves elected.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by turat

Polls aside, can you tell us what Mrs. Clinton, from the time she entered the limelight, has done to further the better interests of the United States and Americans?
Not a gotcha question or anything of that sort. I am just seriously curious what you and, I guess the majority of Americans, given your poll results, make her so worthy of being the next US President.

Okay I freely admit I detest Hilly. But I like to believe I am honest enough to recognize good achievements in any one, if it is there. Hell I actually liked most of Bill's rule. Hillery is a total tool from what I can see. She twists the truth, lies, feels she is entitled to special considerations (the email server is a great indicator of that), and has the personality of a lemon.