2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

Anyone who calls themselves liberal and votes for Hilary in the primaries is a fraud. At least Obama pretended to care about liberal things. Hilary is just straight up middle of the road. Slightly liberal someways slightly conservative the other.
 
Is that necessarily a bad thing? I think both sides of the bench have good ideas in certain areas.
 
50PoundHead said:
She's on record. I suppose she can argue that she agreed with the dishonest case that the White House made. And she can say she would have run the war differently. That's not to excuse her vote and she'll have to 'fess to that. She will run to the right of Obama on foreign policy. The Clintons like to talk about the conspiracies against them, but I think Leon Panetta's book was a Clinton effort to differentiate Hillary from Obama.
Click to expand...

Just wondering why the board Dems didn't bring that up but attacking the Republicans on that matter. That is all. I can't stand hypocrisy, I really can't.
 
thethe said:
Is that necessarily a bad thing? I think both sides of the bench have good ideas in certain areas.
Click to expand...

If anyone could think beyond the 2-party mantra for 5 seconds, libertarians appeal to most people in the country. Fiscal conservative / social liberal
 
thethe said:
Is that necessarily a bad thing? I think both sides of the bench have good ideas in certain areas.
Click to expand...

If you like being spied on, Obamacare, perpetual war, and basically everything that's sucked about the last 30 some years of politics, then yeah you'd like Hilary.
 
sturg33 said:
If anyone could think beyond the 2-party mantra for 5 seconds, libertarians appeal to most people in the country. Fiscal conservative / social liberal
Click to expand...

Still too radical in two areas for me:

1) National Defense
2) No regard for regulation

A lot of their ideas though are in line with how I feel.
 
zitothebrave said:
If you like being spied on, Obamacare, perpetual war, and basically everything that's sucked about the last 30 some years of politics, then yeah you'd like Hilary.
Click to expand...

I never said that I liked Hilary. Just the concept of not being extreme on one side is something I like. Too much doesn't get done in Washington because everyone is an idealist as opposed to a realist.
 
Also, if you think that more than .01% of the population is being "spied" on then I feel sorry for you.
 
thethe said:
Still too radical in two areas for me:

1) National Defense
2) No regard for regulation

A lot of their ideas though are in line with how I feel.
Click to expand...

National defense is not what we do today. Today we go looking for fights a spend a fortune to do it.

While things would be de-regulated - the banks and auto companies would have never been bailed out
 
sturg33 said:
National defense is not what we do today. Today we go looking for fights a spend a fortune to do it.

While things would be de-regulated - the banks and auto companies would have never been bailed out
Click to expand...

I agree that what we do today is not national defense but I still don't have faith in the Libertarian ideology with addressing the threat that terrorism poses in the future.

Also, while the bailouts wouldn't happened there would be so much financial fraud that it would be a joke. Human greed always needs to be checked in one way or another. How much longer would the massive bank currency fixing gone on without regulation?

I do respect how strong you are to your views though. World needs more people like that. I just disagree with the implications of those views.
 
thethe said:
I agree that what we do today is not national defense but I still don't have faith in the Libertarian ideology with addressing the threat that terrorism poses in the future.

Also, while the bailouts wouldn't happened there would be so much financial fraud that it would be a joke. Human greed always needs to be checked in one way or another. How much longer would the massive bank currency fixing gone on without regulation?

I do respect how strong you are to your views though. World needs more people like that. I just disagree with the implications of those views.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the reasons the "rich are getting richer" more today than ever before - is because of the Fed Reserve QE which goes straight to the top. Again the libertarians would not have a Federal Reserve debasing the currency like that - and they would want the currency to actually be backed by something of value (like gold)
 
sturg33 said:
I think a lot of the reasons the "rich are getting richer" more today than ever before - is because of the Fed Reserve QE which goes straight to the top. Again the libertarians would not have a Federal Reserve debasing the currency like that - and they would want the currency to actually be backed by something of value (like gold)
Click to expand...

That issue of course is caused by a myriad of factors which all conspire to ensure the rich are getting richer. However, I don't believe the Fed Reserve has anything to do with a collection of high ranking banking officials communicating in a closed chatroom to ensure that they are all making money on foreign currency transactions. If you give an inch to a human they will take a light year.
 
sturg33 said:
I think a lot of the reasons the "rich are getting richer" more today than ever before - is because of the Fed Reserve QE which goes straight to the top. Again the libertarians would not have a Federal Reserve debasing the currency like that - and they would want the currency to actually be backed by something of value (like gold)
Click to expand...

Banks are committing a lot of fraud and they are just now looking at it? I agree with you there.
 
more from Jeb's Spiral

"I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted," the former Florida governor said at an event in Bedford, New Hampshire.

not Bush:

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that human activity has led to climate change. Ninety-seven percent,"
 
57Brave said:
more from Jeb's Spiral

"I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted," the former Florida governor said at an event in Bedford, New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

As I speak for the board who cares about Jeb.

Now.....

Let's talk about Hillary and Warren, shall we?
 
AerchAngel said:
Just wondering why the board Dems didn't bring that up but attacking the Republicans on that matter. That is all. I can't stand hypocrisy, I really can't.
Click to expand...

I don't think they bothered to ask her because it is on the record. I suppose they could do the "if you knew now what you only thought then" part of the equation, but I'm sure this is going to get mentioned in the debates over and over and over and over . . . .
 
Jeb is the (R) frontrunner and garnering an awful lot of attention.
Leading me to believe one of the two major parties has a candidate who believes a) Iraq is misunderstood b) climate change science is "convoluted"
We will have 2 choices for POTUS. Like it or not
So I am told

Hillary and / or Warren
Talk ...
 
50PoundHead said:
I don't think they bothered to ask her because it is on the record. I suppose they could do the "if you knew now what you only thought then" part of the equation, but I'm sure this is going to get mentioned in the debates over and over and over and over . . . .
Click to expand...

and that is where Jeb and Rubio got mixed up. Both were asked "if you knew then what you know now ..." and they both flubbed the answer.

I hope to god that isn't the question asked over and over and over. There is adeeper conversation to be had and the American public is sophisticated enough to have that conversation.
 
57Brave said:
and that is where Jeb and Rubio got mixed up. Both were asked "if you knew then what you know now ..." and they both flubbed the answer.

I hope to god that isn't the question asked over and over and over. There is adeeper conversation to be had and the American public is sophisticated enough to have that conversation.
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem is the press has become so absorbed in the permanent macro campaign (on both sides) that it's always about the horse race.
 
Isn't it funny how the popular song is/was relegated to 2 1/2 minutes not because that was how long the music was but dictated by how much music could be sold on a record

and the horse race is interesting - don't get me wrong. But it gets lost that it is secondary. Instead of the horserace being driven by the policy- the policy is being driven by the horserace.

But then again, who do you want to have a beer with ?

97% - that number surprised me. I thought it was more in the high 80's low 90's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top