Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[joecct]

Ready the fainting couches.

And yet, come November you will pull the lever next to her name. If you despise her (& the GOP) so much, why support them?

I ain't votin' tD. I'm not voting HRC. So it looks like that line will be blank.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

You may dislike Romney for a whole host of reasons, but those you've ascribed to him in this post are pretty much all wrong. I guarantee you that all of his kids, like he did, attended private schools for all of their educations. When it came to taxes, his IRS filings released during the election showed that he routinely skipped out on taking advantage of certain deductions and credits he was permitted, based upon tax experts' analyses, paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes than President Obama, and also giving more in charitable contributions.

ROTFLMAO, Romney hides more money in the Cayman's then I'll ever see in my entire lifetime.

 

[joecct]

ROTFLMAO, Romney hides more money in the Cayman's then I'll ever see in my entire lifetime.

Proof?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I think we're describing the same elephant. High achieving kids who come from poor communities and beat the odds often don't have the ability, even if they wanted to, to go back home, raise their family, and contribute to the tax base to improve things, because the kind of work they do just isn't available in those communities. If you grow up in Atherton and go to Stanford you can live right down the block from where you grew up and work for HP. If you grew up in Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas and follow the same education and career path, you can't go home again.

We could solve part of this problem by moving school funding from local to at least state, if not national, granularity. But then you run right back into the "community too large and diverse for people to give a crap" part of monkey nature.

Problem gets back to there's few working class jobs anymore. If you aren't in the "creative economy" and not coincidentally the cities/regions I listed are, you're screwed with a few exceptions (such as the oil industry in North Dakota and Texas). Neither Hillary nor Bernie is addressing this because its a problem nobody has yet had an answer to over the last 50 years. I live in what is probably the biggest wealth transfer state per capita in the country in Massachusetts. That's a good thing and in many areas you can see the results (best schools, low crime rate, low unemployment, lots of social services). There's also a tolerable commuter rail system that stretches 60-70 miles outside the city. However, the sh itty cities are still shi tty all these years later. Short of somebody plopping down a lot of jobs that don't require an MBA or a PhD, I'm not sure what turns them around.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And yet, come November you will pull the lever next to her name. If you despise her (& the GOP) so much, why support them?

Because the GOP is rabid and has bitten the country. If we take our Hillary shots, we will suffer but we will survive.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And yet, come November you will pull the lever next to her name. If you despise her (& the GOP) so much, why support them?

I ain't votin' tD. I'm not voting HRC. So it looks like that line will be blank.

Some snippets from the article:

"The Obama administration killed thousands of people, including an unknown number of civilians, with its secretive drone war. It expanded the war in Afghanistan — twice — dragged its feet on Guantánamo, backed a right-wing military coup that overthrew Honduras’ democratically elected left-wing government and dropped 23,400 bombs on six Muslim-majority countries in 2015.

The Obama administration waged a McCarthyite crackdown on whistleblowers, using the World War I-era Espionage Act to clampdown on more than all previous presidential administrations combined, while drastically expanding the surveillance state."

and

"President Obama campaigned on the promise of change, but, in many ways, his presidency — particularly in the first term — was George W. Bush lite."

The man is a loon. Small wonder he's a Sanders fan.

If I have one cause out here, aside from my own amusement, its keeping nonsensical BS out of the DNA of the Democratic party. Let that remain in the GOP. Sanders is a BS virus in that regard, and he needs to be avoided.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Because the GOP is rabid and has bitten the country. If we take our Hillary shots, we will suffer but we will survive.

You will support the dem nominee in ballot box because you hate the GOP, but are happy attacking the same giving that person a diminished chance of being elected? Is that also because you hate the GOP?

Just trying to understand the logic.

 

[Slap Shot]

how sweet it is! My take on the results:

Democrats: Hillary pretty much wiped her a ss with bernie's face!

"Winning!"

 

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And yet, come November you will pull the lever next to her name. If you despise her (& the GOP) so much, why support them?

I ain't votin' tD. I'm not voting HRC. So it looks like that line will be blank.

Seems pretty logical to me. Just because you strongly prefer Bernie to Hillary does not mean you cannot prefer Hillary to tDon even more strongly and vote accordingly.

 

[joecct]

Seems pretty logical to me. Just because you strongly prefer Bernie to Hillary does not mean you cannot prefer Hillary to tDon even more strongly and vote accordingly.

Except our resident of Point of Rocks has made it known of his intense dislike of HRC. If he dislikes her so much, why should he vote for her?

I honestly think that if Kepler found out that Mike Schafer was a Republican, he'd start rooting for Harvard.

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A targeted tax cut is simply a subsidy by another name.

Surely you would agree that the government giving corn farmers a check for $.10/planted acre is a giveaway.

If they give that in the form of a tax credit rather than a direct check, most people would say it's still a giveaway.

If they then give a tax credit of "1% of adjusted gross income" or something else which is hypothetically the equivalent to the $.10/acre giveaway, how is that not also a giveaway? It's something corn farmers get that the rest of us don't.

What if they instead phrase it as the base tax rate being X, but all non-corn farmers must pay X+1%. Still functionally equivalent, but you would say that's not a giveaway?

This just sounds like a pile of semantics about the same difference in outlook. I look it as most people paying more than the farmer, you look at it as the farmer paying less than everyone else. I guess maybe that's the main difference between a federalist and an antifederalist paradigm?

The free-ness isn't the lower tax itself, it's the evasion from paying your fair share for something we're already paying for in some other way (either taxes on somebody else less able to bear them or reduction of somebody else's services or debt).

I guess that answers the question, kind of. A tax cut is a "giveaway" of societal obligation.

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I ain't votin' tD. I'm not voting HRC. So it looks like that line will be blank.

A pollster called a few minutes ago, and I couldn't bring myself to offer even hypothetical support to anyone that's running, so I simply said "definitely not voting this fall." I'll give them a chance before then to convince me one is less bad, though.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

but are happy attacking the same giving that person a diminished chance of being elected?

Unlike Rover, I just give my honest opinion here. I'm not delusional enough to think my words of wisdom are going to affect the election.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A tax cut is a "giveaway" of societal obligation.

It's free riderism. Reagan's Orange County a-holes engineered a system where they duck taxes, thus overloading others or, worse yet, drive up deficits which increase the debt service so we all pay more. And all just so they can buy a tenth home. Ef them in the dick hole.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

It's free riderism. Reagan's Orange County a-holes engineered a system where they duck taxes, thus overloading others or, worse yet, drive up deficits which increase the debt service so we all pay more. And all just so they can buy a tenth home. Ef them in the dick hole.

Ding Ding Ding Ding.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Unlike Rover, I just give my honest opinion here. I'm not delusional enough to think my words of wisdom are going to affect the election.

I'm being totally honest when I give my opinion that you'd rather see Bernie Sanders naked than Megyn Kelly.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Paul Ryan on Colbert

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I'm being totally honest when I give my opinion that you'd rather see Bernie Sanders naked than Megyn Kelly.

Now that's just fool talk. Sure, Kelly is an ice cold, weirdly unappealing and asexual alien life form, but still.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Apologies if this was posted. But jeebus.

http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-staffers-really-better-like-working-for-d-1772125982

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Now that's just fool talk. Sure, Kelly is an ice cold, weirdly unappealing and asexual alien life form, but still.

Hey don't look at me. I'd vote to see Kelly in the buff over Bernie.

Now of course I'm kidding about Kep but since he joined the Sanders cult he's lost his sense of humor so I expect a few death threats from him today.