US Presidential Race

If I may ask, Vendetta, where in the US do you live exactly? I recall it being Connecticut? Just curious. Nice to know where the US contingent of GL live.

And where is Betty La Fea? Much as I disagree with him on his presidential choice, I do enjoy hearing his opinions. Would be curious to see how he views the whole Trump-Cruz deal.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:Back to previous posts alluding to "at least with Trump you know where you stand... I seriously don't get this. I have heard it before - "Trump is a straight shooter"..

He's a pathological liar... and it takes about 1 hour of watching video clips of his speeches followed by 10 minutes of fact checking to prove that.

Why do people perpetuate this myth?

That really isn't what I was saying at all. In fact it was the opposite.

With Trump you have no idea what you are going to get. And he is so toxic that Republicans around him will not support his politics and he will likely be rendered a useless and ineffective president.

Also, the most important part of the next presidency that no one has mentioned is the Supreme Court.

If a hard lining conservative is allowed to stack the supreme court, and replace the aging liberal justices, progressivism in the USA is dead basically for the rest of our lives. They are appointed for life. I know exactly the type of scum that Cruz will put on the court. But with Trump, who the hell knows who he will appoint? He'll probably nominate his sister or something.

But anyway it really is a dumb conversation. The possibility that Progressivism, and social and racial progress will DEAD for the next 40 years means neither of them can be allowed anywhere near the white house. What either of them would be able to do over 4-8 years in office pales in comparison to what they would possibly do to the nation through stacking the court. It cannot be allowed to happen really at any cost.

But the point was being made that the fact Trump is more candid than his opponents makes him a preferable candidate. I don't see how that can be true..

Can policies even get much more racist and divisive than Trumps?

Just curiously, as you are probably far better versed in US politics than I am, what evidence is there that Cruz or Rubio are disguising a greater degree of racism than Trump? It wouldnt necessarily surprise me but just curious as to what gives people that impression?

Certainly take your point that his political naivety will limit his power over congress.

FennecFox7 wrote:Exactly vendetta. We can't afford another lunatic in power. I seriously feel bad for Obama.. the things he could've done with a democratic congress. We can only imagine.

He did far too little with majority in congress for 2 years.

While that may be true to an extent, it's because he negotiated with the terrorists in congress known as the GOP. Also, two years is not enough to judge major bills being passed imo.

I had insane work hours this week, but I was able to take a long(er) lunch to vote on Super Tuesday. I cast my vote for the former first lady Hillary Clinton, and she won pretty heavily in my state(Georgia).

The thing is I don't like Hillary very much at all despite me championing votes for her on here. I feel what she did in Libya, as part of the US foreign policy, was absolutely horrible. I also think it was horrible she celebrated Gadaffi being murdered by Islamists. All of that aside though I feel she is best to keep the policies of Obama going. I also can show my youngest sister, who is just at the age of where her identity as going from a girl to a woman is being shaped, that she can reach the highest office in this country. I feel that would be something amazing for her to see even before she starts high school.

I was reading a vox article about Sander's tax plan yesterday during lunch:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center



That is unelectable. Republicans put these numbers out during a general election, and this would be McGovern all over again.

Not sure where else to post this but this got me right in the feels:

http://letterstopresidentobama.tumblr.com/post/140398509929/meet-brent-brown-from-mosinee-wisconsin-he-never

Betty La Fea wrote:I had insane work hours this week, but I was able to take a long(er) lunch to vote on Super Tuesday. I cast my vote for the former first lady Hillary Clinton, and she won pretty heavily in my state(Georgia).

The thing is I don't like Hillary very much at all despite me championing votes for her on here. I feel what she did in Libya, as part of the US foreign policy, was absolutely horrible. I also think it was horrible she celebrated Gadaffi being murdered by Islamists. All of that aside though I feel she is best to keep the policies of Obama going. I also can show my youngest sister, who is just at the age of where her identity as going from a girl to a woman is being shaped, that she can reach the highest office in this country. I feel that would be something amazing for her to see even before she starts high school.

I was reading a vox article about Sander's tax plan yesterday during lunch:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center



That is unelectable. Republicans put these numbers out during a general election, and this would be McGovern all over again.

Another reason why Sanders will win big. 90% of the IT payers get big Income tax breaks if you look at the 1000's of Dollars saved in Healthcare & college education.

The average savings to 90% of the Income tax payers in pretty big. It is one thing to quote tax increases & another thing to not say where that money will go. Vox has always had a bunch of partisan articles pulling for Hillary, but this is downright cheap.

And 70% of the people in the last polls, supported more taxes on wealthy people, so this is what the people support, progressive taxes (And US has a much lower tax than every country in Europe - This is just getting to the European Standard) & transfer of wealth to the Middle Class.

As for GE, Hillary is a loosing GE candidate, 0 Cross-Over appeal, terrible with independents & Republicans, Obama & Edwards said in 08, she can't win a GE.

It looks like Hillary would win the Dem Nomination & hand over the White House in November

America is a strange strange place. On both the Republican and Democratic stage, the most rational and reasonable people in debates have no chance (Sanders and Kasich)

The Republican Presidential competition has LITERALLY devolved into a dick measuring contest.

Watching House of Cards and 100% legit, the stuff happening in real life is more ridiculous than the one happening on TV

I hate trump but man he is a funny dude that debate

Cruijf wrote:America is a strange strange place. On both the Republican and Democratic stage, the most rational and reasonable people in debates have no chance (Sanders and Kasich)

Kasich isn't as rational and moderate as he comes across. Only in attitude, not regarding policy. Same with Rubio.

There is no 'moderate' running in the Republican, because they systematically purged and outlawed moderate stances and attitudes in favour of mindless and contrafactual alpha-posturing and slogan-repeating.
Now they're paying the price lol.

FennecFox7 wrote:I hate trump but man he is a funny dude that debate

Yeah, he is controvensial and he makes a show, that's what the American people like. That's why he gets backed so much despite the presence of some other candidates who are legit.

Betty La Fea wrote:I was reading a vox article about Sander's tax plan yesterday during lunch:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center



That is unelectable. Republicans put these numbers out during a general election, and this would be McGovern all over again.

f Bernie

footyfan01 wrote:And 70% of the people in the last polls, supported more taxes on wealthy people, so this is what the people support, progressive taxes (And US has a much lower tax than every country in Europe - This is just getting to the European Standard) & transfer of wealth to the Middle Class.

I already pay less tax in Canada than I would in the US (incl. federal and state taxes), and I'm not low-income. After Bernie's proposed increases, it would be a no-contest. I would be paying almost $10,000-15,000 more in taxes compared to what I do in Canada.

Best article in this entire election cycle, by far: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Sanders on Michigan by a small margin in what is thought to to be the biggest Upset in modern US Presidential Primary history. 538 gave him a 1% chance & he was losing every poll from a 10% margin to 30%+. Everyone expected a 20% odd loss.

He made huge grounds with AA & won 38-39% of their votes & won around 60% of the White vote. Also Sanders won 70% of the Muslim vote as well.

He was down only in a handful of areas, the areas around Detroit, he was down 60-70K down, but despite that he won by 20K+. Delegates wise this won't help much as lost MS big, which is the last big Southern state, but it is a huge win.

Historic win, huge win among whites & he made huge grounds with Black Voters!

You can throw 'historic, huge win', 'biggest upset in modern history' around all you like, fact is after yesterday Sanders has still lost more ground on Hillary in terms of delegates.

Hapless_Hans wrote:You can throw 'historic, huge win', 'biggest upset in modern history' around all you like, fact is after yesterday Sanders has still lost more ground on Hillary in terms of delegates.

Which was expected. If he holds steady on March 15th , he has an okay chance as he is gonna sweep the polls after March 15th, he's got 10-12 states, he will least 10 on a trot possibl̥̄y all till mid april

Do you actually believe he has a real chance of becoming the nominee at this point?
What states you think he's going to 'sweep' from mid March to mid April?

I mean, obviously, if ALL polls can be wrong by 20 points in Michigan, they might be in Ohio or Illinois too.
I find it hard to believe though.

FennecFox7 wrote:
Also,  the IQ game is legit because anyone with half an education and brain

IQ predicts how well a person can argue their case, it doesn't predict exploratory reasoning. You can see David Perkins research on this, in which IQ could predict how many arguments respondents to his study could come up with to defend their point of view, and showed how utterly useless it was at helping them come up with arguments against their point of view. That's also apparent in other studies where supposedly higher IQ liberals were worse at describing the conservative perspective than the supposedly lower IQ conservatives were at describing the liberal perspective.

Example of someone's brain going into shutdown at the sight of a rival ideology:

Sometimes it's cringeworthy to see people reactions when they step outside the echo chamber.

I respect IQ, I don't think it should be discredited and forced out of use. It DOES have its uses and it isn't "stupid" like cbarca said. But predicting whether someone agrees with "trickle down" economics or the truth in what they think, is not one of its uses.

FennecFox7 wrote:
It's just when conservatives use the word "muslim" they really mean anyone from the MENA region. So therefore, its a race issue fabricated into a Muslim issue. Please, read this before making ANOTHER stupid post rewording what I said.

FennecFox7 wrote:
Reading between the lines is what trump supporters always do. In other words, I didn't even say what you're saying and yet, you're puting more words into my mouth on how I hate Christians or whatever

When you read those snippets one after the other, I hope you can spot the double standard which runs throughout your posts.

FennecFox7 wrote:
Doesn't it suck to feel singled out? well with my last few posts, you now know what it feels like to be treated with hate.

FennecFox7 wrote:
My point is that instead of singling groups out like Christians or whatever the *bleep* you want to single out, you just accept the fact that we are all humans and blaming an entire region is just stupid

FennecFox7 wrote:
Am I wrong for saying Protestant Christians have ruined this country

You meant the last statement. Yet if "Muslims" were substituted in for Protestant Christians by a conservative according to you it would make the person definitionally a closet racist. I am using your own logic to accuse you of anti-White racism. Would you care to rebuke your previous statements or continue this absurd charade?


P.S.

I am not misreading your posts, I see the lip service you paid to your ideology. Saying we "are all humans" doesn't excuse you from making logically inconsistent remarks, and saying singling out groups is "stupid" doesn't exuse you from going ahead and singling out groups. Geez, when did expecting people to be consistent and to practice what they preach become a case of misreading the person's statements.

CBarca wrote:If I may ask, Vendetta, where in the US do you live exactly? I recall it being Connecticut? Just curious. Nice to know where the US contingent of GL live.

Yessir, thats where I'm at.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:Exactly vendetta. We can't afford another lunatic in power. I seriously feel bad for Obama.. the things he could've done with a democratic congress. We can only imagine.

He did far too little with majority in congress for 2 years.

I don't feel that this is a fair criticism. It was the most productive period of legislation since Lyndon B. Johnson. He also had an incredibly weak economy at the time, it would have been crazy to shake certain things up considering the state of the country.

And it wasn't his fault that blue dogs like Joe Lieberman tore out key parts of his legislation like the Public option that was originally in the ACA. That would have changed everything had it been kept in.

Also how was he to know that he would face unprecedented levels of obstruction afterwards? Like never in history has the political opposition been this partisan.

Hapless_Hans wrote:Do you actually believe he has a real chance of becoming the nominee at this point?
What states you think he's going to 'sweep' from mid March to mid April?

I mean, obviously, if ALL polls can be wrong by 20 points in Michigan, they might be in Ohio or Illinois too.
I find it hard to believe though.

Michigan was a good win.

Sanders and his brand is just too strong to get the hammer dropped on him. He will fight this out. But, yeah he doesn't have a path.


Thats Hillary vs Obama in 2008. Hillary is using the same exact strategy that Obama used against her back then.

He blew her out in southern states with huge margin wins.. And even though Hillary won pretty much every big delegate state, he keep those loses close.

What I find fascinating is that Hillary is putting up better numbers with black voters than Obama put up against her. You can't win the democratic nomination when you lose with minorities as heavily as he is. He did better in Michigan will the black vote, but still, 70/30 is a massive gulf. I just don't see a plausable path. Hillary could lose every remaining state but as long as the average % margin of loss stays under 7% she'll win.

DuringTheWar wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:
Also,  the IQ game is legit because anyone with half an education and brain

IQ predicts how well a person can argue their case, it doesn't predict exploratory reasoning. You can see David Perkins research on this, in which IQ could predict how many arguments respondents to his study could come up with to defend their point of view, and showed how utterly useless it was at helping them come up with arguments against their point of view. That's also apparent in other studies where supposedly higher IQ liberals were worse at describing the conservative perspective than the supposedly lower IQ conservatives were at describing the liberal perspective.

Example of someone's brain going into shutdown at the sight of a rival ideology:

Sometimes it's cringeworthy to see people reactions when they step outside the echo chamber.

I respect IQ, I don't think it should be discredited and forced out of use. It DOES have its uses and it isn't "stupid" like cbarca said. But predicting whether someone agrees with "trickle down" economics or the truth in what they think, is not one of its uses.

FennecFox7 wrote:
It's just when conservatives use the word "muslim" they really mean anyone from the MENA region. So therefore, its a race issue fabricated into a Muslim issue. Please, read this before making ANOTHER stupid post rewording what I said.

FennecFox7 wrote:
Reading between the lines is what trump supporters always do. In other words, I didn't even say what you're saying and yet, you're puting more words into my mouth on how I hate Christians or whatever

When you read those snippets one after the other, I hope you can spot the double standard which runs throughout your posts.

FennecFox7 wrote:
Doesn't it suck to feel singled out? well with my last few posts, you now know what it feels like to be treated with hate.

FennecFox7 wrote:
My point is that instead of singling groups out like Christians or whatever the *bleep* you want to single out, you just accept the fact that we are all humans and blaming an entire region is just stupid

FennecFox7 wrote:
Am I wrong for saying Protestant Christians have ruined this country

You meant the last statement. Yet if "Muslims" were substituted in for Protestant Christians by a conservative according to you it would make the person definitionally a closet racist. I am using your own logic to accuse you of anti-White racism. Would you care to rebuke your previous statements or continue this absurd charade?


P.S.

I am not misreading your posts, I see the lip service you paid to your ideology. Saying we "are all humans" doesn't excuse you from making logically inconsistent remarks, and saying singling out groups is "stupid" doesn't exuse you from going ahead and singling out groups. Geez, when did expecting people to be consistent and to practice what they preach become a case of misreading the person's statements.

You're clever. But not so fast.

Accusing me of racism is a very smart way of backing out of racism that you have displayed yourself. So instead of continuously insisting I somehow have something against the Caucasian race (which I am a part of, by the way), you should just shut your mouth because we all know what you said against arabs and muslims alike.

Playing the victim in this argument will not work when you are the one making the attacks. So go home buddy.

You fail to see the deeper meaning in my statements. Here's the thing, ideologically, you and Unique have both started an anti muslim/anyone from the middle east or north africa attack on GL, constantly posting hateful shit. Then you try to flip the hatred thing on me. Nice try.

ONCE AGAIN, PLAYING THE VICTIM WILL NOT WORK, SO STOP

yes, I did single out Christians for a reason. to prove to you that stereotyping is dumb.

In terms of religion, I have a hatred towards it, NOT ITS PEOPLE. and I have a hatred of fundamentalists. But you fail to realize that almost all of us are not fundamentalists, we are secular/or not religious like myself.

No one wanted to call you guys out on it so I did. He shut up. You probably should too.

How do some peoples small brains work

*attacks racial/ethnic group on GL that many people are a part of here*
*gets mad when someone attacks their racial/ethnic/whatever group to prove an example IN RESPONSE*
*They (unique and during the war) are the ones perpetuating the hatred in the first place *

Lol, does this just fly over this guys head?

Something I don't understand about US politics, let's see if someone can clear this up:

US is the country in the world that spends the most in total and in relative terms in health care, around 11% of their GDP. However, uninsured people don't have health care. There's the medicare, medicaid and Obama care, that are supposed to health uninsured people, but I don't know exactly what and who it covers. Can you explain?
Is there any presidential candidate that wants to provide health care to anyone? That could mean universal health care and an automatic cost cut of 2-4%, going to the top % of GDP spending in top spending european countries with universal health care. Doesn't that make a lot of sense? Finnally you could stop seeing cripled people all over NY and people dying from curable disease just cause they are poor?

Medicaid is a program to get poor and disabled people health care

Medicare is a program to get old people health care

Obamacare is a program of subsidised healthcare for the poor people that don't qualify for Medicaid, as well regulations to ensure discrimination on previous existing conditions don't occur and cost controls best practices.

The US will never adopt a system of single payer as in Europe because it would be Un American, because it would wreck the existing system and lead to mass lay offs, and because Americans like choice. They might do it if they had nothing today and we're creating it from scratch, but there is simply no way of transitioning from the actual system to single payer.