Jump to content


The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

I'm all for Scott Walker.

 

Yes, lets have a guy that doesn't have a college degree be the leader of our country.

 

I dont' disagree with basically what you said but I find it funny at the same time.

 

I have had many conversations on forums like this with liberal people who believe jobs that require a college degree are elitist and do nothing but hurt poor people and are designed to keep the poor in their place.

 

Most degrees are garbage. Unless you have something like a medical, engineering or other sort of math/science degree, they hold little value, and should not have the weight and clout that they do.

 

That said, Walker is no different than the rest of the GOP parade of idiots. Greedy, hypocritical and holding onto mentalities and ideas of eras past.

 

Some are...I wouldn't say most. The cost is getting out of hand though.

 

What makes most degrees garbage is the student themselves. If they take it seriously and use their time in school to actually do what they are supposed to do then most of the time, they can come out the other end with something that is of value. I was one that didn't take it seriously and I probably wasted a lot of money. I had friends get the exact same degree I had and they immediately came out of school making one hell of a lot more than I did or anyone I know who didn't go to college.

 

The issue with degrees being garbage is many to most people with them do not work in a field they got their degree in. And there is this thing with many employers who will require a degree for a job. They don't care what it is, and it does not pertain to the job at all, its just another checkmark.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Strigori,

 

I find it funny how the term "greedy" gets thrown around so much on the left side. As if the person making the comment wouldn't protect his money if he had millions. Say all you want but it's human nature to be greedy once you have the money. Even if you don't. Most of us cling to what we have.

 

I'm sure you'll be hounding the next powerball winner to go give all that money away. Or better yet, when you accrue loads of extra money, you'll be sure to not keep a cent of it.

 

So sick of reading this garbage about the left hating the greedy. Easy to point the finger.

 

 

I don't think you quite understand why the term is used. No one is telling people they need to give away all of their money and become paupers. No one. What the issue becomes is the wealthy using their greater influence rig the system. Why does a millionaire get to pay a lower percentage income tax than I do after all is said and done? Why are raises good for the execs but not the worker? Break unions, so the corps can make more money by taking away from the people doing the work. THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN AMASSING MONEY. But that is the end all be all with the GOP. Everything is either about "F society, get mine" or trying to force religious law down people's throats.

 

And the hypocrisy of a Christian defending greed in this, and many other cases is quite exquisite. Might want to investigate the 'sin' that book talks about so much. It might shock you, I know its not something the recruitment arms of the GOP are going to spend their time preaching about in the pulpit these days.

 

To make the point again, no one is saying go be poor and have nothing. What is being said is Mr. Millionaire needs to stop fighting every single penny that gets taxed, and stop fighting every protection for those with less. For most of them all more money is is just a tally on a spreadsheet. It effects their lives in no discernible way. yet they will fight for every penny like a drowning man gasping for air.

 

And for the record, if I did with the powerball, I would spend a hell of a lot more money helping others than I would on myself. Maybe that drops me in the minority, and that's sad.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for Scott Walker.

 

Yes, lets have a guy that doesn't have a college degree be the leader of our country.

I dont' disagree with basically what you said but I find it funny at the same time.

 

I have had many conversations on forums like this with liberal people who believe jobs that require a college degree are elitist and do nothing but hurt poor people and are designed to keep the poor in their place.

Most degrees are garbage. Unless you have something like a medical, engineering or other sort of math/science degree, they hold little value, and should not have the weight and clout that they do.

 

That said, Walker is no different than the rest of the GOP parade of idiots. Greedy, hypocritical and holding onto mentalities and ideas of eras past.

Some are...I wouldn't say most. The cost is getting out of hand though.

 

What makes most degrees garbage is the student themselves. If they take it seriously and use their time in school to actually do what they are supposed to do then most of the time, they can come out the other end with something that is of value. I was one that didn't take it seriously and I probably wasted a lot of money. I had friends get the exact same degree I had and they immediately came out of school making one hell of a lot more than I did or anyone I know who didn't go to college.

The issue with degrees being garbage is many to most people with them do not work in a field they got their degree in. And there is this thing with many employers who will require a degree for a job. They don't care what it is, and it does not pertain to the job at all, its just another checkmark.

Meh. Not a convincing point.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Fiorina is in. I think she is really running for VP - the be the 1st female VP and that will be the alternative to Hillary. She can attack Hillary at will and leave the top of the ticket to be 'positive'. While Rubio isn't my first choice (Walker is right now), I an see the Repubs going wt a Rubio/Fiorina ticket to get the minority vote and the female vote. I prefer a governor at the head of the ticket however.

Link to comment

Both Florina and Carson are in.

 

Carson has an amazing life story and has been incredibly successful in his career. Every time I feel like I want to support him he goes and says something stupid.

A Carson Florina ticket would be interesting.

 

LINK

 

For nothing else, it would keep Hillary from just putting herself out there as the first woman on the ticket to win.

Link to comment

 

And for the record, if I did with the powerball, I would spend a hell of a lot more money helping others than I would on myself. Maybe that drops me in the minority, and that's sad.

 

I would venture to say that you are a minority on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

And, for the record, I am with you on what I would do with the money. I am obviously more conservative than you are. So, there are people on both sides of the political spectrum that would use the money to help others.

 

Your comments seem to follow one political agenda that a certain side wants people to believe. Rich people don't want to help others. Meh...not really true.

 

The big difference is, many people want to help others directly with their money. They see sending it off to Washington as a total waste and makes it much less effective to actually help others.

 

I personally will put myself in my usual middle of the road stance. I agree that there is HUGE amounts of waste in Washington and I believe a huge amount of what is spent on "helping others" is a total waste. But, I also see a need for a certain amount of that.

 

I would prefer to have that money stay in at least the state level or local charities to help others.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Per the attached article, Donald Trump is about to jump into the fray. He will make the primary season interesting to say the least. He will have the funds to stay in the race longer than any of the other long shots.
But as he points out the 'clownness ' of some of those in the race already, I wonder if he is looking in the mirror. While there are things that one can admire about his business savvy & outspokeness - he's had his share of bankruptcies within his business empire to give one pause to consider him being over the whole economy. He's also had more than his share of loony tuneness as well.
But overall, if he can make the primaries interesting and fun - then so be it. Let him run. Maybe his open and frank talk will fluster, frustrate, and filibuster the debates enough to force the others to talk beyond their talking points and perhaps expose some as empty suits. If he does this then I will be happy to see him in the debates.

In Raleigh, Donald Trump all but announces presidential bid | News & Observer News & Observer

http://www.newsobserver.com

Billionaire businessman Donald Trump all but confirmed he’ll run for the Republican presidential nomination during a stop Saturday at the N.C. GOP convention.

 

I use to swallow all of the neo-conservative bait thinking they were like Reagan, who I hold in very high regard (I consider him, FDR, & LBJ to be the most influential presidents of last century - LBJ only because his Great Society program dramatically altered govt's relationship wt citizens, and of course the negative impact of Vietnam) . But when one looks at Reagan's record, he would be considered a moderate in today's world. While I may agree with many Tea Party principles (the get gov't right sized emphasis), I don't think they have a governing philosophy that will work and they aren't properly represented - Cruz and Paul- the leading TP types are not electable and if elected, I don't think would do any better than the the current president to end the bitter divide in DC. (probably do worse as they enrage people in their own party).
I personally prefer a governor and not any of the 1 term senators which are running (we have one right now as President and I think we could have done better). I prefer Walker but if it comes to Jeb (while I don't want another Bush or Clinton), I think he would be 'workable' and better than his brother. Chris Cristie, another governor is going to have to defend what is looking like poor results in NJ. Gov Rick Perry - it will be hard for him to escape the taint on him from 2012. Not sure Walker can withstand the heat that a national campaign puts on him - although he has survived 3 elections in heavily democratic Wisc.

Link to comment

In all honesty, no one in the GOP clown car is capable of winning a national election. They are all pandering to the far right, making sure they are seen and heard being anti-LGBT, and just about every single one of them has nice cozy pictures next to an admitted child molester, who somehow is still some sort of conservative hero. With the impending SCOTUS decision on gay marriage,generally expected to legalize it, there is going to be a political firestorm for conservatives. Add in that every last one of them want to expand Middle East wars, another position the general public wants nothing to do with. There are not much differences between the candidates real stances on positions, just the way they like to talk about them.

 

I would be careful when you talk about 'tea party' views, they are very deceptive. When they talk about "smaller Government" they are only talking about two things. 1, less rules for businesses. 2, remove anything they feel is imposing on their religion. Right now, individuals in this country have more rights than anyone has had in recorded human history, anyone who says otherwise simply has no sense of history.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I hope so, strigori -- but all it takes is the right set of states to fall their way. It does seem unlikely. But we're also quite a ways away from 2016 campaign season. Right now the candidates are jockeying for the GOP nomination, and that does seem to involve pandering to -- or at least mollifying -- the fringe. Once it's a 2-horse race, the tone is likely going to shift.

 

You've really hit it on "Small Gov" hypocrisy.

Link to comment

I hope so, strigori -- but all it takes is the right set of states to fall their way. It does seem unlikely. But we're also quite a ways away from 2016 campaign season. Right now the candidates are jockeying for the GOP nomination, and that does seem to involve pandering to -- or at least mollifying -- the fringe. Once it's a 2-horse race, the tone is likely going to shift.

 

You've really hit it on "Small Gov" hypocrisy.

Tone shifting does not work anymore. That is a hold over from the pre-internet age. Nothing a politician says ever goes away. Romney tried it last time, and failed epically. And all of the candidates so far have a very, very long list of statements and videos that will prevent them from drifting back center. With a running video of the things a candidate has said, its pretty much impossible for them to back peddle and say "You know, all that stuff I have been screaming for years to anyone who would listen? I didn't really believe any of that, it was just politics to get elected." All it does is leave them sounding like an idiot who is willing to sell his convictions to whomever is currently listening.

 

And mark my words. 2016 is going to have a giant focus on LGBT rights. Its an issue that the general public is heavily against the conservatives. The GOP will like to invoke the midterms, but midterms never get the under 30 crowd to the polls. But presidential elections, and multiple focuses on what that generation tends to view as human rights, will. Anti-gay marriage, and less healthcare do not go over well. Sure, the elderly like those topics, but you alienate the masses. Oppose LGBT rights, lose the swing states.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

In all honesty, no one in the GOP clown car is capable of winning a national election. They are all pandering to the far right, making sure they are seen and heard being anti-LGBT, and just about every single one of them has nice cozy pictures next to an admitted child molester, who somehow is still some sort of conservative hero. With the impending SCOTUS decision on gay marriage,generally expected to legalize it, there is going to be a political firestorm for conservatives. Add in that every last one of them want to expand Middle East wars, another position the general public wants nothing to do with. There are not much differences between the candidates real stances on positions, just the way they like to talk about them.

 

I would be careful when you talk about 'tea party' views, they are very deceptive. When they talk about "smaller Government" they are only talking about two things. 1, less rules for businesses. 2, remove anything they feel is imposing on their religion. Right now, individuals in this country have more rights than anyone has had in recorded human history, anyone who says otherwise simply has no sense of history.

Meh...I thought the same thing about Obama and some of his past friends.

 

And, as for the red. Ummm...no. If I were sitting out here as a mountain man/trapper in the mid 1800s, I'm pretty dang sure I was free to do whatever the hell I wanted, whenever I wanted to do it. That's just one example.

Link to comment

 

In all honesty, no one in the GOP clown car is capable of winning a national election. They are all pandering to the far right, making sure they are seen and heard being anti-LGBT, and just about every single one of them has nice cozy pictures next to an admitted child molester, who somehow is still some sort of conservative hero. With the impending SCOTUS decision on gay marriage,generally expected to legalize it, there is going to be a political firestorm for conservatives. Add in that every last one of them want to expand Middle East wars, another position the general public wants nothing to do with. There are not much differences between the candidates real stances on positions, just the way they like to talk about them.

 

I would be careful when you talk about 'tea party' views, they are very deceptive. When they talk about "smaller Government" they are only talking about two things. 1, less rules for businesses. 2, remove anything they feel is imposing on their religion. Right now, individuals in this country have more rights than anyone has had in recorded human history, anyone who says otherwise simply has no sense of history.

Meh...I thought the same thing about Obama and some of his past friends.

 

And, as for the red. Ummm...no. If I were sitting out here as a mountain man/trapper in the mid 1800s, I'm pretty dang sure I was free to do whatever the hell I wanted, whenever I wanted to do it. That's just one example.

 

The context between Obama and some of his pictures are pretty different that the situation with Dugger. Some of the candidates have actually defended his actions, that included molesting his sisters!

 

Your scenario is a white, Christian man, living alone on a mountain? Seriously? Not when he goes into a town. There would be plenty of restrictions on what he could do or say. Blasphemy would still have been a crime in many places. We are talking about society, not a lone hermit who is trying to live away from civilization. And at no point in recorded human history have all the members of a society had as many freedoms and protected rights as they do right now in the US.

 

And what about the Cherokee man or woman of the same era. How about the slaves? Or a Chinese immigrant? How about the poor who would often be working jobs where they could actually wind up dead.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

In all honesty, no one in the GOP clown car is capable of winning a national election. They are all pandering to the far right, making sure they are seen and heard being anti-LGBT, and just about every single one of them has nice cozy pictures next to an admitted child molester, who somehow is still some sort of conservative hero. With the impending SCOTUS decision on gay marriage,generally expected to legalize it, there is going to be a political firestorm for conservatives. Add in that every last one of them want to expand Middle East wars, another position the general public wants nothing to do with. There are not much differences between the candidates real stances on positions, just the way they like to talk about them.

 

I would be careful when you talk about 'tea party' views, they are very deceptive. When they talk about "smaller Government" they are only talking about two things. 1, less rules for businesses. 2, remove anything they feel is imposing on their religion. Right now, individuals in this country have more rights than anyone has had in recorded human history, anyone who says otherwise simply has no sense of history.

Meh...I thought the same thing about Obama and some of his past friends.

 

And, as for the red. Ummm...no. If I were sitting out here as a mountain man/trapper in the mid 1800s, I'm pretty dang sure I was free to do whatever the hell I wanted, whenever I wanted to do it. That's just one example.

 

The context between Obama and some of his pictures are pretty different that the situation with Dugger. Some of the candidates have actually defended his actions, that included molesting his sisters!

 

Your scenario is a white, Christian man, living alone on a mountain? Seriously? Not when he goes into a town. There would be plenty of restrictions on what he could do or say. Blasphemy would still have been a crime in many places. We are talking about society, not a lone hermit who is trying to live away from civilization. And at no point in recorded human history have all the members of a society had as many freedoms and protected rights as they do right now in the US.

 

And what about the Cherokee man or woman of the same era. How about the slaves? Or a Chinese immigrant? How about the poor who would often be working jobs where they could actually wind up dead.

 

That's what I thought. My point was that your claim sounded like you believe nobody has ever had more freedom. That simply isn't true. You stated "recorded history" and now, you are classifying it as people within an organized modern society. Those are two different things. When that Mountain man came down out of the mountains and visited fort Laramie, meh....there weren't too many rules to live by.

 

Now, if you are talking about modern societies....sure. I can see your point. That is one of the main reasons why I love this country and believe it to be the greatest country ever as we (not claiming to be perfect) generally fight for the rights of others. Even when we get into war, we try to do it for the right reasons and the right way. Again, not always perfect.

 

This is also why I get pissed off when people trash the thought of being patriotic. There is a feeling in some circles like being patriotic is bad. If you're patriotic, you are some dumb idiot blindly following some ideology.

 

I asked on another board one time...."what makes you proud to be an American". I was shocked at the number of people that said..."nothing". We have one hell of a lot to work on to be better. But, we also have one heck of a lot to be proud of.

 

Do we need to improve in helping the poor? Sure, there are some things we could do. But, our poor live better than one heck of a lot of the world.

Do we need to improve race relations? Sure, but minorities are treated much better here than in much of the rest of the world.

 

As two examples.

 

Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm in a ranting mood today.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...