The General Election

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

"Total freedom" is not the answer. Total freedom leads to the greedy cutting corners that lead to disasters including but not limited to causing death to innocent people. We need the FDA. We need the EPA. We need regulation that prevents people from screwing others over financially.

It isn't one way or the other. Yes, you have to have oversight. But intervention shouldn't happen unless there is a true violation.

 

No, we do not need the FDA. I've worked in the food and nutrition industry for years now, and I'll tell you that "FDA approved" carries absolutely no value because all it basically means is the company that produced that product paid a load of cash to the FDA to get it approved.

 

We don't need the DOE on federal level. We don't need the IRS (not the form that we have today) as long as we simplify the tax codes. We need to weed out the corruption in the CIA and other federal agencies. It's a huge mess, and anyone educated on the subject would tell you the same.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

"Total freedom" is not the answer. Total freedom leads to the greedy cutting corners that lead to disasters including but not limited to causing death to innocent people. We need the FDA. We need the EPA. We need regulation that prevents people from screwing others over financially.

It isn't one way or the other. Yes, you have to have oversight. But intervention shouldn't happen unless there is a true violation.

 

No, we do not need the FDA. I've worked in the food and nutrition industry for years now, and I'll tell you that "FDA approved" carries absolutely no value because all it basically means is the company that produced that product paid a load of cash to the FDA to get it approved.

 

We don't need the DOE on federal level. We don't need the IRS (not the form that we have today) as long as we simplify the tax codes. We need to weed out the corruption in the CIA and other federal agencies. It's a huge mess, and anyone educated on the subject would tell you the same.

 

 

Before I reply I'd like to know your thoughts on a good alternative to the FDA. What I will say is I know statisticians who work for and with the FDA, and in order to get a drug approved you have to jump through hoops and catalog everything. There is a step by step process to every part of the analysis.

 

I don't doubt there's corruption in all government agencies. I mean, the effing Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA used to work for Monsanto. Don't care if people don't care about GMOs. The simple fact they bought out a bee research company (which was saying Monsanto is a big part of the reason they're dying) should tell you all you need to know.

 

So I'll say again - money should not be allowed to be involved in politics/policy. It's completely effed up that that's possible.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Is there a surge of anti-Republican sentiment that's going to sweep the GOP out of power in the Senate? I'm not hearing rumblings about that - am I missing something?

 

I get the impression that people are tired of Trump, but I've never seen that carry over into a general conversation about the GOP. People don't seem to associate the two, at least not in my anecdotal experience.

I'm going totally on my gut feeling here.

 

If it happens, it will be because people associate the Republican party with Trump and those people in the middle will sway more towards wanting the Republicans not in power in Congress either.

 

Nobody has really even started talking about the congressional races yet. I haven't even seen articles talking about it specifically or what seats are going to be possible gains or losses by either party.

 

I think we will soon see repub candidates distancing themselves from Trump in those purple/blue states in order to win their own elections. Trump will have to do his own heavy lifting - I don't believe there will be a big rally around him from the local candidates.

 

Here's the problem. Trump has already stated very clearly that if you are a Republican and don't back him 100%, then there is no reason why he should be "nice" to you. We all have seen what it's like when he isn't nice to people and his followers jump on board with going against whomever he doesn't like.

 

So, let's say you are a congressman from Wisconsin and you aren't comfortable with Trump and you start distancing yourself from him. Hillary sure isn't going to come support you. Trump isn't going to be "nice" to you. Hillary voters aren't going to vote for you and now Trump followers are going to stay away from you in droves.

 

Go the other direction and you decide to back him 100% so that he is "nice" to you. Hillary voters still aren't going to vote for you and there are a lot of people that are still not going to be comfortable with Trump and not like that you are backing him.

 

I could clearly see how the Republicans lose all power in Washington.

[Red Five]

 

So, let's say you are a congressman from Wisconsin and you aren't comfortable with Trump and you start distancing yourself from him. Hillary sure isn't going to come support you. Trump isn't going to be "nice" to you. Hillary voters aren't going to vote for you and now Trump followers are going to stay away from you in droves.

 

Go the other direction and you decide to back him 100% so that he is "nice" to you. Hillary voters still aren't going to vote for you and there are a lot of people that are still not going to be comfortable with Trump and not like that you are backing him.

 

I could clearly see how the Republicans lose all power in Washington.

 

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today:

​

 

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan said. “I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

 

 

But then still supports him.

 

But as unacceptable as Ryan found those comments, he’s still willing to accept Trump, textbook racism and all.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

 

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

 

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

 

 

The average American still has the freedom to reject all those government benefits, but they almost never do. The Free Marketplace could reject those big government benefits, too, but of course they don't.

 

Again, you haven't been very specific. Who is preventing you from providing for your family? Who is dictating how to do so? What freedoms have you lost to big government?

 

You do realize that the "free marketplace" dictates terms as well, and would happily return to child labor, the 7 day work week, and unfettered air and water pollution.

 

What Made America Great has always been a Big Government/Big Business collaboration; inherently contentious but often productive and it didn't require choosing sides.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

 

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

The average American still has the freedom to reject all those government benefits, but they almost never do. The Free Marketplace could reject those big government benefits, too, but of course they don't.

 

Again, you haven't been very specific. Who is preventing you from providing for your family? Who is dictating how to do so? What freedoms have you lost to big government?

 

You do realize that the "free marketplace" dictates terms as well, and would happily return to child labor, the 7 day work week, and unfettered air and water pollution.

 

What Made America Great has always been a Big Government/Big Business collaboration; inherently contentious but often productive and it didn't require choosing sides.

Successful business people do work 7 days a week, first off.

 

Here would be the main specific that I'd point out: the average American works the first 3-4+ months of the year just to pay the government in the form of taxes and social security, Medicare, etc. That's WAY too much, but the government keeps asking for more historically because they have been incompetent, unable to control their spending, and enable systemic corruption in their departments. It all needs torn apart and reformatted.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

So, let's say you are a congressman from Wisconsin and you aren't comfortable with Trump and you start distancing yourself from him. Hillary sure isn't going to come support you. Trump isn't going to be "nice" to you. Hillary voters aren't going to vote for you and now Trump followers are going to stay away from you in droves.

 

Go the other direction and you decide to back him 100% so that he is "nice" to you. Hillary voters still aren't going to vote for you and there are a lot of people that are still not going to be comfortable with Trump and not like that you are backing him.

 

I could clearly see how the Republicans lose all power in Washington.

 

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today:

​

 

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan said. “I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

 

 

But then still supports him.

 

But as unacceptable as Ryan found those comments, he’s still willing to accept Trump, textbook racism and all.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29

 

 

The last quote you referenced shows just how bad Hillary is if Ryan and others are still willing to support Trump. We are left between a racist blowhard that has a strong record of results in the real world vs a pathological liar that has a very thin resume for getting results. Both have serious character flaws, and if those flaws become a wash, this election could actually come down to their records and the issues. What a concept.

[zoogs]

...I think it shows more about Ryan, personally.

[HuskerNation1]

...I think it shows more about Ryan, personally.

 

Well that's just it. Key politicians in both parties are coming out to support these two pathetic choices. Pelosi just came out to endorse Hillary despite all of her flaws. And I'm sure we'll eventually see Bernie come out and endorse Hillary which will say a lot about him and how strongly he believes in his movement.

[zoogs]

I happen to disagree on Hillary. She's as accomplished and competent a candidate for the office as we have had, and I don't really subscribe to the decades long, hysterical character assassination levied against her. Her agenda is plain, plaid, and progressive. The Republican ploy at false equivalency, casting her as a Trump figure instead of the mainstream, establishment politician she is, is effective in its appeal to cynicism, but I am not one.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

So, let's say you are a congressman from Wisconsin and you aren't comfortable with Trump and you start distancing yourself from him. Hillary sure isn't going to come support you. Trump isn't going to be "nice" to you. Hillary voters aren't going to vote for you and now Trump followers are going to stay away from you in droves.

 

Go the other direction and you decide to back him 100% so that he is "nice" to you. Hillary voters still aren't going to vote for you and there are a lot of people that are still not going to be comfortable with Trump and not like that you are backing him.

 

I could clearly see how the Republicans lose all power in Washington.

 

The congressman from Wisconsin is taking shots at Trump today:

​

 

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan said. “I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

 

 

But then still supports him.

 

But as unacceptable as Ryan found those comments, he’s still willing to accept Trump, textbook racism and all.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-racist_us_5756d6cbe4b07823f9514086?0w7j1hh770p0kke29

 

 

The last quote you referenced shows just how bad Hillary is if Ryan and others are still willing to support Trump. We are left between a racist blowhard that has a strong record of results in the real world vs a pathological liar that has a very thin resume for getting results. Both have serious character flaws, and if those flaws become a wash, this election could actually come down to their records and the issues. What a concept.

 

He's a registered Republican in office. Do you really think there was any chance of him endorsing Hillary no matter who was running as the Republican?

[BigRedBuster]

...I think it shows more about Ryan, personally.

And....to the point of my original comment.

 

There really is not a winning stance a Republican running for congress can take.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

Bottom line - the government shouldn't have near the amount of intervention in our daily lives as they currently have, and i would love to see the establishment get obliterated and bring real freedom back to our country.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps...

The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.

Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in.

Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so.

The average American still has the freedom to reject all those government benefits, but they almost never do. The Free Marketplace could reject those big government benefits, too, but of course they don't.

 

Again, you haven't been very specific. Who is preventing you from providing for your family? Who is dictating how to do so? What freedoms have you lost to big government?

 

You do realize that the "free marketplace" dictates terms as well, and would happily return to child labor, the 7 day work week, and unfettered air and water pollution.

 

What Made America Great has always been a Big Government/Big Business collaboration; inherently contentious but often productive and it didn't require choosing sides.

Successful business people do work 7 days a week, first off.

 

Here would be the main specific that I'd point out: the average American works the first 3-4+ months of the year just to pay the government in the form of taxes and social security, Medicare, etc. That's WAY too much, but the government keeps asking for more historically because they have been incompetent, unable to control their spending, and enable systemic corruption in their departments. It all needs torn apart and reformatted.

 

 

Like most people I'd prefer smarter government. Smaller or bigger, doesn't matter as neither has a monopoly on efficiency.

 

If you think efficiency is built into profit motives and free enterprise, you haven't worked for a large corporation. If America was run more like a business, you'd still have bureaucracy, corruption, egos and rampant CYA mindsets.

 

And you do realize that Americans used to pay higher taxes -- often much higher -- back in the days Donald Trump wants to return us to, right?

 

p.s.: Social Security, Medicare, Federal Infrastructure and tons of other so-called "social" programs have a massive positive effect on private enterprise, and every responsible corporate executive understands that.

[BigRedBuster]

Funny thing is.....What he has said about taxes is pretty much what one heck of a lot of what those evil Democrats have been saying.

 

“By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes,” Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999.

Donald Trump’s Big Socialist Idea

The Huffington Post - Feb 26, 2016

 

[HuskerNation1]

I happen to disagree on Hillary. She's as accomplished and competent a candidate for the office as we have had, and I don't really subscribe to the decades long, hysterical character assassination levied against her. Her agenda is plain, plaid, and progressive. The Republican ploy at false equivalency, casting her as a Trump figure instead of the mainstream, establishment politician she is, is effective in its appeal to cynicism, but I am not one.

 

It's not a false equivalency at all...both are pathetic and deeply flawed. For you to suggest that she is not says a lot about you frankly, especially the part in bold. As for who is mainstream, I think when you look at policy views, Trump is actually more in the mainstream on many topics (outside of his banning of Muslims), but he's so over the top in his statements that his policies are hard to take seriously. Hillary has always been left of center, and has moved further left of center in recent years with the push toward bigger government solutions to solve problems. And Bernie is keeping her to the left of mainstream.

 

As for establishment, as I've said before a few times, despite the character flaws of both of these candidates, I think the election ultimately comes down to whether the country wants a career politician who is the ultimate insider, or an outsider who wants to shake things up.