2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,857
#6,857
hog88 said:
I can articulate a reason why I will not and could not vote for a Democrat. The Democratic Party stands for everything I'm opposed to, higher taxes on the wealthy yet never giving us that key number that makes someone wealthy. They constantly push for more rules and regulations that hinder business and progress, they want more control of my money thinking they will know how it will be best spent. And most of all they think the constitution is a living document open to various interpretations, it's not!
Click to expand...

A lot of hyperbole and right-wing rheotoric in your statements without much substance. Also, a lot of scholars believe the constitution is a living document open to various interpretations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,858
#6,858
hog88 said:
they want more control of my money thinking they will know how it will be best spent. And most of all they think the constitution is a living document open to various interpretations, it's not!
Click to expand...

The GOP wants just as much of your money. The difference is that you simply like what they do with your money (war and foreign aid). If you were to be ideologically consistent here (not something I'd expect from you), you'd say that you're the best person to determine how and who your money aids.

Lol and what current candidate for the GOP has any respect for the constitution?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,859
#6,859
Vol8188 said:
The GOP wants just as much of your money. The difference is that you simply like what they do with your money (war and foreign aid). If you were to be ideologically consistent here (not something I'd expect from you), you say that you're the best person to determine how and who your money aids.

Lol and what current candidate for the GOP has any respect for the constitution?
Click to expand...

Bingo^^^! The right spins it like Dems are the only party who will take your money and spend it on government programs when it's really just that right-wingers don't like what Dems spend it on (i.e. social programs that help less fortunate people) and like what the GOP spends it on (i.e. unwinnable overseas wars, fighting any anti-gun legislation, etc), but good luck getting any of them to understand this as they've bought into the FoxNews rheotoric like the sheep they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,861
#6,861
Vol8188 said:
The GOP wants just as much of your money. The difference is that you simply like what they do with your money (war and foreign aid). If you were to be ideologically consistent here (not something I'd expect from you), you say that you're the best person to determine how and who your money aids.
Click to expand...
That is a fair assessment in a way. I would say that the difference is that aiding fellow human beings can be done more efficiently thru charity which really rich people do. While it is true that many do them for tax benefits, they are also altruistic. Being forced to give to government social programs that they all know are rat holes tend to make them feel less altruistic. An example of this was seen when there was a tax increase or reduction of decuctions (I don't actually remember when) and charitable contributions in Palm Beach County FL (A very rich county) went down. Completely attributable to the rich holding onto their money. And before you ask, no, I do not have citation, I am working from memory. The point I am trying to make is that freely funded charities are more efficient in that more money goes to those that need it rather than government retirement plans and pay raises etc etc etc... War and foreign policy cannot be funded in this way. War is sometimes necessary. There is the rub. Liberals think it can all be settled with a hug. In a way, I would rather see more money going to domestic programs, but I want it to to whom and where I choose. Barrack Soetoro Obola is not competent to make that choice for me.
 
#6,862
#6,862
n_huffhines said:
Stroke or no?

Marco Rubio Uses Same Line 4 Times at Debate, Even After Christie Busts Him | Mediaite
Click to expand...


Rubio.jpg
 
#6,865
#6,865
n_huffhines said:
Stroke or no?

Marco Rubio Uses Same Line 4 Times at Debate, Even After Christie Busts Him | Mediaite
Click to expand...

That's ****ing great. The sad thing is no one cares. Kind of like during the last fox debate when they called Cruz out for voting against defense authorization acts multiple times and not giving Obama power to enforce his red line in Syria.

Cruz then responds by saying he'll never appologize for defending this country and how Obama has destroyed the military and how few planes and troops and ships we have.

It was absurd. And no one called him out on it because it's par for the course, for a group of people who had trump as their leading candidate for months
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,866
#6,866
Gramps said:
Will that be his Rick Perry "oops" moment?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so. He can recover and really the ball is in his court to do so.

Perry never had the momentum from the get go to challenge the upper levels. Rubio has (perhaps had) momentum from Iowa and nationally to push upwards. This is a setback, but he will have to do some pretty serious pushing to get back to where he was prior to last night.
 
#6,867
#6,867
Grand Vol said:
Worst debate he's had. He froze and couldn't get on track with the exchange.
Click to expand...

I really feel like this election is Rubio's to lose. I think he might be thinking the same thing and feeling internal pressure. I don't know how these guys do it. Talking while playing politics is hard to do, let alone doing it in front of the country.

Remember how funny he looked when he did the SotU response? That was his first prime time moment and was probably nervous as hell. I think we might get a few more gems out of him.
 
#6,868
#6,868
SpaceCoastVol said:
That is a fair assessment in a way. I would say that the difference is that aiding fellow human beings can be done more efficiently thru charity which really rich people do. While it is true that many do them for tax benefits, they are also altruistic. Being forced to give to government social programs that they all know are rat holes tend to make them feel less altruistic. An example of this was seen when there was a tax increase or reduction of decuctions (I don't actually remember when) and charitable contributions in Palm Beach County FL (A very rich county) went down. Completely attributable to the rich holding onto their money. And before you ask, no, I do not have citation, I am working from memory. The point I am trying to make is that freely funded charities are more efficient in that more money goes to those that need it rather than government retirement plans and pay raises etc etc etc... War and foreign policy cannot be funded in this way. War is sometimes necessary. There is the rub. Liberals think it can all be settled with a hug. In a way, I would rather see more money going to domestic programs, but I want it to to whom and where I choose. Barrack Soetoro Obola is not competent to make that choice for me.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. Foreign aid could 100% be done through individual donations. Millions of people donated to hati. Millions of people donate to fight AIDS in Africa. The government shouldn't decide where my money goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,869
#6,869
n_huffhines said:
I really feel like this election is Rubio's to lose. I think he might be thinking the same thing and feeling internal pressure. I don't know how these guys do it. Talking while playing politics is hard to do, let alone doing it in front of the country.

Remember how funny he looked when he did the SotU response? That was his first prime time moment and was probably nervous as hell. I think we might get a few more gems out of him.
Click to expand...



rubioreaches.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,870
#6,870
Vol8188 said:
That's where you're wrong. Foreign aid could 100% be done through individual donations. Millions of people donated to hati. Millions of people donate to fight AIDS in Africa. The government shouldn't decide where my money goes.
Click to expand...

This really makes no sense. Foreign aid supporters make the exact same arguments that welfare supporters make. We foreign aid opponents respond with the exact same arguments that welfare opponents make. How can anyone not see the false dichotomy in supporting one and opposing the other?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,871
#6,871
n_huffhines said:
This really makes no sense. Foreign aid supporters make the exact same arguments that welfare supporters make. We foreign aid opponents respond with the exact same arguments that welfare opponents make. How can anyone not see the false dichotomy in supporting one and opposing the other?
Click to expand...

Somethings are unexplainable. All I have is "because the GOP told me foriegn aid was good and welfare was bad!"
 
#6,872
#6,872
n_huffhines said:
I really feel like this election is Rubio's to lose. I think he might be thinking the same thing and feeling internal pressure. I don't know how these guys do it. Talking while playing politics is hard to do, let alone doing it in front of the country.

Remember how funny he looked when he did the SotU response? That was his first prime time moment and was probably nervous as hell. I think we might get a few more gems out of him.
Click to expand...

One of the talking heads invoked Dan Quayle last night. And pretty much comparatively was spot on with the deer in headlights look.

Rubio's my guy honestly, but at this point he has to earn his way back into the top. If I wasn't objective, I'd say it was childish for a candidate (Christie) to go after Rubio when there is no chance they get the nomination, but it's the way the game is played. I agree with the Fox panel that it didn't hurt Christie, but it also didn't help him any either.

Rubio was unprepared for the question and it showed. But I also recognize the fact that Christie was a prosecutor (in case he never mentioned it) and his job was cornering people in tough situations to gauge their reactions. And he did that job spot on last night in the court of national opinion.

I agree the nomination is/was Rubio's to lose as I feel he has the best chance to reach across a broad range and get the voters motivated. But he has to be better prepared for those kinds of things to pop up. His staff really let him down by not preparing him for that line of questioning as it could have been easily countered (I explained in the debate thread) and he could have come off at least on even ground in the end.
 
#6,873
#6,873
The only way that someone can be unprepared for a debate question is if they don't have principled views and/or consistent actions. You could ask Reagan (as I recall) or Ron Paul or Goldwater (as I understand it) about anything.
 
#6,874
#6,874
bnhunt said:
A lot of hyperbole and right-wing rheotoric in your statements without much substance. Also, a lot of scholars believe the constitution is a living document open to various interpretations.
Click to expand...

A lot of scholars think the second amendment only applies to militias, but now we have definitive proof they are wrong.
 
#6,875
#6,875
n_huffhines said:
The only way that someone can be unprepared for a debate question is if they don't have principled views and/or consistent actions. You could ask Reagan (as I recall) or Ron Paul or Goldwater (as I understand it) about anything.
Click to expand...

Three notable exceptions to the rules. Reagan was the master at public speaking. He made you feel like he was in your living room talking with you instead of to an entire country. He had a way of using wit, charm and humor to put people at ease and drawing them onto his side of the matter. And eventually winning them over despite their opposing views on whatever he was talking about. I don't think we will ever have another President with that kind of personality that can unite a nation as he did.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top