2016 US Presidential election thread

[vienna]

Here is an interesting take on the 2016 Presidential election and its possible effects on the future of the GOP from someone on the inside of both the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations (Note: If choice language offends you, be aware of a single use of such in the interview):

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/comp...e_backs_trump/

For those without a real horse in this race or political party allegiance such as myself, this cold view of the current GOP situation is refreshing, coming as it does from someone who is of the "Old Guard" GOP establishment; a pragmatic assessment rather than a rehash of the "party line"...


<O>

[mapuc]

For me it will be interesting to see if the GOP will make some kind of coup against Trump by outmaneuver his delegates(don't know if that is possible)

( I have no favorite, as an outsider-I only follow the battle for President from my couch)

Markus

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I'm not worried who the next President of the United States is ....
especially when he is sworn in on the same Holy Bible that President Obama was sworn in on.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Since each president gets a chance to use their own bible if they so choose, the chances of them using the same bible are pretty low. I don't think they reuse.

[vienna]

I have, for a very long time, maintained the Presidents, if they are going to use something to "validate" their oath, should take the Oath of Office on a copy of the Constitution. If there is to be any sort of significant symbolism to the ceremony, it is more appropriate to fully commit to the office on a document embracing not only the founding ideals of the United States as set forth by the Founders, but also embracing all aspects of American society without a hint of exclusion or favoritism. Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating the oath be taken using any sort of document as validation, secular, religious, or otherwise; it kind of makes one wonder why the Founders saw fit to exclude any such provision; perhaps they were wiser than those who seek to put their brand unnecessarily on matters not to be trifled. But, given the past performance of those in the past who have given their oaths on a Bible, we might as well just have them swear on a copy of a shopping list...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Since each president gets a chance to use their own bible if they so choose, the chances of them using the same bible are pretty low. I don't think they reuse.

When the muslims find out that you are a Christian, they say "Oh you believe in the book" so I didn't mean the book ... I meant the words in the book.

But, given the past performance of those in the past who have given their oaths on a Bible, we might as well just have them swear on a copy of a shopping list...

True vienna I don't know what happens after they become POTUS must be some kind of spiritual warfare going on in the White House, uh?

At least Hillary and her husband, the first dude, have already been there and know first hand the battles that lay ahead of them...

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Good point on not disclosing Hillary's budget. I suspect Hillary will win NY. She carpetbagged here way there after Bills tenure as President. Wall Street does not want to see Bernie. Bernie has not be shy advising Wall Street and big banks he castrate them.

Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

So this movie had more to say than just a guy not wanting to exist.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Interestingly, as a general conservative, I think that no financial institution should be allowed to grow to more than 1% of the size of the economy. Anything larger warps the economy and controls the government too much.

Look at the 2007-2008 bailouts. The people hurting were the public. The bailout law was passed to bail out individuals. But the power of the overgrown financial institutions caused the bailout money to go to the monster mega-banks. Now they are still sitting there with the money, having no incentive whatever to help out the people in trouble from the giant cluster headache of 2007.

They sorely need to be busted up. If it was necessary for ATT, a tiny thing compared to the monster banks, then they deserve it ten times more.

But money buys influence: something the "tax the rich" people don't seem to realize. The more you pay the government the more influence you have. We need EVERYBODY to pay taxes so everybody has a voice. There IS NO representation without taxation. Voting to keep 47% of the public from paying federal income tax is disenfranchizing 47% of the public.

Will any politician say these things? No. Will people jump down my throat for parroting radicals? Yes. Ain't life grand?

The whole bailout was an interesting process. When it was proposed and passed, under GWB, it really had no substance, no structure; it was basically a blank check made out to the very institutions and people who were responsible for the whole mess. No matter what you think of Obama, he did make moves to make the bailout have more accountability. When the bailout was first announced, there was a long line of the fat cats, with palms extended, to reap the windfall they expected, with no assurances they would even use the money to support the economy or even have judicious uses for the funds or even repay the "loans". Obama put in requirements for the repayment of the funds and the line got shorter; he put in requirements for oversight and the line got shorter still; he put in caps on executive salary for those corporations taking bailout money and the line got shorter than ever; and so it went until all those corporations who had their hands out for the funds, who "desperately" needed the cash because they "were too big too fail", faced with actually having to accept responsibility for what they would do with taxpayer money, suddenly decided they really didn't need the bailouts. If Obama hadn't set up some sort of framework to support a bailout law that that was overly (purposely?) vague, one can only imagine how much of that bailout money would now be residing in off-shore accounts and what the state of the economy would have been...


<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

John Boehner on Ted Cruz:

“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner told an audience at Stanford on Wednesday night, according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...lucifer-222570

[Oberon]

It really is like watching a car crash in slow motion...

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It really is like watching a car crash in slow motion...

It is a messy process and it can get messier (and has) but it has worked remarkably well for the past couple of centuries.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

It is a messy process and it can get messier (and has) but it has worked remarkably well for the past couple of centuries.

Oh aye, I dare say that it'll all work out in the end somehow, but it's been a while since there's been this level of disunity in the GOP itself.
Sure, the Dems aren't exactly seeing eye to eye, but compared to the mudfight that is the GOP race, well...

[Mr Quatro]

How did the Senator Ted Cruz make it this far without any support from his fellow comrades in the Senate?

Both sides were against him when he stalled the budget process with his fillibuster a couple of years ago

The voters so far must be love for him or hate for Donald Trump.

GOP race was just a bunch of wanna bee's compared to Hillary and Bernie.

Donald Trump will need special forces to protect the white house instead of the secret service ... if he makes it that far.

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones)

[AVGWarhawk]

Mr Quatro

2400624]How did the Senator Ted Cruz make it this far without any support from his fellow comrades in the Senate?

Cash kept him afloat. He has supporters. Not Bohner. Called Cruz the devil today.

Both sides were against him when he stalled the budget process with his fillibuster a couple of years ago

But he read Dr. Suess so well what is not to like?

The voters so far must be love for him or hate for Donald Trump.

Conservatives love Trump. Liberals hate him. Nothing new in a presidential race when it concerns Repubs/Libs and the opposing team.

GOP race was just a bunch of wanna bee's compared to Hillary and Bernie.

Both wishy washy doing their best to pander for votes. It is shameless really. None of the Republican were wanna bee's. If there was ever a wanna bee in this race it is O'Malley.

Donald Trump will need special forces to protect the white house instead of the secret service ... if he makes it that far.

Everyong thought the same when BO was elected. The world did not end. He did not pay that woman's mortgage.

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones)

It has not happened yet and will probably not.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

This is not prophesy, but it sure looks like something bad (like an accident or something) will keep Donald Trump from being the next POTUS. Bones in his closet maybe (like real ones)

Maybe but if anyone has skeletons in their closet it's Clinton.