Random Post Election Thoughts

[cal828]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to taxes for sure, so somebody tell me:

1. Would there be a "fiscal cliff," if the Bush tax cuts had never been been put in place?

2. If tax cuts were the solution to all our problems, then why aren't we up to our necks in jobs, after said tax cuts were put in place?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to taxes for sure, so somebody tell me:

1. Would there be a "fiscal cliff," if the Bush tax cuts had never been been put in place?

2. If tax cuts were the solution to all our problems, then why aren't we up to our necks in jobs, after said tax cuts were put in place?

1:The tax cuts were the biggest contributor to the deficit, but starting two wars and Medicare Part D didn't help. The big problem is, the tax cuts were passed on the condition that they were temporary, but when it came time to repeal them, the economy was in a deep recession and it was political poison to do so.

And there was no sound reasoning for passing them. Originally it was, "We have a surplus and the economy is going great guns! Ergo, tax cuts!" Then, after the tech market crashed and the projected surplus vanished, it became, "The economy is in trouble! Ergo, tax cuts!"

2: Tax cuts don't create jobs. Demand for products and services creates jobs. I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.

[cal828]

{I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.}

Well, maybe not the entire nation. And I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Middle class has been decimated by the shipping of jobs to China, Mexico, Guatemala, et al by the corporate crowd. So not only does Obama have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress, but probably more importantly, also figure out how to bring jobs back to the U.S. What a daunting task.

[dellinger63]

Life goes on albeit with higher taxes, healthcare costs etc. etc.

But at least gays are able to be open in the military, women have abortion and contraceptive coverage, and millions of illegals will be able to search for work.

Maybe we should throw a couple more billion to destroy cars or maybe this time run down homes. And let's not forget our friends in Egypt and Pakistan. We simply need to raise the debt limit to a zillion and forgetaboutit!

Our grandkids at least the rich friends of our grandkids will cover it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

But at least gays are able to be open in the military, women have abortion and contraceptive coverage, and millions of illegals will be able to search for work.
.

considering you put this in a sentence with two other things you obviously dont support.

What is wrong with gays serving open in the military?

Have you ever been in the military?

if you have, thank you. if you havent, then you can gtfo with that bullcrap.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

considering you put this in a sentence with two other things you obviously dont support.

What is wrong with gays serving open in the military?

Have you ever been in the military?

if you have, thank you. if you havent, then you can gtfo with that bullcrap.

The troops, you know the guys and girls fighting for us didn't support it and my support for them led to me writing the above.

BTW I have also stated my support for abortion. As long as it doesn't require someone else, especially the catholic church to pay for it.

And as far as the illegals, aren't they now allowed in the same employment line with returning troops? That's a dirty shame.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The troops, you know the guys and girls fighting for us didn't support it and my support for them led to me writing the above.

BTW I have also stated my support for abortion. As long as it doesn't require someone else, especially the catholic church to pay for it.

And as far as the illegals, aren't they now allowed in the same employment line with returning troops? That's a dirty shame.

god bless you, dell. from your mouth to republican party ears.

better for all of us democrats if they continue listening to you rather than pay any attention to marco rubio who said today: “The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them.”

keep banging away at immigrants. you're doing the lord's work.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The troops, you know the guys and girls fighting for us didn't support it and my support for them led to me writing the above.

BTW I have also stated my support for abortion. As long as it doesn't require someone else, especially the catholic church to pay for it.

And as far as the illegals, aren't they now allowed in the same employment line with returning troops? That's a dirty shame.

it's because people like you that republicans dont get elected lately. you fuel the extremest position.

you hate muslim laws, yet you want religious policies in America.

Until the Republican party stops pandering to people like you, they are going nowhere.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The troops, you know the guys and girls fighting for us didn't support it and my support for them led to me writing the above.

.

as usual, you are wrong about that too.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/0...ected-031212w/


why dont you read up on some fact once and awhile.


here's another one from BEFORE the repeal... which again shows how you are again factually incorrect. 70% of troops supported the repeal of DADT. Dont assume the brave folks who fight for us are as close minded as you are.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...tor-fehrenbach

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

considering you put this in a sentence with two other things you obviously dont support.

What is wrong with gays serving open in the military?

Have you ever been in the military?

if you have, thank you. if you havent, then you can gtfo with that bullcrap.

Friend of mine, retired Marine (they are Marines forever) when asked about gays in military said..'i don't give a shiit as long as they can shoot straight'.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Friend of mine, retired Marine (they are Marines forever) when asked about gays in military said..'i don't give a shiit as long as they can shoot straight'.

[miraja2]

My 2016 odds:

Chris Christie (R) 4/1
Paul Ryan (R) 5/1
Andrew Cuomo (D) 6/1
Hillary Clinton (D) 6/1
Mark Wrner (D) 8/1
Martin O'Malley (D) 10/1
Marco Rubio (R) 12/1
Jeb Bush (R) 12/1
John Thune (R) 15/1
Bob McDonnell (R) 15/1
Joe Biden (D) 20/1
Tim Pawlenty (R) 20/1
Brian Schweitzer (D) 30-1
Rick Santorum (R) 75-1
Field (12/1)

[rpncaine]

GOP will go with knee jerk reaction and nominate a Latino. My money is on Rubio.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

My 2016 odds:

Chris Christie (R) 4/1
Paul Ryan (R) 5/1
Andrew Cuomo (D) 6/1
Hillary Clinton (D) 6/1
Mark Wrner (D) 8/1
Martin O'Malley (D) 10/1
Marco Rubio (R) 12/1
Jeb Bush (R) 12/1
John Thune (R) 15/1
Bob McDonnell (R) 15/1
Joe Biden (D) 20/1
Tim Pawlenty (R) 20/1
Brian Schweitzer (D) 30-1
Rick Santorum (R) 75-1
Field (12/1)

I don't think Christie has a chance. He is a bully, his temperment isnt going to play well, NJ has major financial issues, he has pissed off a tremendous amount of the GOP and he is fat. That is not a good combination. He is getting a lot of kudos for his appearance of being bipartisan with the Obama love but that is going to hurt him a lot in the primaries.

I don't think Jeb Bush has a chance unless he changes his last name.

Biden will be 74, no chance.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He is a bully, his temperment isnt going to play well, NJ has major financial issues, he has pissed off a tremendous amount of the GOP and he is fat. That is not a good combination. He is getting a lot of kudos for his appearance of being bipartisan with the Obama love but that is going to hurt him a lot in the primaries.

Everything you say here is correct. I'm sure a lot of Republican primary voters are pretty angry at him right now, but will they still be angry 3 years from now? I'm not so sure. Up until a week ago the Ann Coulter wing of the party loved him, and I think they might be willing to forgive his political "sin."
I do think he'd need to shed a few pounds to have a real chance. People might elect an overweight president, but they aren't likely to elect an obese one.

I made him a lukewarm favorite for two reasons. One is because I think 2016 is more likely to be a Republican year. Obviously a million things could happen between now and then to change that, but Americans are generally hesitant to give one party three terms in a row in the White House. I think he still may qualify as a slight favorite over Ryan and the rest because of his big personality. A big personality rocketed Newt Gingrich to the top of the polls briefly this time around, and Newt had nothing else going for him (no money, lots of baggage, etc.). If he runs, Christie figures to raise a lot of money to go along with his other attributes. I think he could be tough.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Everything you say here is correct. I'm sure a lot of Republican primary voters are pretty angry at him right now, but will they still be angry 3 years from now? I'm not so sure. Up until a week ago the Ann Coulter wing of the party loved him, and I think they might be willing to forgive his political "sin."
I do think he'd need to shed a few pounds to have a real chance. People might elect an overweight president, but they aren't likely to elect an obese one.

I made him a lukewarm favorite for two reasons. One is because I think 2016 is more likely to be a Republican year. Obviously a million things could happen between now and then to change that, but Americans are generally hesitant to give one party three terms in a row in the White House. I think he still may qualify as a slight favorite over Ryan and the rest because of his big personality. A big personality rocketed Newt Gingrich to the top of the polls briefly this time around, and Newt had nothing else going for him (no money, lots of baggage, etc.). If he runs, Christie figures to raise a lot of money to go along with his other attributes. I think he could be tough.

I think that Christie's temperment is going to be his undoing. He comes across as a bully and he is heavy handed about pretty much everything. He does speak plainly and doesnt bullshit but that may not play well nationally because he just isnt that likeable to start with. The other factor is NJ has a lot of financial issues that arent going away but it seems more than ever superficial issues and likeability trump the real issues.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by miraja2

My 2016 odds:

Chris Christie (R) 4/1
Paul Ryan (R) 5/1
Andrew Cuomo (D) 6/1
Hillary Clinton (D) 6/1
Mark Wrner (D) 8/1
Martin O'Malley (D) 10/1
Marco Rubio (R) 12/1
Jeb Bush (R) 12/1
John Thune (R) 15/1
Bob McDonnell (R) 15/1
Joe Biden (D) 20/1
Tim Pawlenty (R) 20/1
Brian Schweitzer (D) 30-1
Rick Santorum (R) 75-1
Field (12/1)

tim pawlenty just took a job as a wall street lobbyist. he's done with elective office.

if i could get 12-1 as a "field" bet on either nomination i'd be tempted.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

tim pawlenty just took a job as a wall street lobbyist. he's done with elective office.

That's right. I totally forgot about him quitting as co-chair of the Romney campaign awhile back to go to work as a lobbyist.
You're absolutely right. He's done.
I never could quite figure out why he couldn't get more traction in Iowa this time around. He seems like the type of Republican that conservatives would like but independents and moderates wouldn't fear. The lack of charisma is obviously a problem, but that didn't stop John Kerry or Mitt Romney from getting nominated.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That's right. I totally forgot about him quitting as co-chair of the Romney campaign awhile back to go to work as a lobbyist.
You're absolutely right. He's done.
I never could quite figure out why he couldn't get more traction in Iowa this time around. He seems like the type of Republican that conservatives would like but independents and moderates wouldn't fear. The lack of charisma is obviously a problem, but that didn't stop John Kerry or Mitt Romney from getting nominated.

I guess because while money won't get you the Presidency, it can go a long way towards getting you the nomination.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by miraja2

My 2016 odds:

Chris Christie (R) 4/1
Paul Ryan (R) 5/1
Andrew Cuomo (D) 6/1
Hillary Clinton (D) 6/1
Mark Wrner (D) 8/1
Martin O'Malley (D) 10/1
Marco Rubio (R) 12/1
Jeb Bush (R) 12/1
John Thune (R) 15/1
Bob McDonnell (R) 15/1
Joe Biden (D) 20/1
Tim Pawlenty (R) 20/1
Brian Schweitzer (D) 30-1
Rick Santorum (R) 75-1
Field (12/1)

I am not sure bout odds, but a couple more names might be Duval Patrick, and today I heard Elisabeth Warren's name as a possible candidate. Great that she won