207 replies to this topic

[Niels]

Abraham Lincoln knew full well that waging war costs money, that's something that George W. Bush forgot to consider. It was the first income tax and was intended to just pay for the war.

 

Flat tax or a consumption tax needs to happen. People care about how much they tax when they have to kick in.

 

Yes, war costs money, and taxes often have to be raised to cover it.

 

But Lincoln did not choose a flat tax or just a consumption tax - he chose a consumption tax AND a progressive income tax.  Given all other options, he chose the exact kind of tax that is now labelled as liberal.

[Lysistrata]

 

Abraham Lincoln knew full well that waging war costs money, that's something that George W. Bush forgot to consider. It was the first income tax and was intended to just pay for the war.

 

Flat tax or a consumption tax needs to happen. People care about how much they tax when they have to kick in.

 

Yes, war costs money, and taxes often have to be raised to cover it.

 

But Lincoln did not choose a flat tax or just a consumption tax - he chose a consumption tax AND a progressive income tax.  Given all other options, he chose the exact kind of tax that is now labelled as liberal.

 

Lincoln chose a progressive tax because poor people were drafted to fight it. You can't force people to fight the war and then force the same people to pay for it. Rich people were able to pay a $300.00 fee to avoid conscription. It was pretty screwed up back then.

[Niels]

 

 

Abraham Lincoln knew full well that waging war costs money, that's something that George W. Bush forgot to consider. It was the first income tax and was intended to just pay for the war.

 

Flat tax or a consumption tax needs to happen. People care about how much they tax when they have to kick in.

 

Yes, war costs money, and taxes often have to be raised to cover it.

 

But Lincoln did not choose a flat tax or just a consumption tax - he chose a consumption tax AND a progressive income tax.  Given all other options, he chose the exact kind of tax that is now labelled as liberal.

 

Lincoln chose a progressive tax because poor people were drafted to fight it. You can't force people to fight the war and then force the same people to pay for it. Rich people were able to pay a $300.00 fee to avoid conscription. It was pretty screwed up back then.

 

 

That still doesn't explain why a progressive income tax was chosen.  Raising custom duties would also have been more taxing on the rich than the poor, and was a traditional method of collecting revenue prior to the Civil War.  Ditto with the sale of war bonds, used to finance the War of 1812.  Such methods would also not have ultimately been deemed unconstitutional.

 

Do you have a source for this claim that Lincoln was trying to avoid overwhelming the draftable poor by excluding them from the income tax?

 

Even if we accept it, wanting to not tax the poor because they could be drafted does not force one to choose a progressive income tax with two (and following revision in 1864, three) increasing tax rates.  Just as easy would have been a flat tax on any income above some cutoff.  Or alternatively, apply a flat rate to everyone except those actually soldiering - a concept today called the Military Pay Exclusion for Combat Zone Service.

[Blade 619]

To be honest, paying government employees less but not taxing that income makes far more sense... at least that way there's no one sending it to tax havens.

[Lysistrata]

You are right Niels. The income tax was first introduced in 1861 and the conscription came in 1863. So much for common sense. So Lincoln was a scumbag liberal and somebody should have just shot him in the head. The income tax was repealed in 1872 when it's purpose was complete. This ended the Lincoln blame for income tax. Along came 1894 and Democrats brought it back, but in 1895 it was swiftly deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Then came Woodrow Wilson in 1913 with the 16th amendment to forever burden the American people with power grabbing, and money grubbing liberals, stealing their cash anytime they want. Congratulations.

 

Now let's get back to Hillary and her campaign of never-ending comedy.

[Smurthwaite]

Wow, there is some vitriol in this thread, with both sides towing the party line.

 

So, let's see if we can break down some of the ideas that are flowing, but often not connected to the idea for which they are used as rebuttal:

 

Keep in mind that I consider myself in the middle.  I have voted for both Reps and Dems in both local, state, and national elections.  I try to look at the overall message after the primaries (lord knows that nothing said before the primaries is worth a grain of salt, with the Reps going to the far right and the Dems going to the far left).

 

Here is what I take from this, and in no particular order, as I am simply thinking back over 5 pages:

1) General dislike of President Obama by those of you on the right:

Facts -

 - Obama care will not go away.  It is in fact a moral obligation of citizenry to help citizens who need it most.  Nobody (myself included) seemed willing to do enough to make sure the poorest were taken care of (I realize this is simply a small dent in a much larger conversation, but this is what was mentioned so I thought I would address it.

- The Obama administration has spent more money than they have taken in. (Actually, I am pretty sure Clinton was the only one in my lifetime to not do so, and I remember the Carter administration).

- A Republican led congress hasn't stopped the trend, which makes me think a good bit of the vitriol is that of scapegoatism

- Bengazi was a mess.  Can we get past blame, at this point, and try to secure places like it?  What measures have been taken since to ensure nothing like it happens again?  (That's a genuine question, as I honestly don't know and am only taking a few minutes to post some thoughts; therefore am not going to research).

- Obama is not a socialist.  It is fallacious to call him so simply because one doesn't like his policies.  That would be the equivalent of calling Reagan a fascist.  Neither is true nor fair.

 

The liberals, while not taking as many pot shots, have implied their dislike for Bush:

Facts -

- The economy tanked under the Bush administration's policies.  There can be no doubt that deregulation lead to the shoddy practices.  Revisionist history won't change that.

- Things were pretty good in the Smurthwaite house while Bush was in office.

- Bush's No Child Left Behind Act was the start of the mess that American Education currently finds itself in (it would take me an hour to elaborate on this, but if requested I will do so)

- While we may be in the middle east to protect our assets, i.e. oil, Bush did lead the charge in getting us into 2 wars we could not win (I base this on conversations I have had with many current and veteran military personnel who were involved in either, or both, of the conflicts).

 

Back to the OP:

As somebody who has not come close to deciding who will be the most appropriate candidate in the next election (especially since I guarantee the field will increase), I'll simply post some musing (they are just that, musings):

H. Clinton -

- A popular notion that Hilary will be a puppet of Bill is sophomoric.  She is both smarter and more politically savvy.  Her list of scandals are really not terrible.  Bengazi happened.  It was bungled.  From what I have seen, it was bungled on the ground well-before top US officials were making decisions.  Note that "the buck stops here," is an important political and ethical motive.  She will need to address Bengazi objectively to have make it right with the American people.  As for the other, Whitewater, and the email thing, I would guess that most Americans don't really care.  It'll be those on the far right that whose cries of anger will be the loudest.

- She is not Obama 2.0. It's pretty evident that neither Clinton is especially fond of Obama.  In fact, Obama, as much as Bush, is responsible for undermining some of the more positive fiscal policies of the B. Clinton presidency.  

-The fact that Hilary was able to swallow the pride of Obama's upset, set an ambition FA policy (which admittedly did not come to fruition), and continue to serve to the best capacity (read that as the best office to which she was allowed to serve) will work in her favor, I think.

- Her biggest obstacle will probably overcoming the fact that she is a woman.  There are many places in America that will look at that as a weakness.  I don't know how that will play out.

- She is battle tested.  She has endeared the political gauntlet of running for major office.  She is stronger for it.  I guess that goes back to the comment about smarts and political savvy.

- She hasn't really unveiled much of her platform.  Politically, it is probably smarter to wait for that; however, I can't make up my mind about her until I know more about what her plans will be.

- Even though she hasn't unveiled her platform, there are no viable candidates from the Dems.  Biden was mentioned, but as VP, he was too cartoonized, even though he is rather moderate, is fairly intelligent, and has shown himself willing to work with both sides.

 

Other musings from this thread that I found either funny/ludicrous or interesting:

-  To claim that a man who had Alzheimer's was one of the greatest presidents is nuts.  See my comment about revisionist history.  There is some pretty good writing about the merits and demerits of the "trickle down effect."  Most of them see more demerits than merits (again, except for the farthest right).

- The idea of income tax is moronic.  Anybody who lives in American should be able to objectively step back and see that it is flawed from all sides.  Any system in which those with more are supposed to pay more because they earn more may seem like a good idea, until those with more find ways to actually pay less.

- A flat tax is almost as moronic.  It creates an undue burden on those with less.  They will pay a much greater percentage of their income taxes, which is not fair.

- I have no real solution, though a graduated sales tax would be interesting to explore, where the more luxurious the item, the higher the percentage of sales tax.  I see flaws in this as well, as I am sure many from both sides will tell us about soon.  As I look over it, it seems like it is the least of all evils.  

- Liberalism doesn't equal socialism.  Just because the pundits are full of shit, doesn't mean civilized people should sling it as well.

 

Also, this was supposed to take 5 minutes, and instead took closer to 20.  I hope you enjoy the wall of text.  Have at it.

[Lysistrata]

Wow, there is some vitriol in this thread, with both sides towing the party line.

Greetings Smurthwaite, and welcome to our thread. It's great to have the Screaming Red Asses here to chime in, but shouldn't it be Screaming Blue Asses? Maybe Screaming Red Elephants? Not a lot of vitriol here, but we do have different opinions, and I think we try to respect those. I will now try to unpack this wall of text you dropped on us and give you a little feedback. It's gonna be a long election cycle.

 

So, let's see if we can break down some of the ideas that are flowing, but often not connected to the idea for which they are used as rebuttal:

 

Keep in mind that I consider myself in the middle.  I have voted for both Reps and Dems in both local, state, and national elections.  I try to look at the overall message after the primaries (lord knows that nothing said before the primaries is worth a grain of salt, with the Reps going to the far right and the Dems going to the far left).

I don't believe you about the "middle" thing. Most middle people don't pay close enough attention to take a side, and I can see you take sides on many issues. Middle people will vote for the biggest bad ass, or the one they think will not go to war, or let's make history and elect something different. A lot of times middle people don't even vote... they just have better things to do. I prefer middle people to just stay home. Their stupid vote counts just as much as mine. So I'll just take it as you are a closet Democrat.

 

Here is what I take from this, and in no particular order, as I am simply thinking back over 5 pages:

1) General dislike of President Obama by those of you on the right:

Facts -

 - Obama care will not go away.  It is in fact a moral obligation of citizenry to help citizens who need it most.  Nobody (myself included) seemed willing to do enough to make sure the poorest were taken care of (I realize this is simply a small dent in a much larger conversation, but this is what was mentioned so I thought I would address it.

Obamacare will go away. It only matters which way it will leave. Obamacare was never intended to be successful, it was only intended to win a political victory. They only need it to last long enough to get people used to the government controlling their healthcare. It's designed to destroy employer based health insurance, and mandate people into paying for whatever is available to them. They wanted Universal but could not get it. Then they wanted a Public Option, Scott Brown was elected and killed the chance to do that. They had to go with the incomplete, and extremely unworkable, Senate bill that nobody read and was already passed. The only things in the law that were allowed to take effect were the freebies, all other provisions were delayed. The Democrats never thought they would lose power, and always believed they would just fix things as they went wrong, and keep it alive until the people scream bloody murder for something else... here is Universal Healthcare to the rescue. But no... Republicans took the House in 2010 and they have been in trouble ever since. No party in power should ever say "fuck you" to the other party... it kinda kills bipartisanship.

- The Obama administration has spent more money than they have taken in. (Actually, I am pretty sure Clinton was the only one in my lifetime to not do so, and I remember the Carter administration).

You are correct. I believe it was Ronald Reagan that first started large deficit spending. I'm an honest Republican. Bill Clinton actually worked with his Republican Congress. That's why Billy's spending was kept under control.

- A Republican led congress hasn't stopped the trend, which makes me think a good bit of the vitriol is that of scapegoatism

It has... that's why we have decreasing deficits. Republicans actually draw up, and approve budgets. The Senate Democrats totally ignored the responsibility for 4 years.

- Bengazi was a mess.  Can we get past blame, at this point, and try to secure places like it?  What measures have been taken since to ensure nothing like it happens again?  (That's a genuine question, as I honestly don't know and am only taking a few minutes to post some thoughts; therefore am not going to research).

No we can't get past Benghazi until we know the truth. It will never happen again because an American Ambassador will never be in that situation again. Stevens was not at the embassy in Tripoli, he was at a residence compound in Benghazi. The only people around him was his aide and CIA personnel. Why was he there with nothing but CIA? Maybe smuggling weapons out to Syrian rebels? Can you say... illegal? Who gave the order to stand down and not go in to help them? Who decided it was best to call it "a protest of an internet video"? This was flat out lies and cover up. There will be a reckoning.

- Obama is not a socialist.  It is fallacious to call him so simply because one doesn't like his policies.  That would be the equivalent of calling Reagan a fascist.  Neither is true nor fair.

Obama has made jokes about being a socialist. Every proud socialist supports his socialist policies... so if it walks like a duck... you know the rest. Ronald Reagan never had fascist policies, so the label does not fit. I don't like his socialist policies.

 

The liberals, while not taking as many pot shots, have implied their dislike for Bush:

Facts -

- The economy tanked under the Bush administration's policies.  There can be no doubt that deregulation lead to the shoddy practices.  Revisionist history won't change that.

- Things were pretty good in the Smurthwaite house while Bush was in office.

- Bush's No Child Left Behind Act was the start of the mess that American Education currently finds itself in (it would take me an hour to elaborate on this, but if requested I will do so)

Dumb teachers create dumb kids. We are overwhelmed with both.

- While we may be in the middle east to protect our assets, i.e. oil, Bush did lead the charge in getting us into 2 wars we could not win (I base this on conversations I have had with many current and veteran military personnel who were involved in either, or both, of the conflicts).

Bush is not President anymore. The mission in Afghanistan was to eliminate al Qaeda and kill bin Laden. The mission in Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein and the threat of WMD's. Both are wins in my book. I never thought we should stay there, and Obama owns the situation now for pulling out without a plan.

 

Back to the OP:

As somebody who has not come close to deciding who will be the most appropriate candidate in the next election (especially since I guarantee the field will increase), I'll simply post some musing (they are just that, musings):

H. Clinton -

- A popular notion that Hilary will be a puppet of Bill is sophomoric.  She is both smarter and more politically savvy.  Her list of scandals are really not terrible.  Bengazi happened.  It was bungled.  From what I have seen, it was bungled on the ground well-before top US officials were making decisions.  Note that "the buck stops here," is an important political and ethical motive.  She will need to address Bengazi objectively to have make it right with the American people.  As for the other, Whitewater, and the email thing, I would guess that most Americans don't really care.  It'll be those on the far right that whose cries of anger will be the loudest.

- She is not Obama 2.0. It's pretty evident that neither Clinton is especially fond of Obama.  In fact, Obama, as much as Bush, is responsible for undermining some of the more positive fiscal policies of the B. Clinton presidency.  

-The fact that Hilary was able to swallow the pride of Obama's upset, set an ambition FA policy (which admittedly did not come to fruition), and continue to serve to the best capacity (read that as the best office to which she was allowed to serve) will work in her favor, I think.

- Her biggest obstacle will probably overcoming the fact that she is a woman.  There are many places in America that will look at that as a weakness.  I don't know how that will play out.

- She is battle tested.  She has endeared the political gauntlet of running for major office.  She is stronger for it.  I guess that goes back to the comment about smarts and political savvy.

- She hasn't really unveiled much of her platform.  Politically, it is probably smarter to wait for that; however, I can't make up my mind about her until I know more about what her plans will be.

- Even though she hasn't unveiled her platform, there are no viable candidates from the Dems.  Biden was mentioned, but as VP, he was too cartoonized, even though he is rather moderate, is fairly intelligent, and has shown himself willing to work with both sides.

Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, and has never accomplished a thing. She would be nothing if it were not for her pathological lying husband.

 

Other musings from this thread that I found either funny/ludicrous or interesting:

-  To claim that a man who had Alzheimer's was one of the greatest presidents is nuts.  See my comment about revisionist history.  There is some pretty good writing about the merits and demerits of the "trickle down effect."  Most of them see more demerits than merits (again, except for the farthest right).

This is just a cheap shot. You are showing your colors. Reagan is listed close to the top of any greatest president surveys. I voted for him twice.

- The idea of income tax is moronic.  Anybody who lives in American should be able to objectively step back and see that it is flawed from all sides.  Any system in which those with more are supposed to pay more because they earn more may seem like a good idea, until those with more find ways to actually pay less.

- A flat tax is almost as moronic.  It creates an undue burden on those with less.  They will pay a much greater percentage of their income taxes, which is not fair.

Wow... you're first conservative view of an issue. I hate all income tax. The flat tax would be better than what we have now, but it would keep the IRS around, and I want that gone. It's been proven that the IRS is being used as a horrible weapon against political opponents, and it has to go. National sales tax would be best. Rich people buy more stuff and would pay far more taxes than poor. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and all that under the table money pays taxes just like everyone else. Everyone buys stuff. No tax on things that sustain life... like food. People like me that hate taxes can actually say... "I'm not gonna pay taxes this week"... I just don't buy anything that week and nobody goes to jail for making money.

- I have no real solution, though a graduated sales tax would be interesting to explore, where the more luxurious the item, the higher the percentage of sales tax.  I see flaws in this as well, as I am sure many from both sides will tell us about soon.  As I look over it, it seems like it is the least of all evils.  

- Liberalism doesn't equal socialism.  Just because the pundits are full of shit, doesn't mean civilized people should sling it as well.

 

Also, this was supposed to take 5 minutes, and instead took closer to 20.  I hope you enjoy the wall of text.  Have at it.

We don't agree on many things, but thank you so much for sharing with us.

Edited by Lysistrata, 17 April 2015 - 04:57 AM.

[TheWanderer]

So many interesting points of view. I particularly enjoy Lys' forthright take on things as the conservative right is portrayed quite negativey to those of us who reside outside the US.

 

I'll get to see it all first hand in 2016 as I'm moving to the US for the next 4-5 years this coming July. I'll be picking all your brains

[Lysistrata]

So many interesting points of view. I particularly enjoy Lys' forthright take on things as the conservative right is portrayed quite negativey to those of us who reside outside the US.

 

I'll get to see it all first hand in 2016 as I'm moving to the US for the next 4-5 years this coming July. I'll be picking all your brains

Where will you live? If you ever make it to Las Vegas... we will have some fun.

[TheWanderer]

 

So many interesting points of view. I particularly enjoy Lys' forthright take on things as the conservative right is portrayed quite negativey to those of us who reside outside the US.

 

I'll get to see it all first hand in 2016 as I'm moving to the US for the next 4-5 years this coming July. I'll be picking all your brains

Where will you live? If you ever make it to Las Vegas... we will have some fun.

 

I'll be moving to Santa Barbara. Oh, I'll definitely be making it to Las Vegas, so I'll hold you to that!

[Lysistrata]

Wow... Santa Barbara is beautiful. Dennis Miller lives there. I come from Southern California. I'm actually going there next month. My daughter is coming here from Washington and we're all going to Disneyland, then Hollywood, then Sonoma. 4 kids and they all visit at different times. Strange, but we'll all be together for Christmas. You would be the first I actually meet from CN.

[Niels]

You are right Niels. The income tax was first introduced in 1861 and the conscription came in 1863. So much for common sense. So Lincoln was a scumbag liberal and somebody should have just shot him in the head.

I assume this is an unfunny John Wilkes Booth joke or something.

 

I haven't been having this back-and-forth because I want to claim Lincoln as some sort of uber-Progressive champion; I've been having it because I objected to the assertion that all of Lincoln's actions and deeds fit into a box labelled "conservative" and specifically, an even smaller box of "Early 21st century American conservative."  Doing so is, as I've tried to show, incorrect, and also, diminishes the man that Lincoln was.  Lincoln succeeded in holding the Union together because he was open to ideas about how the war could best be waged, and although idealistic in many ways, he did not let these overwhelm the need to take pragmatic action based on a combination of personal thoughts and advisement by trusted members of his administration.
He was willing to take risks, try new paths when the old ways of doing things proved insufficient (as in the case of the introduction of the income tax).  He wasn't just a mindless automaton pulling a conservative policy lever over and over again until victory was achieved.  He was, as often the case, an interesting and complicated man, personally, publicly, and politically.

[Lysistrata]

You didn't like my joke? It must have been the scumbag liberal thing you didn't like, but you are bending over backwards to lay praise on a Republican, and that must be the part that angers you. Relax... there is no one left alive that even knew the man. The risk Lincoln took was accepting the Presidency. He didn't "hold the union together"... he ripped it apart with selfish indignation. He caused the Civil War. He knew that accepting the Presidency would cause the nation to split, and he did it anyway. He tore up the Constitution and laid waste to half his own country. He's directly responsible for the deaths of 620,000 Americans. But he did abolish slavery. A wiser man would have accomplished that in an economic fashion.

 

Another President that didn't do much but is enshrined in unearned posterity is John F. Kennedy.

He lost Cuba, cut taxes, and got shot. Let's put that dude on a 50 cent piece.

[Niels]

You didn't like my joke? It must have been the scumbag liberal thing you didn't like, but you are bending over backwards to lay praise on a Republican, and that must be the part that angers you. Relax... there is no one left alive that even knew the man. The risk Lincoln took was accepting the Presidency. He didn't "hold the union together"... he ripped it apart with selfish indignation. He caused the Civil War. He knew that accepting the Presidency would cause the nation to split, and he did it anyway. He tore up the Constitution and laid waste to half his own country. He's directly responsible for the deaths of 620,000 Americans. But he did abolish slavery. A wiser man would have accomplished that in an economic fashion.

 

Another President that didn't do much but is enshrined in unearned posterity is John F. Kennedy.

He lost Cuba, cut taxes, and got shot. Let's put that dude on a 50 cent piece.

 

Please consider not being so incorrect: Batista was driven from Cuba on January 1, 1959.  JFK didn't assume the presidency until 1961.  Now maybe the Bay of Pigs Invasion could have been successful given different levels of support or different circumstances, but Cuba was lost way before the Kennedy administration even began.

 

As for the rest of your commentary on Lincoln, I'll just remind you of an earlier statement of yours:

and the only thing Abraham Lincoln was liberal with was killing Democrats.

Presumably this means that tearing up the Constitution and laying waste to half the country are conservative values now, since it would be intellectually inconsistent to call them liberalism?  If that's what you'd like your thesis to be, that's fine I suppose, though I will let you know that I don't subscribe to this notion.

[onbekende]

darn it Niels, the non-american people demand shouting across ravines from Dem/Rep people, not some attempt at getting both to understand and perhaps, *gasp*, work together.

 

the US isn't ready for compromise, let alone a coalition across party lines.

[Lysistrata]

I'm sorry Niels, I was being short and to the point. He lost his attempt to gain influence in Cuba to the Russians. Better?

I did forget another accomplishment... Viet Nam.

 

It seems to me you have placed a bullseye on my forehead. Did I wrong you in some other life? I will have to cruise the comment section of 538 and see if you stalk other conservatives over there with meaningless banter of parsing and contradicting everything they say. Do you wish to prove you're smarter than me? You win. Now that we have that out of the way, I have always been a big fan Lincoln's policies, but I have never been a fan of his methods. Now back to today... I have a question for you, let's see if you can be honest too.

 

Does Hillary Clinton lie?

[Shahenshah]

Wow, there is some vitriol in this thread, with both sides towing the party line.

So, let's see if we can break down some of the ideas that are flowing, but often not connected to the idea for which they are used as rebuttal:

Keep in mind that I consider myself in the middle. I have voted for both Reps and Dems in both local, state, and national elections. I try to look at the overall message after the primaries (lord knows that nothing said before the primaries is worth a grain of salt, with the Reps going to the far right and the Dems going to the far left).

Here is what I take from this, and in no particular order, as I am simply thinking back over 5 pages:
1) General dislike of President Obama by those of you on the right:
Facts -
- Obama care will not go away. It is in fact a moral obligation of citizenry to help citizens who need it most. Nobody (myself included) seemed willing to do enough to make sure the poorest were taken care of (I realize this is simply a small dent in a much larger conversation, but this is what was mentioned so I thought I would address it.
- The Obama administration has spent more money than they have taken in. (Actually, I am pretty sure Clinton was the only one in my lifetime to not do so, and I remember the Carter administration).
- A Republican led congress hasn't stopped the trend, which makes me think a good bit of the vitriol is that of scapegoatism
- Bengazi was a mess. Can we get past blame, at this point, and try to secure places like it? What measures have been taken since to ensure nothing like it happens again? (That's a genuine question, as I honestly don't know and am only taking a few minutes to post some thoughts; therefore am not going to research).
- Obama is not a socialist. It is fallacious to call him so simply because one doesn't like his policies. That would be the equivalent of calling Reagan a fascist. Neither is true nor fair.

The liberals, while not taking as many pot shots, have implied their dislike for Bush:
Facts -
- The economy tanked under the Bush administration's policies. There can be no doubt that deregulation lead to the shoddy practices. Revisionist history won't change that.
- Things were pretty good in the Smurthwaite house while Bush was in office.
- Bush's No Child Left Behind Act was the start of the mess that American Education currently finds itself in (it would take me an hour to elaborate on this, but if requested I will do so)
- While we may be in the middle east to protect our assets, i.e. oil, Bush did lead the charge in getting us into 2 wars we could not win (I base this on conversations I have had with many current and veteran military personnel who were involved in either, or both, of the conflicts).

Back to the OP:
As somebody who has not come close to deciding who will be the most appropriate candidate in the next election (especially since I guarantee the field will increase), I'll simply post some musing (they are just that, musings):
H. Clinton -
- A popular notion that Hilary will be a puppet of Bill is sophomoric. She is both smarter and more politically savvy. Her list of scandals are really not terrible. Bengazi happened. It was bungled. From what I have seen, it was bungled on the ground well-before top US officials were making decisions. Note that "the buck stops here," is an important political and ethical motive. She will need to address Bengazi objectively to have make it right with the American people. As for the other, Whitewater, and the email thing, I would guess that most Americans don't really care. It'll be those on the far right that whose cries of anger will be the loudest.
- She is not Obama 2.0. It's pretty evident that neither Clinton is especially fond of Obama. In fact, Obama, as much as Bush, is responsible for undermining some of the more positive fiscal policies of the B. Clinton presidency.
-The fact that Hilary was able to swallow the pride of Obama's upset, set an ambition FA policy (which admittedly did not come to fruition), and continue to serve to the best capacity (read that as the best office to which she was allowed to serve) will work in her favor, I think.
- Her biggest obstacle will probably overcoming the fact that she is a woman. There are many places in America that will look at that as a weakness. I don't know how that will play out.
- She is battle tested. She has endeared the political gauntlet of running for major office. She is stronger for it. I guess that goes back to the comment about smarts and political savvy.
- She hasn't really unveiled much of her platform. Politically, it is probably smarter to wait for that; however, I can't make up my mind about her until I know more about what her plans will be.
- Even though she hasn't unveiled her platform, there are no viable candidates from the Dems. Biden was mentioned, but as VP, he was too cartoonized, even though he is rather moderate, is fairly intelligent, and has shown himself willing to work with both sides.

Other musings from this thread that I found either funny/ludicrous or interesting:
- To claim that a man who had Alzheimer's was one of the greatest presidents is nuts. See my comment about revisionist history. There is some pretty good writing about the merits and demerits of the "trickle down effect." Most of them see more demerits than merits (again, except for the farthest right).
- The idea of income tax is moronic. Anybody who lives in American should be able to objectively step back and see that it is flawed from all sides. Any system in which those with more are supposed to pay more because they earn more may seem like a good idea, until those with more find ways to actually pay less.
- A flat tax is almost as moronic. It creates an undue burden on those with less. They will pay a much greater percentage of their income taxes, which is not fair.
- I have no real solution, though a graduated sales tax would be interesting to explore, where the more luxurious the item, the higher the percentage of sales tax. I see flaws in this as well, as I am sure many from both sides will tell us about soon. As I look over it, it seems like it is the least of all evils.
- Liberalism doesn't equal socialism. Just because the pundits are full of shit, doesn't mean civilized people should sling it as well.

Also, this was supposed to take 5 minutes, and instead took closer to 20. I hope you enjoy the wall of text. Have at it.

One of the best posts here.

I would just add that Bush gets blamed more than he deserves, he was a weak president, white house was run by VP, Rumsfeld and the whole associated incompetent clique. When historians will be asked to plot a point 500 years from now on what was the turned point/almost caused a turning point in American hegemony, it will be a republican called Dick Cheney whose name will make it to the top, followed by Rumsfeld.

Anyway, I think for Republicans, Jeb Bush will carry the nominations. He seems to be plotting his way to relatively more mainstream shades of politics than catering to extremists in the con camp.


Hillary will be undone by the past baggage, there got to be someone else amongst democrats. I sincerely hope there is before another war mongering neocon plunges the world further in to chaos, bloodshed and wanton destruction once more, we're hardly done dealing with the consequences of the past interventions.


Lys, name one politician who doesn't lie? Its like asking..do humans breathe? And since when is lying a big problem? When past republican administrations can take the entire nation to war on a lie and blow trillion dollars just koz. Its really unfair to call out Hillary for a lie. Its nothing but incredible partisan nitpicking for the sake of empty rhetoric that has hecome hallmark of the right, you're better than that.

Edited by Shahenshah, 18 April 2015 - 05:31 AM.

[Lysistrata]

Hi Shah. I believe Usama bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. I believe he planned and executed that attack from a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. I believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. and our interests in the Middle East. We went to war for these reasons. This is what was told to me by G.W. Bush, and I still believe him. Do you have any evidence that he lied?

 

"And since when is lying a big problem?" Really Shah? You believe that lying is okay? Hillary has not told "a" lie... she has a lifetime of lies. They are not the kind of little white ones, like what she had for dinner. They are big ones, like how an Ambassador died and what countries have given millions of dollars to her. There are many more. Trying to justify lying by pointing at other people that have told lies is a bad defense. First qualification for a world leader is can they be trusted.

[DeathMerchant]

I should point out that the US went into Iraq because of supposed WMDs. Which actually were found, but for some reason the Pentagon covered it up. It only surfaced last year that the reports were indeed true. The US Government claims that by the time they were discovered, the mission in Iraq had moved onto the rebuilding stage, so they chose not to make the findings public.

 

Which was a rather dumb decision in my mind. There still are tons of people I tell that story to and no one has any idea. One would think with how badly the war was percieved, a small success story would have been pushed for frontline news.

[Blade 619]

I should point out that the US went into Iraq because of supposed WMDs. Which actually were found, but for some reason the Pentagon covered it up. It only surfaced last year that the reports were indeed true. The US Government claims that by the time they were discovered, the mission in Iraq had moved onto the rebuilding stage, so they chose not to make the findings public.

You're gonna need to reference that for anyone to believe it.