462 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

Was more amused at the flic-flac he did with the pope commentary, kinda lashing out (rather restraint for my knowledge of his lashes ) but just a couple hours later stating he was honoured to have been mentioned by the pope.

 

As for the foreighn public making commentary on US Presidential Elections, I have said it before, you guys got the top spot and that means everyone is interested for whats in it for them when either side wins (or loses rather).

[Lysistrata]

South Carolina is in the history books... and Donald Trump killed it.

 

Donald Trump - 32.5%

Marco Rubio - 22.5%

Ted Cruz - 22.3%

Jeb Bush - 7.8%

John Kasich - 7.6%

Ben Carson - 7.2%

 

Now looking at these numbers you would say it wasn't such a big win... but looking at the county map, and the delegates won... it wasn't even remotely a contest. Donald Trump won every county but 2... and those 2 were won by Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz did not win a single county. At least 44 of the 50 delegates are going to Trump. They have not finished counting votes yet, so I guess it could be more. I will start tracking delegate counts because it will really start meaning something now.

 

Jeb Bush has pulled out of the race... he really should have done it after New Hampshire if he was serious about stopping Trump, but some people just don't get it. A third Bush was feeling like the third Kennedy. So ends the Bush Dynasty... Thank God.

[Sir Robert de Dudley]

Carson and Kasich should be next, but some people want Carson to stay in not sure why? Rubio would probably then become the establishment guy at that point. But like you said I am with you now Trump will most likely become the Republican nominee despite my worst fears. 

[ccabal86]

Yeah, the Pope really shouldn't meddle in world politics, not his area of expertise to put it mildly.

[onbekende]

Yeah, the Pope really shouldn't meddle in world politics, not his area of expertise to put it mildly.

Guy has more followers then any other figure of state...

 

That said, he meddled less with world politics and actual went for a character assasination

[Lysistrata]

Delegate Count This Week

 

Donald Trump - 67*

Ted Cruz - 11

Marco Rubio - 10

John Kasich - 5

Ben Carson - 3

 

1,237 needed to win the nomination

 

*Updated from original post... they gave Trump all 50 delegates from South Carolina.

[Icewolf]

Yeah, the Pope really shouldn't meddle in world politics, not his area of expertise to put it mildly.

He really didn't. He made a specifically said that he was not saying how to vote and then made a generic statement that Christians should think about building bridges and not just walls.

The media then proceeded to go nuts because the reality doesn't get the viewers in.

[Lysistrata]

"A person who only thinks about building walls, and does not focus on building bridges... is not a Christian".

 

The Pope said, very clearly, that Donald Trump is not a Christian. I don't believe it's the Pope's business to be laying down judgment on anyone's faith that is running for President of the USA. It was purely a political move because South Carolina is right flank of the entire Bible Belt. The Pope happens to be a big supporter of the Global Redistribution of Wealth scheme... you know that Paris climate crap? If Trump is elected President... these clowns lose billions of dollars... so yeah, they want to stop him.

 

The Pope doesn't realize that Trump also builds bridges. He's a builder.

[Rafay]

Jeb Bush has pulled out of the race... he really should have done it after New Hampshire if he was serious about stopping Trump, but some people just don't get it. A third Bush was feeling like the third Kennedy. So ends the Bush Dynasty... Thank God.

 

Just like the Kennedy dynasty, it was a sad ending. Even though I'm not a conservative and not a fan of Bushes that much but this tore my heart.

[Icewolf]

"A person who only thinks about building walls, and does not focus on building bridges... is not a Christian".

 

The Pope said, very clearly, that Donald Trump is not a Christian. I don't believe it's the Pope's business to be laying down judgment on anyone's faith that is running for President of the USA. It was purely a political move because South Carolina is right flank of the entire Bible Belt. The Pope happens to be a big supporter of the Global Redistribution of Wealth scheme... you know that Paris climate crap? If Trump is elected President... these clowns lose billions of dollars... so yeah, they want to stop him.

 

The Pope doesn't realize that Trump also builds bridges. He's a builder.

Here is the full quote. 

 

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this is man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt"

 

 

(Apologies for the highlighting, not sure how to undo it). 

 

So he very clearly does not say that Trump is not a Christian...unless you are declaring that Trump is a man who only wants to build walls. This is a media created controversy and nothing more. 

 

I mean you wouldn't be surprised that some might consider a man who consistently bears false witness, mocks the disabled and brags about how rich he is (Camels, eyes of needles anyone) might have his Christian Credentials questioned by some, but the Pope has not done that. 

[onbekende]

I don't believe it's the Pope's business to be laying down judgment on anyone's faith that is running for President of the USA.

.
Wait, you do know what a Pope is right? If someone gets to pass judgement on a persons faith, its the guy in charge of the darn thing in the first place. Guess excommunications were just a fancy notice about not wanting that person over for biscuits?
.

It was purely a political move because South Carolina is right flank of the entire Bible Belt. The Pope happens to be a big supporter of the Global Redistribution of Wealth scheme... you know that Paris climate crap? If Trump is elected President... these clowns lose billions of dollars... so yeah, they want to stop him.

.
Why do people think socialism is taking money from rich geezer A to poor sod Z. It's about society, you just think its theft cause you don't like it on a personal level.
 
As for the Paris climate crap, heared the story about Januari 2016? Warmest Januari ever in recorded history, 4th month in which the global average temperature was more then 1°C ABOVE the average of all recorded history. Know which months were also >1°C above average? The 3 preceding months!
 
As for possible conspiracy theories or whatever, your "side" has clowns aswell, clowns who could lose profits earned on short-term visions off "profit, profit, PROFIT!!!" ideology.
.

The Pope doesn't realize that Trump also builds bridges. He's a builder.

.

His company does? Thought he was just real estate and general investment?

[Lysistrata]

The Pope can pass judgment on whoever, or wherever, he wants in the Catholic Church. Donald Trump is not Catholic.

Here is the entire quote on video Ice... 0:20-0:35

[Decide R Inchief]

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

[Lysistrata]

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party.

[Decide R Inchief]

 

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party.

 

I think it says a lot that you think a centrist corporatist moderate like either of the Clintons or Obama is anywhere approaching leftist. Either one is no more socialist than Eisenhower was. (Incidentally, another centrist moderate)

[Lysistrata]

 

 

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party.

 

I think it says a lot that you think a centrist corporatist moderate like either of the Clintons or Obama is anywhere approaching leftist. Either one is no more socialist than Eisenhower was. (Incidentally, another centrist moderate)

 

I really don't care where you want to designate your version of center... it's all led up to 20 trillion in debt, over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and I will do all I can to stop it. We can't keep printing money to take care of an unproductive society. Time to put on your grown up clothes and act like responsible adults.

[Decide R Inchief]

 

 

 

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party.

 

I think it says a lot that you think a centrist corporatist moderate like either of the Clintons or Obama is anywhere approaching leftist. Either one is no more socialist than Eisenhower was. (Incidentally, another centrist moderate)

 

I really don't care where you want to designate your version of center... it's all led up to 20 trillion in debt, over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and I will do all I can to stop it. We can't keep printing money to take care of an unproductive society. Time to put on your grown up clothes and act like responsible adults.

 

Both parties only care about deficits when they are not the majority party in Congress. I point to Bush's unfunded tax giveaway to the wealthy and his unfunded war in Iraq two as recent big examples of the 'unfunded liabilities' you claim to despise.

 

It is worthy of note the last president to turn in a budget surplus was Clinton, who is the devil incarnate in your world.

 

I have not seen a plan from any of the candidates running that will address your above concerns, unless you count Trump's apparent plan to "renegotiate better deals" with everyone. :rollseyes:

[Niels]

Further, the conditions where there was a surplus under Clinton were three-fold:

(1) Decreased government spending, due to welfare reform and lower defense budgets following the end of the cold war.
(2) An increase in taxes (top tax bracket rose from 28% under Reagan to 32% on GHWB to 39% under Clinton).
(3) Economic boom due to computer and internet based productivity gains.

 

Given that the surplus was small and short-lived (it didn't survive an economic downturn or return with a good economy, but lowered taxes under GWB), it would likely not have occurred without all three components.

 

Now, Lysistrata, if your main concern is the federal debt, how serious are you on actually addressing it?
Part 1: You really like decreased government spending, except when you don't.  You want more military spending, more spending on veterans, construction of a wall.  We'll put you down as not serious about actually decreasing government spending considering you don't want actual across-the-board cuts and favor greater benefits for at least one group of citizens (not that there is anything wrong with caring about veterans).
Part 2: You really want decreased taxation.  We'll come back to that.
Part 3: Well, you don't get control over the boom and bust cycle, so it may be that even with whatever optimal arrangement of tax & spending policy you choose still might not result in surpluses.

 

Lets return to point 2: the level of taxation.  I assume you are someone who believes in the Laffer Curve analysis:
1. If the government taxes at 0%, the government collects no money.
2. If the government taxes at 100%, there is no (reported) economic activity, and the government collects no money.
3. Therefore, there is some tax rate that generates the most government revenue, which then can be used to diminish the debt.

 

Your questions then are:
What is that optimal tax rate?  (Remember, you have to collect money to pay down the debt, you said it was important)
How confident are you in this number?
If you knew the number accurately, and it was higher than current effective tax rates, would you support raising taxes to that value?

We'll then know if you are serious on part (2) of diminishing the federal debt, because you better be, given that you are not actually serious about part (1) with that excess defense and related spending you've advocated for.

[Lysistrata]

Bush sent everyone that files a tax return a rebate check as his "stimulus"... yes they went out to Democrats too. I guess you believe anyone who files a tax return is wealthy. Obama on the other hand, wrote a trillion dollars worth of checks out to his supporters and special interests as his "stimulus". I was against all of it. Unless of course you are talking about the Bush tax cuts, which is not a "giveaway"... a tax cut is stealing less of other people's money. You guys always think it's your money.

 

I said Hillary Clinton was evil incarnate... Bill is just an old sex offender that can barely talk. Can you believe him and Donald Trump are the same age?, and why is Hillary always coughing up a lung and then can barely hiss during her speeches?

 

Hi Niels! Bill Clinton did welfare reform and signed budgets that contained a surplus because he had a Republican controlled Congress that wrote and passed them. He never would have done any of that if he didn't lose all of Congress in '94. Remember... he didn't have sex with that woman!

 

I have said this before... Everything Trump says he will do is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Get it? That's what they are supposed to spend money on. Mexico will pay for the wall... and I believe him. There are trade agreements with Mexico, and Trump will get the money to pay for the wall. For anyone just to say he can't, or won't, is pure speculation at this point. Wouldn't you love to spend the next four years, waiting for him to not do it, so you can say you were right? I love you man!

[Niels]

Hi Niels! Bill Clinton did welfare reform and signed budgets that contained a surplus because he had a Republican controlled Congress that wrote and passed them. He never would have done any of that if he didn't lose all of Congress in '94. Remember... he didn't have sex with that woman!

 

I have said this before... Everything Trump says he will do is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Get it? That's what they are supposed to spend money on. Mexico will pay for the wall... and I believe him. There are trade agreements with Mexico, and Trump will get the money to pay for the wall. For anyone just to say he can't, or won't, is pure speculation at this point. Wouldn't you love to spend the next four years, waiting for him to not do it, so you can say you were right? I love you man!

 

Yes, the fact that there was shared responsibility by Clinton, a Republican congress, and general macroeconomic trends is why I called it "the surplus under Clinton" not "the surplus because of Clinton."

Okay - so defense spending is a federal responsibility - no argument there.  But, does that mean we should spend eleventy-zillion dollars on it?  No - because that number (if it were real) would bankrupt the country.
So, I will ask once again - are you serious about addressing the federal debt or not?  And if it were determined that raising taxes to do so was needed, would you advocate for such?

(Or do you not actually care about the debt, and just say you do, while insisting that we need more spending on aircraft carriers, etc.?  Fun fact: government spending on armaments is like any government spending - it adds to the debt you sometimes rail against.)