09 Jun 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt was the best of times, it was the worse of times.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBK1P00Nbw
a wonderful piece on why the US deserves Trump v Clinton. (and later on, a very likely four year period of Trump)
I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president but Trump? It seems there are no real choices, nobody pops out as presidential. I wouldn't mind Sanders but he would have to have both houses to get anything done.
I am hoping people will wake up and smell the non-existent coffee of the present congress. What a bunch of asssholes. We need to clear the whole bunch out and start over.
I am all for ditching democracy anyway. Install a system of lotteries. That way nobody will be bought out, at least for the first week🙂 Hey, Joe Plumber, you are now president.
Could it possibly be worse than the horse pucky government we have now?
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhouse"I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
It was the best of times, it was the worse of times.....
I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president but Drumpf? It seems there are no real choices, nobody pops out as presidential. I wouldn't mind Sanders but he would have to have both houses to get anything done.
I am hoping people will wake up and smell the non-existen ...[text shortened]... ou are now president.
Could it possibly be worse than the horse pucky government we have now?
why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?
you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat has the persons sex got to do with this position? Why do you feel it is important to define a person by their sex?
"I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?
you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWould your choice when voting be swayed by the sex of a candidate?
"I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?
you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut Elizabeth Warren didn't run... Clinton did.
"I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?
you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
Clinton has resoundingly won the Democratic primary with a clear majority of support from that party.
She clearly has flaws, and the voters chose her anyway.
From where I stand she's a fairly standard centre right moderate fairly uninspiring manager politician.
The world is full of them, they tend to be forgotten by history due to not really doing a lot and being
boring, but that's no great evil. Obviously it's deeply frustrating for those who want great change,
particularly for those on the actual progressive left, given they now have a choice between a moderate
centre right president or a whacko-loonytoons-racist-sexist-mysogenist-loose-cannon president leading
a super crazy far right/authoritarian/regressive/anti-government party. Which isn't inspiring.
But that's what you get with a two party system.
If the people who want a real left of centre progressive got their wish the factions in the Democratic party
that want a moderate centre-right candidate will likely be equally upset. Both parties are made of coalitions
of people who really aught to be in their own separate parties but can't be as there are only two.
And the USA has a system designed to pretty much guarantee that that is always the case.
However, when it comes to voting in December, [and bearing in mind that the President doesn't actually
write the laws or the budget, although they do interpret and implement them] you have a choice of voting
for a boring mainstream politician.... Or a total and utter catastrophe.
There is no choice for any sane or moral person but to vote Hillary.
Anyone thinking those two are equivalently bad has gotten so deeply lost in the weeds that they just cannot
see strait.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBK1P00Nbw
a wonderful piece on why the US deserves Trump v Clinton. (and later on, a very likely four year period of Trump)
With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyThat is because you are ignorant of history as well as economics and morality.
I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.
With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
The absolute size of the debt is not a problem, the USA does not have [as a nation] a debt problem.
One way you can tell is the ludicrously low interest rates your government still gets for borrowing more.
What matters is how big the debt is relative to your ability to keep up with payments, the size of
your economy. And on those terms your debt is not a problem.
I mean it's generally better to have a smaller debt than a larger one, but not always, and there are
far more important considerations... That money was borrowed FOR something after all.
I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.
And yet all the moral improvements in your country are in removing and replacing the immoral practices
and beliefs of your religious 'heritage'. The failures of your education system are vastly the fault of the
republican party and those religions that YOU support. And that your country was founded by secularists
who wanted religions as far removed from politic and ethics as they could possibly get them.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeI see, so the failure of the education system is due to religion and the GOP and the US does not have a debt problem at $20 trillion.
That is because you are ignorant of history as well as economics and morality.
The absolute size of the debt is not a problem, the USA does not have [as a nation] a debt problem.
One way you can tell is the ludicrously low interest rates your government still gets for borrowing more.
What matters is how big the debt is relative to your ability to ke ...[text shortened]... s
who wanted religions as far removed from politic and ethics as they could possibly get them.
Thanks for that.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyThe US federal debt is comparable to a car plant worker having a $50k mortgage, except with a much lower interest rate. We've explained this ad nauseam.
I see, so the failure of the education system is due to religion and the GOP and the US does not have a debt problem at $20 trillion.
Thanks for that.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodey"With a $20 trillion debt,"
I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.
With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
you have no idea how national debt works.