2016 Presidential Candidate

[Jack]

insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves. 

Who besides trump?

Any candidate who has failed to publicly and vociferously condemn him for it (in the way that they condemned him for dissing McCain). In this case, Trump's statements were so outrageous that silence is tacit agreement.

Failing to condemn someone is not the same as agreeing with them. 

Trump has a big mouth.  You can't attack every one of his outrageous statements.

Point taken about Trump's big mouth. However, the choice to condemn the dissing of McCain instead of the dissing of the entire Mexican race speaks volumes.

[Eric]

People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence.  I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.

Wow... just wow.

That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."

On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:

Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.

I'm confused.  Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?

Indeed you are confused. Specifically, you're failing to understand that it is in fact possible for someone to rationally believe that a policy is worthwhile despite it having some bad side effects. In this case, it's entirely possible for a rational person to believe that the lives lost due to such a policy would be worth it in return for the benefits of such a policy (perhaps not the least of which is that failing to take a hard line in upholding the 2nd Amendment encourages the government to abuse the rest of our rights).

Note that in this argument I'm accepting your premise that letting felons et. al. buy guns would in fact increase deaths associated with guns. The validity of such a premise is certainly debatable -- and Chris22 apparently wants to debate it -- but I'm saying that even if that premise is accepted, the argument in the previous paragraph still stands!

Also note that I'm not saying anyone has to agree with such a position (and I'm also not saying that I hold that position!), I'm just saying you can't reject the validity of its existence.

Okay, even if you determine that it's "worth it", you've still decided that more gun violence is better than less.  I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

More to the point, we both know that it's no accident that you created a strawman to frame the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. There's a big fucking difference between prohibiting felons from buying guns and Chicago-style gun control and a wide range of possible policies between, but you're trying to create a false dichotomy that the only choices are zero guns or Somali-style anarchy.

Please point out said strawman.  I created no dichotomy.  I even specifically stated that I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment.  I have no idea how you drew this conclusion.

And as fun as this silly semantics argument has been, it would've been more fun if either you or Chris would've read what I wrote instead of reading into what I wrote and attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

[Jack]

People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence.  I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.

Wow... just wow.

That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."

On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:

Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.

I'm confused.  Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?

Indeed you are confused. Specifically, you're failing to understand that it is in fact possible for someone to rationally believe that a policy is worthwhile despite it having some bad side effects. In this case, it's entirely possible for a rational person to believe that the lives lost due to such a policy would be worth it in return for the benefits of such a policy (perhaps not the least of which is that failing to take a hard line in upholding the 2nd Amendment encourages the government to abuse the rest of our rights).

Note that in this argument I'm accepting your premise that letting felons et. al. buy guns would in fact increase deaths associated with guns. The validity of such a premise is certainly debatable -- and Chris22 apparently wants to debate it -- but I'm saying that even if that premise is accepted, the argument in the previous paragraph still stands!

Also note that I'm not saying anyone has to agree with such a position (and I'm also not saying that I hold that position!), I'm just saying you can't reject the validity of its existence.

Okay, even if you determine that it's "worth it", you've still decided that more gun violence is better than less.  I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

I'm not sure how to make it more clear that it's incredibly fucking disingenuous to extract that from its context and consider it in isolation.

Here, I'll do it to you: apparently, you think less gun violence is better than more, full stop, no exceptions. That means even when said gun violence would be in self-defense. Clearly, you believe that it's better to allow [insert violent dictator here] to exterminate entire populations than to use guns to fight back. Clearly, if someone were raping your family member and you had a gun, you'd put that gun down and give them a big thumbs up instead. Clearly, forming a militia to take up arms against an invading army* is no bueno in your book.

Now do you see where you went wrong?

More to the point, we both know that it's no accident that you created a strawman to frame the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. There's a big fucking difference between prohibiting felons from buying guns and Chicago-style gun control and a wide range of possible policies between, but you're trying to create a false dichotomy that the only choices are zero guns or Somali-style anarchy.

Please point out said strawman.  I created no dichotomy.  I even specifically stated that I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment.  I have no idea how you drew this conclusion.

And as fun as this silly semantics argument has been, it would've been more fun if either you or Chris would've read what I wrote instead of reading into what I wrote and attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Strawman right here:

Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.

Why would that matter?  It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist!  Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?

You are equating any policy other than making handguns and non-hunting rifles illegal with "lov[ing] gun violence." That's the damn strawman!


(* which is exactly what the Second Amendment is actually for, and why "guns made to kill people" are the ones that should be most protected by it!)

[forummm]

Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.

[Jack]

Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.

For what it's worth, I'm trying as hard as I can to keep the argument about rhetoric itself, and not the subject matter of the rhetoric. The inclusion of the parenthetical expression at the end of my previous post is a failure in that regard, so I apologize for failing to resist the urge to include it.

[regulator]

Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.

+1.

[Eric]

Sorry forummm.  You're right.  I won't post about it anymore after this.

Strawman right here:

Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.

Why would that matter?  It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist!  Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?

You are equating any policy other than making handguns and non-hunting rifles illegal with "lov[ing] gun violence." That's the damn strawman!

First, that's not a strawman argument.  I didn't misrepresent anyone's views to defeat them.  I didn't state that everyone against Bernie's ideas loved gun violence.  If I had, I admit that would be a strawman.  But I didn't.  I further defined what I meant by "love gun violence" as being someone who views zero restrictions as a favorable policy.  Therefore the question was, do you think there are a lot of swing voters who want zero gun restrictions?  And being that it was pretty much rhetorical anyway, I'm not sure why I've wasted so much time on this.

[Kris]

DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.

Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then.  But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?

I just have to say, my very least favorite form of political "debate" takes the form of silly labels that are meant to reduce a candidate to one (usually erroneous) simplistic facet.

Well, maybe that's tied with the ridiculously persistent third-grade level name calling, e.g. "Obummer".

Bernie is an admitted socialist.  Hillary's ineptitude got 4 Americans killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.  Silly labels?  Hardly.  It's called the truth.  You're 48...should be mature enough by now to handle it.

Bernie is an avowed Democratic Socialist.  There's a difference.  Hillary did not personally kill the four in Benghazi, and despite repeated efforts by conservatives to make political hay out of the incident, the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no wrongdoing by the Obama administration. Not to mention, getting back to my criticism above, Benghazi was one incident in Hillary Clinton's entire political career.  It's like nicknaming me "durian" because I tried durian once.  (Didn't like it, by the way. Tastes like rancid onions.)

My point is, it's hard to have an adult conversation about issues when that kind of playground namecalling is being passed off as trenchant political critique.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Republicans: Oh Noes, t3h #PresidentBlackula is coming to takes away all our gunz!

*6+ years of record gun and ammunition manufacturing profits follow.  No republicans have been hauled off to FEMA camps.  And here in Houston, I still haven't been forcibly converted to a homosexual Marxist by Operation Jade Failure.  I visited the firing range just yesterday with my .22 and no "dirty brown people" harassed me at all (mebbe b/c I was armed and dangerous).  Praise Jeebus that Obummer is too incompetent to implement his EVIL PLAN...

[nereo]

insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves. 

Who besides trump?

It helps to read the entire sentence, which was:

But I'd vote for her over any of the half-dozen or so republican frontrunners who openly deny climate change or insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.

Trump obviously made the comment about Mexican immigrants, and the list is long for notable republican candidates who deny or doubt human-induced climate change:  Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, etc.  Collectively,  a half dozen or so.

[Kris]

By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?

[Lski'stash]

By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?

* 11140354_10152960789218375_7952570747615699414_n.jpg (25.69 kB, 480x369 - viewed 0 times.)

+1

[regulator]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

[nereo]

Bernie is an admitted socialist.  Hillary's ineptitude got 4 Americans killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.  Silly labels?  Hardly.  It's called the truth.  You're 48...should be mature enough by now to handle it.

Unless it's a giant conspiracy theory, it was Islamic extremists who killed the 4 Americans.  Hillary wasn't even ther.  She made what I consider to be an incredibily bone-headed move of jumping to conclusions and feeding the media false reports instead of simply saying "we don't know what happened yet, we're investigating and we'll let you know."  Big F-up.  But she didn't cause those deaths any more than Rumsfield caused 9/11.

[trailrated]

By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?

Consider it done, Durian ;)

[Kris]

By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?

Consider it done, Durian ;)

Ha!  Thanks for the laugh! :)

[Kris]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

[regulator]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

Perhaps.  Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following.  I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.

[Jack]

DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.

Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then.  But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?

Honestly, I AM surprised.

I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land.  Most here lean so far to the left.  It's like those old V8 commercials.  When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be.  When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.

As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.

[Tyson]

DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.

Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then.  But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?

Honestly, I AM surprised.

I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land.  Most here lean so far to the left.  It's like those old V8 commercials.  When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be.  When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.

As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

[Kris]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

Perhaps.  Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following.  I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.

I think so, too.  And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent.  Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.

I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you.  I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz.  He really is certifiable.

[regulator]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

Perhaps.  Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following.  I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.

I think so, too.  And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent.  Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.

I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you.  I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz.  He really is certifiable.

I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist).  Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base.  After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can.  Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.

My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself.  Wouldn't you?

[sol]

I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you.  I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs.

This is the fundamental problem with the GOP.  There are definitely reasonable and intelligent republican politicians who would do a fine job as president.  None of them can win the republican primary.  Their big tent is crumbling before their very eyes.

If history is any guide, someone with a modicum of pre-existing credibility will lean just far enough out to squeak through the primary, then immediately lean back hard again for the general, and we'll get another election contest between apparent milquetoast centrists who pretend to agree on everything, secretly disagree on most things but can't say so out loud, and are ultimately entirely beholden to corporate interests anyway.

[trailrated]

DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.

Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then.  But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?

Honestly, I AM surprised.

I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land.  Most here lean so far to the left.  It's like those old V8 commercials.  When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be.  When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.

As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.

[forummm]

Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

MMM is possibly not eligible. He is possibly Constitutionally disqualified due to not being a "natural born Citizen". While both he and Ted Cruz were born in Canada, Cruz had a US citizen mother.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There's a legal argument that the 14th Amendment would override the original text in the Constitution requiring the president to be a "natural born Citizen" by saying that states may not abridge the priviliges of citizens, nor deny equal protection of the laws.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Tyson]

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.

Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt.  To do that you will have to raise taxes, period.  Unless you see another way to do it?

[regulator]

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.

Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt.  To do that you will have to raise taxes, period.  Unless you see another way to do it?

Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years.  Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.

[nereo]

Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

MMM is possibly not eligible. He is possibly Constitutionally disqualified due to not being a "natural born Citizen". While both he and Ted Cruz were born in Canada, Cruz had a US citizen mother.

you're forgetting an even bigger hurdle here - the IRP would have a field day if he ran.  "So-called early retiree needs a JOB"  They'd tear him to pieces...

[sol]

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.

What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?

I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization.  The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not.  I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done.  It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.

Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years.  Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.

Why would you want to do that?

Don't you think that debt was created for a reason?  People talk about the national debt like it's a figurative boat anchor, rather than a deliberate choice.  But the truth is that we created that debt, just like we create money, for very specific and well justified reasons.  We could wipe it out tomorrow by printing more money, but the people in charge aren't quite as simplistic as your average scared voter, so they know better than to seriously consider such things.

We need debt, just like we need taxes and we need money (if you think there is a clear distinction between the three) to make our economy function.  It is the promise of future payment that motivates all current labor.  You can't build space stations or reality television programs or the internet without them. 

[trailrated]

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.

What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?

I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization.  The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not.  I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done.  It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.

First example off the top of my head is efficiency in building and repairs for roads/sidewalks, etc. because that is the business I am in. We have a contract with the city to provide all of the concrete for said repairs. They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route. They also push back as late as possible for loading to ensure they get as much overtime as possible. While we are happy they use our products for the repairs it is disheartening to see how inefficient they are at their job and how much tax payer money is being wasted so they can hang out in their truck and get paid to not work while tallying up the overtime that gets counted towards their pensions. Multiply this around the country and that is a huge amount of waste.

Other things off the top of my head would be heavy military equipment being funded with taxpayer dollars that are not requested by the military (they say they don't want or need whatever it is) but they are only done to boost manufacturing in a politicians home state/district.

There are many more, but I am not one to defend cutting needed safety nets for the poor/mentally disabled etc. Also I would say the drug testing for welfare is not cost effective and not a good idea. (slightly off topic but my mind is wandering)

[Tyson]

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.

Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt.  To do that you will have to raise taxes, period.  Unless you see another way to do it?

Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years.  Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but lets assume you are right for the moment.  If paying off the debt is dependent on future economic growth, we had damn well better get another democrat in there, unless the GOP has another Reagan up their sleeves:

[Tyson]

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.

What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?

I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization.  The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not.  I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done.  It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.

First example off the top of my head is efficiency in building and repairs for roads/sidewalks, etc. because that is the business I am in. We have a contract with the city to provide all of the concrete for said repairs. They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route. They also push back as late as possible for loading to ensure they get as much overtime as possible. While we are happy they use our products for the repairs it is disheartening to see how inefficient they are at their job and how much tax payer money is being wasted so they can hang out in their truck and get paid to not work while tallying up the overtime that gets counted towards their pensions. Multiply this around the country and that is a huge amount of waste.

Other things off the top of my head would be heavy military equipment being funded with taxpayer dollars that are not requested by the military (they say they don't want or need whatever it is) but they are only done to boost manufacturing in a politicians home state/district.

There are many more, but I am not one to defend cutting needed safety nets for the poor/mentally disabled etc. Also I would say the drug testing for welfare is not cost effective and not a good idea. (slightly off topic but my mind is wandering)

Having worked at a few large corporations myself (Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Convergys, Century Link), and a bunch of smaller places, including startups, I can say that large corporations behave very similarly to the government when it comes to waste.  Having worked at a series of smaller companies when I started my career I was shocked to see just how badly managed these large companies are. 

So now when people I know complain about "government waste", I tell them its not any better in the private sector....

[sol]

They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route.

We have procedures in place for people like this.  They'll be reprimanded and placed on a performance improvement plan, then they get six months to show improvement or they're fired and replaced with someone who can follow the rules.  Report them.  Don't stand idle.  Speak up against waste when you see it.

The government actually has a whole host of waste and fraud prevention programs, including options for anonymous reporting and suggestions for streamlining operations.  They don't do any good of people see waste and don't say anything.

[regulator]

I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics. 

I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays.  Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be.  Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.

As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.

Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes.  That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt.  Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!

I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.

Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt.  To do that you will have to raise taxes, period.  Unless you see another way to do it?

Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years.  Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but lets assume you are right for the moment.  If paying off the debt is dependent on future economic growth, we had damn well better get another democrat in there, unless the GOP has another Reagan up their sleeves:

I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing.  The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.

[sol]

I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing.  The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.

That's all totally fair, but it's still an interesting chart.  Would you be more inclined to search for a causal relationship if it were 50 presidents instead of 10?

[Tyson]

I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing.  The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.

Well then, by your logic if it doesn't matter what monkey is in office (nice racist swipe at the current "monkey", BTW) then why even vote for a president at all.  By your reasoning, it clearly doesn't matter if the monkey is a democrat or if the monkey is a republican.

I think its interesting to look at debt, too.  If you'll notice, the great majority of our new debt is a direct result of Bush and Republican policies.  No wonder they can't keep up with Dems when it comes to fiscal success for this country:

[MDM]

...nice racist swipe at the current "monkey"...

Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey.

[regulator]

I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing.  The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.

Well then, by your logic if it doesn't matter what monkey is in office (nice racist swipe at the current "monkey", BTW) then why even vote for a president at all.  By your reasoning, it clearly doesn't matter if the monkey is a democrat or if the monkey is a republican.

I think its interesting to look at debt, too.  If you'll notice, the great majority of our new debt is a direct result of Bush and Republican policies.  No wonder they can't keep up with Dems when it comes to fiscal success for this country:

Only a real racist would play the race card with an innocent reference to a lower order primate.  Nice.

As for the rest, its pretty clear that the actual spending that drove the increase in debt is from military misadventures (much beloved by both parties for decades) and gubmint spending during the crash.  It is hard to argue with the spending during the crash simply because providing a countercyclical stimulus to the economy is exactly what gubmint spending is best used for.  It would be pretty easy to argue that that spending was under both Bush and Obama's watch.

How you can consider tax cuts (AKA not taking as much out of citizen's wallets as before) as a source of debt is a mystery to me.  You incur debt by spending.

[Tyson]

Not true. You only incur debt if you spend more than you bring in.  For the government, taxes ARE revenue.  So by cutting taxes you decrease revenue and thus (ta da) increase debt.

[Kris]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

Perhaps.  Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following.  I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.

I think so, too.  And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent.  Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.

I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you.  I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz.  He really is certifiable.

I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist).  Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base.  After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can.  Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.

My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself.  Wouldn't you?

Hm. Well, I don't so much think Bernie is a nutball.  I do think he is very unusual in this day and age. The closest I've seen in recent memory to a Democratic candidate who could vpbe considered a "nutball" is maybe Dennis Kucinich. Hillary... She really, really wants to be president. She's also arguably pretty damn qualifited. I don't like her much, but... *shrug*

As far as the other Republican contenders watching Trump make an ass of himself... I don't know. I imagine they were expecting to do that righht after he announced. But if I were one of them right now, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable.  After all, he's stealing their extreme right thunder. No one can go crazy train birther right wing wacko like he can. And that doesn't leave them a lot of room to out-Conservative the other conservatives, which seems to be the battle plan of a lot of them.  I would imagine Trump's unexpected popularity has got a few of their campaign strategists scrambling a little.

[regulator]

Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president.  I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."

I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.

Perhaps.  Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following.  I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.

I think so, too.  And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent.  Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.

I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you.  I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz.  He really is certifiable.

I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist).  Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base.  After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can.  Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.

My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself.  Wouldn't you?

Hm. Well, I don't so much think Bernie is a nutball.  I do think he is very unusual in this day and age. The closest I've seen in recent memory to a Democratic candidate who could vpbe considered a "nutball" is maybe Dennis Kucinich. Hillary... She really, really wants to be president. She's also arguably pretty damn qualifited. I don't like her much, but... *shrug*

As far as the other Republican contenders watching Trump make an ass of himself... I don't know. I imagine they were expecting to do that righht after he announced. But if I were one of them right now, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable.  After all, he's stealing their extreme right thunder. No one can go crazy train birther right wing wacko like he can. And that doesn't leave them a lot of room to out-Conservative the other conservatives, which seems to be the battle plan of a lot of them.  I would imagine Trump's unexpected popularity has got a few of their campaign strategists scrambling a little.

Could be.  If I were a Republican contender that actually had a shot (e.g. not Christie or his ilk) I would be sitting back and waiting for Trump to blow himself up rather than trying hard to do so.

As for Bernie, he is a severe longshot candidate and he knows it.  Elderly, Jewish, from New England, independent, socialist.  Not happening.  I'm sure he is having fun, but that is about it.

[MoonShadow]

I honestly don't get how Rand Paul even feels like he can describe himself as a Libertarian anymore.  At least his dad was more or less true to libertarian principles. Rand is just a shapeshifter.

Um, because he doesn't describe himself as a libertarian, and he never did.

[MoonShadow]

Could be.  If I were a Republican contender that actually had a shot (e.g. not Christie or his ilk) I would be sitting back and waiting for Trump to blow himself up rather than trying hard to do so.

As for Bernie, he is a severe longshot candidate and he knows it.  Elderly, Jewish, from New England, independent, socialist.  Not happening.  I'm sure he is having fun, but that is about it.

Both Bernie & Hairpiece are doing exactly what they joined the race to do, control the narrative of their respective parties.  I doubt that either of them actually expect to win the party nominations, but in failing to do so, both of them dictate what issues are being discussed by whatever candidate actually takes the nomination.

[vern]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM

[matchewed]

If history is any guide, someone with a modicum of pre-existing credibility will lean just far enough out to squeak through the primary, then immediately lean back hard again for the general, and we'll get another election contest between apparent milquetoast centrists who pretend to agree on everything, secretly disagree on most things but can't say so out loud, and are ultimately entirely beholden to corporate interests anyway.

As I said...

Great taste!

Less filling!

We'll have whoever appeals to a more centrist platform in the most likely scenario. That's Hillary at this time unless some GOP candidate can rise above the crabs in a bucket phenomenon that's happening in an appeal to an increasingly narrow (yet extraordinarily vocal) number of Americans.

[forummm]

Trump's healthcare plan sounds just like the healthcare plans that some other Republicans have described recently (for the few like Boehner and Romney that have actually articulated a framework for healthcare policy).

Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/trump-s-obamacare-replacement-plan-sounds-quite-a-bit-like-obamacare

"At the talking point level, a plan like the ACA has broad political appeal. It’s maybe not so surprising that Donald Trump’s talking points sound a bit like the ACA, since the law is rooted in a lot of conservative ideas," Levitt said. "His emphasis on it being private and competitive is interesting. In fact, the ACA is a giant bet on a competitive, private health insurance system."

[Glenstache]

.... the crabs in a bucket phenomenon that's happening ...

1. I will now always think of crabs in a bucket every time I see the spreads with photos of all the various candidates.
2. I immediately thought of a crab with Trump-hair when I read this and almost spit out my coffee.

[Vertical Mode]

An honest question here about Marco Rubio (since I see a few people voted for him in the poll): What are some of the things you see in him that convince you he is the leader we need, or that you like about him as a candidate? Maybe it's because I'm hibernating from most of the news in political season, but I feel like I know almost nothing about him. Could also be that Republicans aren't investing a lot of time spreading their gospel here in Massachusetts, since clearly that would be barking up the wrong tree ;-)

[forummm]

An honest question here about Marco Rubio (since I see a few people voted for him in the poll): What are some of the things you see in him that convince you he is the leader we need, or that you like about him as a candidate? Maybe it's because I'm hibernating from most of the news in political season, but I feel like I know almost nothing about him. Could also be that Republicans aren't investing a lot of time spreading their gospel here in Massachusetts, since clearly that would be barking up the wrong tree ;-)

We know he drinks water instead of lattes (at least sometimes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=19ZxJVnM5Gs#t=20

Although there was a thread here awhile back about how terrible his personal finances are.

[Jeremy E.]

My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out.  There are certainly non-swing voters that do.  I'm not sure how that's even up for debate.  If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.

Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?

PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.

No, I mean exactly what I said.  People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence.  I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.

I'm in favor of no more restrictions because I love guns. AR-15s, 1911s, you name it. I don't favor gun violence, I just like to shoot guns, it's a fun hobby. Don't be ignorant.