2016 Presidential Candidate

[MoonShadow]

The first step is to stop dumping more into the air. After we can get there, maybe we can start to remove some from the air somehow.

That part is easy.  CO2 is plant food.  Just let the forests grow.  Which they have been doing, on net.

But I have some questions for you to ponder, forummm.  Since the Earth is a closed envirnonmental system, and fossil fuels are (by definition) the remains of ancient plantlife, how did the carbon get into the ground without being present in the atmosphere first in ancient Earth?  And if that carbon was in the atmosphere at one time before the evolution of plantlife, what kind of effect on plantlife would a doubling of the CO2 concentration do you think is most likely?

[Jack]

I don't think I agree with any of that.  From what I've seen, all of his positions are either vague or impossible.  Also, he's a self-described socialist after such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago; so how do you expect him to know how to do any of the things he claims to support?

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf

First, I don't give a fuck what Sanders calls himself; he can claim to represent the Ham Sandwich Party for all I care. It doesn't actually make him one, though, nor is he genuinely a socialist: he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that. Besides, even if Sanders were a socialist, so what? Invoking cold-war paranoia is not a persuasive argument, and maybe a little bit of socialism is exactly what we need to counterbalance the ultra-corporatism we're mired in today. Sanders may be about as far left as you get in mainstream American politics in 2015, but that's still way to the right relative to the rest of the world.

Also, I have no idea where you got that "such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago" bullshit; most of Europe, which is more socialist than anything in Sanders' platform, is working just fine. (Note that I'm referring to places like the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France; southern Europe's financial issues stem from corruption, not "socialism.")

Second, Sanders' campaign website's "issues" page names specific legislation he's introduced or co-sponsored. I'm not sure how anything could possibly be less vague than the actual bill that would implement the policy!

Besides, more to the point, Sanders' "socialism" is actually less authoritarian than most Republicans' platforms. At least he doesn't want to create a theocratic surveillance state with no Bill of Rights!

[MoonShadow]

I don't think I agree with any of that.  From what I've seen, all of his positions are either vague or impossible.  Also, he's a self-described socialist after such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago; so how do you expect him to know how to do any of the things he claims to support?

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf

First, I don't give a fuck what Sanders calls himself; he can claim to represent the Ham Sandwich Party for all I care. It doesn't actually make him one, though, nor is he genuinely a socialist:

So you believe him when he talks about issues, but don't believe him when he discusses his driving ideology?

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Besides, even if Sanders were a socialist, so what?

I already mentioned that I respect Bernie for his honesty, but you just told me that you don't believe he is being honest, while at the same time you consider him the ideal choice.  I find such an opinion bizarre.  If he is honest, it matters to me if he thinks he is a socialist; because either he is unaware or indifferent to what that term means & what the ideology has begot, or he is aware and condones the results that such ideology always acheives.  So by claiming he is a socialist, whether or not he actually would act that way, tells me he is either ignorant or malicious.  I'm not sure which is actually worse.

However, if your assessment is correct, then he is just another liar.  Which makes him no worse than the rest, I suppose.

Invoking cold-war paranoia is not a persuasive argument,

I didn't.  And I guess you didn't bother to read the article I provided.

and maybe a little bit of socialism is exactly what we need to counterbalance the ultra-corporatism we're mired in today.

What do you get when you mix socialism with corporatism?

Put your hand down, Adolf!

Sanders may be about as far left as you get in mainstream American politics in 2015, but that's still way to the right relative to the rest of the world.

Also not a argument.

Also, I have no idea where you got that "such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago" bullshit; most of Europe, which is more socialist than anything in Sanders' platform, is working just fine. (Note that I'm referring to places like the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France; southern Europe's financial issues stem from corruption, not "socialism.")

I take exception to that claim.

http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/

Second, Sanders' campaign website's "issues" page names specific legislation he's introduced or co-sponsored. I'm not sure how anything could possibly be less vague than the actual bill that would implement the policy!

I'll take another look.

EDIT: Nope. Same as the last time I looked at it.  A lot of text that amounts to either vagueness or impossibility.  Often both.

Besides, more to the point, Sanders' "socialism" is actually less authoritarian than most Republicans' platforms. At least he doesn't want to create a theocratic surveillance state with no Bill of Rights!

I wouldn't be any more happy with that outcome.  I wasn't arguing for someone else, I was arguing against Bernie as an ideal choice, by your own standards.  I asked for a supporter's viewpoint, and you hand me these silly talking points rather than rational reasons.  And now you are mad at me for pointing out that your reasons are silly.

[dsmexpat]

When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you. There's an amazing ability of humans to think that they truly understand both sides of an argument and have made an objective identification of the superior argument while people who disagree have simply failed to understand the arguments which seem so simple to them. The idea that the people on the other side might have done the same thing you have seems inconceivable.

From there we just get into echo chambers where nobody really cares what the other side think because you already know they're wrong.

[Cressida]

I am being honest.  They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State.  But neither of them are diplomatic.  Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage.  Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.

As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.

Re the bold: I'm confused. Are you talking about the Republicans and Swift Boaters during the campaign?

I expect MoonShadow means the Iran deal. Another thing he's wrong about.

[MoonShadow]

When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you.

When you start using the source of information as an argument against it's consideration, you've stopped pretending to treat the other side as if you ever believed they were an intelligent human being who happens to disagree with you.

And I'm not a republican, either, so just because I don't bow to the fake data of the democrats, doesn't mean I disagree with you.

[MoonShadow]

As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.

Look, you may be right as far as they are concerned. But seriously, you are trying to put Ted Cruz on that level? Jesus, man.

No, I'm not.  I'm mostly speculating as to the 'booby prizes' these guys are shooting for.  I'm not the one who took this topic down this road, Kris.

[MoonShadow]

I am being honest.  They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State.  But neither of them are diplomatic.  Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage.  Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.

As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.

Re the bold: I'm confused. Are you talking about the Republicans and Swift Boaters during the campaign?

I expect MoonShadow means the Iran deal.

I do mean that.  I wouldn't hold the whole 'swift boat' thing against Kerry.

Another thing he's wrong about.

What part would I be wrong about?  That Kerry didn't understand who he was negotiating with, and got his ass handed to him by professional liars? 

[dsmexpat]

Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia. It then came up with its own unrelated standard, the suicide rate, and claimed that this was now going to be used in place of measuring happiness in order to reveal how happy people were. They weren't even trying to be impartial, they were trying to do anything they could to discredit the information in any way they could.


One of the more amazing things about it though was when it went "Scandinavia isn't even that socialist, 46% of the economy is public compared to America's 40%, they're only a little more socialist than we are". They just went ahead and redefined socialist from the meaning that everyone has used for the last 80 years or so to 1920s full worker ownership of the means of production. Then, after creating this straw man of socialism which Scandinavia isn't, they used the fact that Scandinavia isn't it to attack their straw man while completely missing the whole point, that maybe the US could try and learn from some of the good things about Scandinavia.

Nobody was saying "full worker control of the means of production is super successful, look at Scandinavia, they have that". They were saying "maybe look at some of their successes and try and emulate their methods".

I didn't dismiss your source, I read it and it was dumb as hell. It made no attempt to understand the arguments of the other side. Where possible it tried to actively change the subject or to create straw men misrepresenting the arguments of the other side so they could be avoided while ridiculing them.

[MoonShadow]

Also, other than being born outside the country, I don't know why you would think Cruz would be a good SoS. He's perhaps the most inflammatory and least diplomatic member of the Senate. He would be a disaster.

Perhaps I didn't put it well, let me restate.

I think that most of the republicans on the stage are likely to consider Cruz to be a sound appointment to SoS; or if not, that Cruz believes it to be so.  My own opinion on Cruz is actually irrelevant.  I'm openly speculating about alterior motives, because these guys are not stupid.  Most of them have to know they can't win this, but that a lot of cabinet members come from former competitors to the nomination, as payback for their support after they lost.  That's exactly how Clinton got SoS.

[MoonShadow]

Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia.

Excellent cherrypicking.

Okay, you don't like my source.  How about the Economist?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

"The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."

My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working.  Because it stopped working for them, and they changed.  Because they could change.  It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.

[dsmexpat]

Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia.

Excellent cherrypicking.

Okay, you don't like my source.  How about the Economist?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

"The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."

My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working.  Because it stopped working for them, and they changed.  Because they could change.  It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.

You're not listening. But that's fine. You don't have to. It's a free country.

[forummm]

Also, other than being born outside the country, I don't know why you would think Cruz would be a good SoS. He's perhaps the most inflammatory and least diplomatic member of the Senate. He would be a disaster.

Perhaps I didn't put it well, let me restate.

I think that most of the republicans on the stage are likely to consider Cruz to be a sound appointment to SoS; or if not, that Cruz believes it to be so.  My own opinion on Cruz is actually irrelevant.  I'm openly speculating about alterior motives, because these guys are not stupid.  Most of them have to know they can't win this, but that a lot of cabinet members come from former competitors to the nomination, as payback for their support after they lost.  That's exactly how Clinton got SoS.

I think Cruz has been running for president for a long time. He's not in it for SoS. His dad has been telling him from age 4 that he's "the anointed one" and "destined for greatness", etc. He's packed the kid full of self-importance and now the man has that ingrained in his soul. All presidential candidates think highly of themselves, but Cruz perhaps rivals only Trump for self-regard. It just drips from everything he does.

[MoonShadow]

You're not listening. But that's fine. You don't have to. It's a free country.

I read your words, I just don't agree with your position here.

But like you said, it's a free country, and we can agree on that.

[Jack]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I take exception to that claim.

http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/

Do you understand the irony in linking to a site that says similar things about Scandinavia that I'm saying about Sanders?

Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist

Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.

... exactly like the policies Sanders wants to enact here!

More to the point, these characteristics are unlike the policies the Republicans want to enact, which are often handouts to very large business (and thus unfair or harmful to the small businesses that actually drive the economy). Regulation (of the good sort that Sanders wants) keeps the playing field level; Republicans would destroy the market by allowing it to devolve into oligopoly.

So, sure, Sanders is "socialist" in the same way Scandinavia is "socialist." Either you agree with your own source and thus agree with me that Sanders is not an extremist, or you continue to pretend he's some kind of boogeyman and thus discredit your own source. You can't have it both ways.

We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)

It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.

The article fails here because it does not consider what the two governments are spending their money on. Norway is superior because it doesn't waste so much of its GDP on a gigantic standing army, imprisoning huge fractions of its population, etc.

"Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."

My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working.  Because it stopped working for them, and they changed.  Because they could change.  It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.

That bit about the deficit brings up an interesting point: why is America's deficit so high? The answer, of course, is Republican policy: when Republicans are in control, the deficit goes up; when Democrats are in control, the deficit goes down. Maybe "fiscally-irresponsible Republican" should replace "socialist" as the next evil boogeyman label.

[MoonShadow]

I think Cruz has been running for president for a long time. He's not in it for SoS. His dad has been telling him from age 4 that he's "the anointed one" and "destined for greatness", etc. He's packed the kid full of self-importance and now the man has that ingrained in his soul. All presidential candidates think highly of themselves, but Cruz perhaps rivals only Trump for self-regard. It just drips from everything he does.

That's a reasonable perspective.  I agree that Cruz is trying to win the nomination.  I think that they all are, but this process is demanding, and it's easier for these egos to keep going if the idea of a 'parting gift' is available.

Again, I'm only speculating.

[MoonShadow]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

[dsmexpat]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay

[MoonShadow]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay

I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...

https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals

I can play this game as well as anyone.

EDIT: I also have to point out that the page called StupidThingsConservatesSay is noticably lacking in actual quotes.  Even quotes taken out of context.

[dsmexpat]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay

I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...

https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals

I can play this game as well as anyone.

Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier. I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.

[Gin1984]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those?  I am seriously asking, because I can't.

[lizzzi]

Currently living in Ohio, I would probably vote for Kasich. I like what I see...people need to get to know him better.

[MoonShadow]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay

I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...

https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals

I can play this game as well as anyone.

Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier.

You apparently misconstrued my efforts earlier.  I chose a biases source full of strawmen arguments, with much less than 15 seconds of research time, because it was good enough as a real counterpoint to your biased postings.

I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

[MoonShadow]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those?  I am seriously asking, because I can't.

Any one? I don't know for sure, but I'd say that Rand Paul has a fair argument for being that person.  There may be others.  But Jack did not say that the Republican party was (choose one) of the above, he said they were all of the above.  I can just as easily point out how the vast majority of congressional democrats are one of the charges I counter-pointed above; but again, none of them are all of them.  Implying that those "qualities" are part of the Republican party platform also implies that they are all common features of Republicans generally.

[dsmexpat]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay

I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...

https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals

I can play this game as well as anyone.

Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier.

You apparently misconstrued my efforts earlier.  I chose a biases source full of strawmen arguments, with much less than 15 seconds of research time, because it was good enough as a real counterpoint to your biased postings.

I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Also you seem to have imagined a history of biased postings of mine in this topic which your libsdebunked addressed. You think we're fighting and you've created a history of imagined sleights in which I started it and you responded to me with libsdebunked. That didn't actually happen. Like at all.

[Gin1984]

he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.

Not yet.  And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.

Other similarities to Eisenhower:

• They are both pro-science
• They both support civil rights
• Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
• They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)

All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.  It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.  You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher.  If you can read English, thank a soldier".  Do you really think you are the rational actor here?

Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those?  I am seriously asking, because I can't.

Any one? I don't know for sure, but I'd say that Rand Paul has a fair argument for being that person.  There may be others.  But Jack did not say that the Republican party was (choose one) of the above, he said they were all of the above.  I can just as easily point out how the vast majority of congressional democrats are one of the charges I counter-pointed above; but again, none of them are all of them.  Implying that those "qualities" are part of the Republican party platform also implies that they are all common features of Republicans generally.

It is, IME, a feature of the leadership of the GOP. Yes, you might find a low level person that does not follow the leadership and you might, possibly find a leader who compermised.  That all said, I cannot think of ANY member of the GOP leadership that those or most of those are nit consistent.  I'll check out Rand Paul, but from my limited understanding of him, I thought he agreed with the leadership.

[MoonShadow]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

[dsmexpat]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.

[MoonShadow]

It is, IME, a feature of the leadership of the GOP. Yes, you might find a low level person that does not follow the leadership and you might, possibly find a leader who compermised.  That all said, I cannot think of ANY member of the GOP leadership that those or most of those are nit consistent.  I'll check out Rand Paul, but from my limited understanding of him, I thought he agreed with the leadership.

I'm not a republican, and generally find it a bit repulsive to have to argue in favor of either national party, but this is just an irresponsible & uninformed position to take.  I hate defending these people from inane accusations, because they don't deserve it.  Neither do the dems.  Please don't make me do this.

Please tell me that you don't vote.

[MoonShadow]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.

Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell?  Is that where your wife is from?

[Glenstache]

Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American?  And aren't you from New Mexico?

Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.

Well, good for you.  Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland?  Are you another capitalist pig?

Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.

Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell?  Is that where your wife is from?

This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?

[Midwest]

Currently living in Ohio, I would probably vote for Kasich. I like what I see...people need to get to know him better.

Agree.  He might actually be able to communicate with the house/senate (democrat or republican).  That ability seems to be lacking in many of the other candidates.

[Jack]

[T]he modern Republican platform...is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.

I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this.  Where do you get this idea?  That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'.  It's bullshit.

You've got to be fucking kidding me! If you can watch Republicans do things like...

• deny evolution and/or climate change and find every way they can to funnel tax money to religious organizations (e.g. via school choice vouchers and redirecting Planned Parenthood funding to "abstinence only" organizations)
• enact rules to limit voting rights, gerrymander everything to Hell and back, defend murderous police (because minorities are "thugs" and "criminals" who must have deserved it), and (of course) support the War on Drugs
• support the PATRIOT Act, unconstitutional acts perpetrated by the NSA, SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/ACTA/Trans-Pacific Partnership (all of which are allegedly for the purpose of "protecting copyright" but would authorize spying on citizens via the Internet), etc.
• and attempt over and over again to put restrictions on things like food stamps, medicaid and welfare just to punish the poor (we can tell they're purely punitive because administering rules like mandatory drug testing costs more money than they save)

...and still not see the truth, then there's no point in trying to enlighten you.

It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.

Sure, you can't get everybody to toe the party line all the time, but most of the Republican front-runners score 4 out of 4 on those counts, and a bunch more score 3 out of 4.

[Jags4186]

I'm 100% behind Donald Trump and I implore everyone else to get behind him. 

How long can we go before his fraud is exposed? 

And to be honest, if he gets elected...he's no better or worse than the garbage that gets shoveled in and out of office every 4 years.

Also--I don't believe he's a Republican.

[forummm]

I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.

I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.

And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and  who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.

I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.

I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.

[zataks]

I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.

I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.

And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and  who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.

I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.

I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.

Sorry to admit it as well but it was refreshing to hear someone with that level of exposure say this.  Made me wonder, "as I accumulate more wealth and continue on my journey into FI, maybe I should start actively donating to candidates."  I mean, I'm not billionaire nor will I be.  But 4 figure donations probably get you something, don't they?

EDIT: bolding fail

[forummm]

I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. [bold]Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. [/bold]I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.

I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.

And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and  who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.

I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.

I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.

Sorry to admit it as well but it was refreshing to hear someone with that level of exposure say this.  Made me wonder, "as I accumulate more wealth and continue on my journey into FI, maybe I should start actively donating to candidates."  I mean, I'm not billionaire nor will I be.  But 4 figure donations probably get you something, don't they?

4 figures can definitely buy you some "good will" from local officials. Maybe less impactful for a congressman, but I think they might still take your call.

[forummm]

I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.

I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.

And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and  who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.

I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.

I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.

You could tell from the questioning how much Fox News (i.e. the establishment Republican Party) wants Trump and Rand out of the race. They are dangerous to their establishment presentation. Where each of the candidates is really just the same set of policies (with very minor and inconsequential differentiation--and when in office they all actually act about the same way so any differentiation is essentially meaningless) but with a different face on it. It's the illusion of choice. It's "change" on the outside but continuity on the inside.

On the surface they present different flavors of how they'd cut taxes for the rich, different flavors for how they'd be aggressive militarily, different flavors of how religious they are (how much they hate and discriminate against or hate but can still tolerate gays; how much god comes up in their speech; how much they'd destroy the ability to get an abortion), etc. But they're all the same guy really. They all have more or less the same policies and will bow to more or less the same rich donors (who told them which policies to have in the first place).

That's why Trump and Rand are so dangerous with speaking their mind and truth telling. It's a shame that Rand is backing away from his prior statements. His father was willing to be booed during a debate for his honesty. But Rand is not. He's going to lose as a result unless he changes that. He had a really good chance, but he's blowing it so far. It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

[boy_bye]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

[zataks]

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

It isn't.  But I think that's testament to how used to lying and dishonesty we are from politicians.  That it is somehow refreshing that a politician is open about his racism and misogyny hopefully will wake some people up to the state of politics. 

[forummm]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

I see them all as about the same amount of mental. I think the most dangerous thing a president can do is start or inflame counterproductive wars, and they are all in various degrees of doing that on various fronts. I didn't say it was OK to be a racist misogynist. But the policies the others expound have about the same effects as anything Trump says he would do. So whether you're pursuing a policy and saying it's because of your openly racist and misogynist beliefs vs pursuing a very similar policy while using code words or not stating a reason why--what's the difference? The difference I see is that Trump's ideas will get held up from implementation because of his stated motivations. The others may get theirs through because they said more polite things.

[Zx]

That quiz is definitely weighted to have the results be "Libertarian", but I'm pretty much in that camp already anyway.

If Trump wins the GOP nomination I'd vote for him without hesitation. A guy who says what he thinks with ZERO fear of the bleeding hearted liberal gamesmanship, the gotcha journalism, and the manufactured "I'm so offended" BS is refreshing.

He says what so many of us are thinking already. He won't clarify his remarks to appease the liberal wrath. He won't go on a liberal-sanctioned Apology Tour to get back into their good graces. They hate him because he couldn't care less about what they think, among other things.

With Trump in the White House I doubt people would be taking advantage of the USA anymore. He wouldn't be going around bowing before heads of state and apologizing for his country around the world. He wouldn't be putting the screws to US business interests in favor of foreign interests. He'd enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, as B Hussein Obama and Eric Holder swore to do but didn't. He'd take care of our borders. He'd call them ILLEGAL ALIENS, which is what they are.

He'd get rid of Obamacare if he could, not only because it is a bloated bag of rotting fecal matter but also because it has made health care UNaffordable for people like my parents. He'd get rid of it because it was passed on blatant lies out of the mouth of B Hussein Obama: "If you like your doctor, you can KEEP your doctor. Period. And if you like your insurance, you can KEEP your insurance. Period".

So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.

But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.

[zataks]

So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.

But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.

Which 4 years was that?  I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.

EDIT: I can't find a single 4 year period in which national debt doubled going back to 1950.  That's not to say the debt doubled in the 4 years leading up to 1950 but that's as far as I went. 
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

[Kris]

So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.

But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.

Which 4 years was that?  I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.

I admire your restraint that this was the only aspect of that post you decided to comment on.

[zataks]

So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.

But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.

Which 4 years was that?  I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.

I admire your restraint that this was the only aspect of that post you decided to comment on.

Yea, well. No reason to get into an arguing match about personal preference when facts and data are present. ;-)

[zataks]

Crap, it was a Democrat that more than doubled national debt in a 4 year period!

It was FDR from 1940-1944; $42,967,531,037.68 to $201,003,387,221.13

[forummm]

Crap, it was a Democrat that more than doubled national debt in a 4 year period!

It was FDR from 1940-1944; $42,967,531,037.68 to $201,003,387,221.13

I bet it was all spent on liberal foreign aid. Helping out those rich British, French, Polish, Austrian, Belgian, ...

[zataks]

I bet it was all spent on liberal foreign aid. Helping out those rich British, French, Polish, Austrian, Belgian, ...

I'd imagine it's actually argued as a good thing.  Y'know, taking down those Nationalist Socialists.

[Bob W]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.   

[midweststache]

It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.

I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.

Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.

And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?

Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...

well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.

To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.

On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.