| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Can I just say again thank god Katich isn't the nominee? He would have won easily. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
One of my main issues with her that she and Trump have in common is her unwillingness to admit mistakes. Even with the email thing she still blames others.
|
True. This is the one thing that makes her such an unattractive candidate. The way she DODGED the inquiry into her Russian donations. It's all just so slimy, but I guess This Is What The DNC Came For.
I would just very much like for Trump to be excluded from this narrative, one that many people never asked him to be a part of, since 2015. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Republican attacks would work if they went in at maybe 60-80% (Comey had the right idea here by simply going after her credibility before they bastardized his claims and the man himself). Instead, with Hillary, they decide to go at a full 150%, overwhelm themselves, implode, and Hillary leads on them. It's like a stupid video game boss. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Super_freddie
What I found funny is how the GOP blames Hillary for everything and I mean everything!!
They talked about Hillary as if she was already president.
And the Melania stolen speech, they blamed Hillary!
 |
I'd like to know what their plans are for the future. Instead it's just constant Hillary attacking. Every time a democrat is the nominee/president they demonize them. Accusing Hillary of satan worshipping, being a murderer, a criminal, etc. It's just... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Lmao at"Lock her up" as if Donald isn't a slave master in Dubai and they have any concrete evidence
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Can I just say again thank god Katich isn't the nominee? He would have won easily. |
You keep saying this, but I don't see it that simply. In a hypothetical match-up, then YES. You're right. But let's not forget the actual reason we're here today.
Trump was created because GOP had failed leadership and became the "establishment". People want change. Same reason Bernie was created. Those two drove up Hillary's negatives. Had Obama had an amazing two terms, this populist movement would have never been so the Hillary vs Kasich match-up would've been about issues and Hillary would've won because Obama-policies would've been on her side.
But if you mean, the Never Trump movement succeeded and Kasich was sworn in tmrw, then yes Hillary would be toast.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
You're putting words in my mouth. It's common knowledge the wealthy pay little in taxes. Raising their tax rate and ending loopholes will raise revenue. Raising wages for the middle class and get them spending more helps the economy. It's a basic formula that I agree with that not every state will include, but for the ones that will it's a start. That's what I said.
For example, Obamacare and education. These are implemented but ultimately states can deny federal spending and funding. (BTW, I know your opinion on Obamacare but let's not go there). Just because Ohio and Pennsylvania have Republican Governors that say "NO" doesn't mean she can't go forward in other states. California and New York for example would happily accept federal funding for free community college for the students.
|
If you think taxing the wealthy and "closing loopholes" is going to provide 50k-100k of free money to give to individual households to pay for free college then Chris Christie has a bridge to sell you.
Even Bernie admitted you have to raise taxes on average citizens to get close to paying for most of the Democratic agenda, which could be an issue considering most low income people don't "pay their fair share" of taxes either.
Edit: And your part about states accepting the program is irrelevant. This is not Obamacare, why wouldn't they accept free money.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/1/2011
Posts: 24,324
|
im kinda glad hillary doesn't address mistakes and allegations. A majority of the public have a strong negative view of her trust-worthyness and that isn't going to change whether she addresses these issues or not, explaining herself would just leave openings for GOP to attack her image even more
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jose168
im kinda glad hillary doesn't address mistakes and allegations. A majority of the public have a strong negative view of her trust-worthyness and that isn't going to change whether she addresses these issues or not, explaining herself would just leave openings for GOP to attack her image even more
|
They're mostly just baseless accusations anyway. Like saying that Trump is a nazi or a kkk member
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jose168
im kinda glad hillary doesn't address mistakes and allegations. A majority of the public have a strong negative view of her trust-worthyness and that isn't going to change whether she addresses these issues or not, explaining herself would just leave openings for GOP to attack her image even more
|
Right. That is the tradeoff. lol
It just sucks cause as a taxpaying, educated American adult, I would hope my President isn't bought by the Russian government. Or any other foreign interests for that matter. Like her taking money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Hilary just doesn't give that confidence.
Voting for Jill ! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2010
Posts: 15,137
|
Kasich is like Bernie in that he's never had a negative ad run against him. His high positives are a mirage.
The truth is that Republicans would've had a tough road to 270 regardless of the nominee. Trump, while making the map even more unfriendly (Arizona  Georgia Utah ), is just a convenient scapegoat.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
If you think taxing the wealthy and "closing loopholes" is going to provide 50k-100k of free money to give to individual households to pay for free college than Chris Christie has a bridge to sell you.
Even Bernie admitted you have to raise taxes on average citizens to get close to paying for most of the Democratic agenda, which could be an issue considering most low income people don't "pay their fair share" of taxes either,
|
You would have to raise incomes on the middle class to pay for tuition for everyone, yes. And I don't agree with it as I told you before. Not for community college. You see I do research as well. The Obama administration said free community college would cost $60B over the next ten years, as seen in their budget.
Closing the special interest loophole would create $18B. Applying the buffet rule, a 30% tax rate for millionaires. would create $37B. Bam. That's the $60B right there. Community college is free.
https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/m...%20Act%202.pdf
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2012
Posts: 7,329
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
I'd like to know what their plans are for the future. Instead it's just constant Hillary attacking. Every time a democrat is the nominee/president they demonize them. Accusing Hillary of satan worshipping, being a murderer, a criminal, etc. It's just... |
It's because they don't have anything. More so Trump doesn't have anything. It's quite pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2012
Posts: 7,285
|
Hillary's odds are decreasing over on FiveThirtyEight
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
You keep saying this, but I don't see it that simply. In a hypothetical match-up, then YES. You're right. But let's not forget the actual reason we're here today.
Trump was created because GOP had failed leadership and became the "establishment". People want change. Same reason Bernie was created. Those two drove up Hillary's negatives. Had Obama had an amazing two terms, this populist movement would have never been so the Hillary vs Kasich match-up would've been about issues and Hillary would've won because Obama-policies would've been on her side.
But if you mean, the Never Trump movement succeeded and Kasich was sworn in tmrw, then yes Hillary would be toast.
|
I'm talking more in a traditional political environment. Nothing makes sense this year. But still, Kasich isn't anti-immigration so their numbers among Latinos wouldn't be so bad, he doesn't say offensive, racist **** - so his numbers with other demographics wouldn't be as bad (there are a lot of conservative Latinos and AA's in the country). Plus he'd have a good record to run on in Ohio.
If Trump never ran, there wouldn't have been the anti-establishment mess we saw this year. Same with Bernie. Everyone was behind Hillary until Bernie grew in popularity.
I'm not complaining though. I don't want a republican either way.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by D_Man3379
It's because they don't have anything. More so Trump doesn't have anything. It's quite pathetic. |
I'm just worried the next four years will be a continuation of the past 7.5 years. Instead of fixing the country, all Washington will be doing is trying to uncover more Hillary scandals, etc.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
You would have to raise incomes on the middle class to pay for tuition for everyone, yes. And I don't agree with it as I told you before. Not for community college. You see I do research as well. The Obama administration said free community college would cost $60B over the next ten years, as seen in their budget.
Closing the special interest loophole would create $18B. Applying the buffet rule, a 30% tax rate millionaire, would create $37B. Bam. That's the $60B right there. Community college is free.
https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/m...%20Act%202.pdf |
All this revenue WILL NOT go to community college programs number one, since taxing the wealthy seems to be the go way to pay for everything. Number two, will they just give the money to anyone who wants to apply? Won't that raise the costs due to more applicants? What costs are in that 60 billion. Also, once that money becomes available community colleges will just raise there rates now that govt is ensuring the money just like what happened with student loans. That 60 billion is not a constant costs, but closing a loophole is a one time thing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hellocory
Hillary's odds are decreasing over on FiveThirtyEight
|
Why, what happened?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
All this revenue WILL NOT go to community college programs number one, since taxing the wealthy seems to be the go way to pay for everything. Number two, will they just give the money to anyone who wants to apply? Won't that raise the costs due to more applicants? What costs are in that 60 billion. Also, once that money becomes available community colleges will just raise there rates now that govt is ensuring the money just like what happened with student loans. That 60 billion is not a constant costs, but closing a loophole is a one time thing.
|
I know that. Of course not all $60B will go straight to community colleges, but a significant portion will. Not every community college will be free within the next decade, but it'll be a start. You just can't say no to something and not give any alternative solutions. That's the problem I have with Republicans.
And like I said, there are hundreds of free community college that has worked. I need to read up on how, but I've seen dozens of articles and colleges saying it was a right decision. Take that as you will. It's something the whole party and almost all the politicians have advocated for.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
I hope they find a way make it happen, even with my skepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
