Trump & Hillary
- Thread starter chick_bleeds_carolina_blue
- Start date
I'm floored she can't just stop in here and diagnose the illness anyway.
I just did and I got "fake illness," suspicion of her wearing a defibrillator vest and possibly Parkinson's (which I have seen NO indication of that from what I see on TV once in a while), so it might just be rumors. She did have a CVA years ago, I believe when she fell so it may just be residual from that event that has lingered.
I guess you'll have to enlighten me.
That works. Disobedient a lot, too.I think you're a registered Contrarian.
Sounds like you're all over it to me. Think she'll survive?
Old man, yes.
White, yes.
Conservative, yes.
But I've voted for Democrats occasionally. I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a Conservative. I don't vote for the party, I vote for the individual and his/her policies and character. So the herd mentality doesn't apply to me at all. I am my own person and I make my own decisions.
When you make such broad generalizations and try to lump us all together based on your preconceived notions, you lose credibility.
Chick seems to think that when we criticize Hillary we're blind to Donald's faults. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't know a single Donald supporter who doesn't have concerns about some of his actions and/or proposed policies. Not one. But I have even more grave concerns about Hillary. And to think of her naming 3-4 SCJ's that will shape our future for 30 years? Terrifying.
Yes. Don't you know only the good die young?? She should live to be at least 175!!!! lol
I doubt her health will be an issue unless she is hospitalized or passes out in public.
Besides, I'm not sure why you guys are worried about her, you think Mr Trump has this election in the bag with a bow on top already.
We lose no matter which one gets elected. I'm already preparing for it.
Well if your fear over SCJ choices is predominantly based on a belief that someone's going to take our guns, just relax. That will never happen. The guns in this gun case ain't going anywhere, nor do I fear that ever happening. If they want to make it a little more difficult for someone to get one by doing thorough background checks and mental health record checks, I am fine with that. If they want to control dishonest sellers (like someone I personally know) who goes to every gun show and allows people to buy without a background check and sells online the same way, I am absolutely fine with that as well.
I'm not sure why people fear those appointees so much.
Sooo, "conservative" is a subjective term, too!
I'm not sure what's "conservative" about Donald Trump, but, I'm sure the people who make a living at creating the illusion of "conservative" and "liberal" are trying their best!
No kidding. Everything's subjective to one extent or another Strum!
I don't know a single person who thinks Donald is Conservative, he's waaaay too Liberal for my tastes. But he is certainly less Liberal than Hillary who is Obama on steroids politically, and makes no bones about it. So since I consider the nominating of SCJ's even more important than who will be POTUS for the next 4-8 years, I'll vote for Donald.
If you dislike Hillary and Donald and can't bring yourself voting for either, you can choose to vote for Johnson, write in a candidate, or you can elect not to vote at all. That's your prerogative. Me, I choose to vote for the candidate that has more in common with my beliefs, will do the least amount of damage to our country during their tenure, specifically regarding selecting SCJ's, and has a legitimate chance of winning.
I haven't seen people saying this. The vast majority of my friends, Conservative and Liberal, believe Hillary will win. Perhaps you can cite some posters saying Donald has it in the bag. I'd like to see them.
Really???
I'd say she's definitely to the right of Obama, politically. That's the funniest part of listening to Talk Radio. They make her out to be Bernie Sanders on steroids! Those guys sure know how to keep their viewers and listeners tuned-in.
By the way, those so-called "conservative judges" are also frauds. I suppose it depends on how you define someone as being conservative.
Strum, you spend all your time playing semantics. Your posts are nothing more than verbal jousting and circle arguments. Commit to something, for goodness sake.
Strum is the inventor of the message board circle jerk.
Or perhaps you guys aren't capable of seeing outside that perfect little box you stay in, the box you've been conditioned all of your life to believe is the ONLY truth. Open your minds a little, stick a toe out of that box, there's an amazing world out here. Sometimes not committing to something, especially political, is a GREAT idea and can do wonders for you and your country. But I know you guys are fine with wash, rinse, repeat and getting the same result so you can bicker about it for four to eight years until the other side gets their turn.
*this is sarcasm, yet it's still true, not meant to insult or hurt anyone's feelings.
thanks for the stock libtard response. I'll just stick with what didn't get us 18 trillion in debt.
I DID commit to something. You claimed that Hillary is "Obama on steroids." I dunno what that means exactly, so I assumed it meant Obama is liberal and Hillary is more liberal. I then stated, quite clearly, that Hillary Clinton is politically TO THE RIGHT of Barack Obama. No semantics, nothing vague or misleading. Hillary Clinton is NOT some radical socialist. Her opposition in the primaries was, but SHE is status quo, all the way. She loves Wall Street, she's all for going to war against Muslims when the light is green, she's NOT going to take your guns away from you. I'm not convinced that Hillary and Donald are, at their core, very far apart in their political objectives. They may differ on immigration.
I then made a specific statement about the Supreme Court judge appointments. You seem to think that Donald Trump is going to get younger, more conservative Scalia's in there. Well, we already agreed that "conservative" is subjective (as is Liberal). We also know that Donald Trump is hardly the epitome of "traditional conservatism", and we even agreed that "Conservative" is subjective! It's not like Presidents just pick any judge they want and, BAM!, they're in the club! Look at John Roberts! Bush was a conservative and chose that lukewarm guy. It's all relative. Depending on the issue, any one of us could be liberal or conservative.
Ooohh... goody. I'm glad you threw that out there. Enlighten me... what exactly did "get us 18 trillion in debt?" I'm eagerly awaiting your response.
the stimulus uh there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as we thought , more and more people on SSDI to keep them off the unemployment roles (something they conveniently don't measure) , food stamp recipients up 46%. Are you disputing the fact that it has doubled??
Oh, no! I KNOW it's doubled. It has increased with every administration since 1913. But, I also know why it has doubled, and will double again, and triple, and quadruple, and then exponentially, as it has for decades. And, it won't make one difference what the letter beside the president's name is or isn't.
The US Debt will NEVER reverse itself. It will ONLY increase. It has nothing really to do with those factors you listed. Those things didn't help, of course. Every administration has had their own, unique contributions of failed, frivolous spending. Some more than others. But, the US Debt figure is based on, and subject to, the Federal Reserves monetary system and the monetized debt that backs our currency. It's not as complicated and complex as many like to believe.
The ONLY WAY, that the US Debt can EVER be resolved is to get rid of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel as our benefactor and debtor. Our currency is not even our own. Our Treasury is in debt to the Fed. WE are in debt to the Fed. The US Treasury never issues currency. They send bonds to the Fed and the Fed exchanges those bonds for Federal Reserve Notes (look at any paper bill you may have). Every one of those FRN's are, basically, "sold back" to the Treasury with interest. So, the debt can never go down at this point. NEVER! As long as the Fed exists, the debt will rise... and rise... and rise. Trillions will become quadrillions, and then quintillion. The system is built, literally, on interest and debt. And, we, the citizens are always on the hook for it. It's like a veiled slavery.
Meh, something you stated is partly right, but you do realize we reduced the national debt after and while we had the FED, right?
Balance the budget and keep it balanced, and eventually the debt will become very small relative to GDP. It will just take awhile. If interest rates spike and it's unmanageable, we're in trouble as we would then have to print money (which we are already doing via monetizing the debt), but as long as the budget is balanced, that can work too. The dollar will likely be safe if we are not borrowing.
Show me any time in the last 30 or so years where the national debt has gone down. What do you think causes that debt anyway?
Pretty simple really Chick, spending more money than you take in. The very same way you or your family acquire debt if you spend more than you make. It's not rocket science. As you can see by this graph, the national debt has gone up and down many times in the past. And as you can see, it has dramatically increased on Obama's watch.
The bad thing is our national debt may have exceeded our GDP in the two years since this graph was made. Many leading economists think that we could balance the budget within five years by reducing spending by a mere 1% each of those five years. When you consider the amount of pork in our budget, 1% would be easy to cut. But that would require politicians to understand the necessity of balancing the budget and keeping it balanced.
Unfortunately, politicians have proven that it doesn't matter how much money they raise in taxes because they're going to spend 10-15% more than that amount. I can get a five year old to understand why you shouldn't spend more than you make, it's rudimentary arithmetic. But our freakin' politicians can't grasp the repercussions of continually doing so. Why? Because we're not on the gold standard anymore, it's all funny money with no basis in reality. Just print or digitize more money and voila, problem solved.
http://americansforprosperityfounda...-updated.pdf?gclid=CMyft7Clwc4CFYxahgodHicNqg
It's one of the most frustrating things about our political system to me, Randman. And it's also why it won't matter if the Feds raise taxes to 90% because whatever amount they raise, it will never be enough to cover their profligate spending. It's the definition of irresponsibility.
Well, you have to actually pay attention. That may not be something you want to do.
The last time we EVER had "no debt" was during Andrew Jackson's administration.
The debt will never be reversed. All of these little points and suggestions of not spending and cutting-back, etc., are all fine and good to talk about. I mean, you can even implement all of those things, but the debt will grow exponentially, regardless. 18 trillion came from the perpetual debt and interest cycle that has been accruing for decades and decades. It is absolutely impossible to reverse it. If the US Government never spent another penny, it would still continue to grow. Surely you understand how credit card accounts work. If you max-out your credit card, and then pay the minimum, and never spend any more, then you still incur a fee (interest) every month. That minimum balance is never enough to pay it off because of the penalties/interest that accrues. It's a scam. That is why so many people succumb to credit card debt. Modern Money Mechanics is a great source to better understand it.
Our monetary system is basically a veiled slavery for average citizens. That's not a pleasant truth, but it's the truth. Fractional reserve banking, and the central banking processes (managed by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel) is a perfection of control. Debt is a powerful instrument of control.
But, the vast majority of people never know about this and prefer to believe that it's politics and Left vs. Right. That paradigm is ALL most people ever know, and ever WANT to know.
Perhaps you didn't click my link and look at the graph provided. If you had you would have seen that it disproves your statement. If it were impossible to reverse the debt, the graph would not show significant downturns that occurred after WWII and again in the late 90's. It is very possible to reverse the trend but it requires reining in the irresponsible spending by both parties.
You make some of the most bizarre statements I've ever seen posted on any public site.
http://americansforprosperityfounda...-updated.pdf?gclid=CMyft7Clwc4CFYxahgodHicNqg
So you can't prove it or just don't want to because nothing you posted here addresses your claims, which are the debt cannot be lowered.
Keep in mind you were responding to my comment that if we just balance the budget, over time the national debt becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP.
So please "pay attention" and address that. Using your credit card analogy, if you pay the minimum that presumably prevents the principal from increasing, then the principal stays the same, right?
With the national debt as the principal, there are 2 ways to solve this IF you quit adding to it and maintain a balanced budget. The first is you keep the principal the same and just make interest rate payments and over time, due to GDP increasing, that becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP.
However, you can also do what the FED is doing now IF THE BUDGET IS BALANCED, and that is you can monetize the debt slowly. Basically that's printing money and that's what we are doing right now to finance the deficit. The whole key here to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. One could probably monetize the debt, as much as we'd want, over 20 years and maybe less and get rid of it entirely. Most likely we wouldn't want to do that entirely as Treasuries serve as a safe haven for global liquidity but we can easily address this if we have the political will to do so.
If not, rising interest rates and increasing the debt like Obama did doubling the national debt may make the government insolvent and have to default on the interest on the national debt.
Good! That is one of my goals. No one ever made a difference by saying exactly the same thing as everyone else.
Last edited:
Somehow we need to clean house and force the issue. Just not sure we can with so many liberals and democrats committed to bankrupting us via overspending, and the cowardly Republicans not willing to shut down the government for as long as it takes to reach a balanced budget.
That's what I thought.
Keep fighting "The Left." I knew I was wasting my time with you.
Here is the statement that makes everything else you offered a waste of time: "However, you can also do what the FED is doing now IF THE BUDGET IS BALANCED, and that is you can monetize the debt slowly." Monetizing debt IS THE FVCKING PROBLEM! That is the whole source of the problem. There is no "balancing the budget", dude. It isn't a possibility.
Politicians love people like you. You keep them at the front of the gravy train trough and you keep paying their debts. Hate The Left! That's all we need, right?
Hopeless.
You've got the bizarre part down pat, now if you could just work on the realism part.
Strum, what may be hopeless is trying to explain to you that there is a difference between the deficit and the national debt. Balancing the budget has to do with not borrowing to finance the current annual expenditure and so eliminating the deficit.
Take a step back and get a handle on that. The deficit and the debt are 2 different things.
Similar threads
