Trump Continues to Lead After Debate

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-09-2015, 11:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Eventually his support will lessen.   I don't think he is substantive enough to maintain the following.  Conservative voters look for substance and attitude.  

Now truno could surprise us with substance but I'm not so sure it will meet with what conservatives expect .  

Just a hunch on my part.

I agree that conservative voters looking for "substance" is just a hunch with no evidence on your part.

[StLucieBengal]

Yeah he isn't a true conservarive.

Neither is bush, claims he is pro life, but sat as a director who have tens of millions of dollars to planned parenthood. Now he was pro life in the Terri Schiavo case, but thats a long time ago.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-10-2015, 12:06 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah he isn't a true conservarive.  

Neither is bush, claims he is pro life, but sat as a director who have tens of millions of dollars to planned parenthood.    Now he was pro life in the Terri Schiavo case, but thats a long time ago.

You use "true conservative" the same way Baptists use "true Christian": if you don't like them, they aren't "true"; don't bother asking you to define the word with anything other than examples of what you don't like.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Me personally, I gave up on the R vs D paradigm a while ago.

When you get through the talking points and rhetoric and focus on what they actually DO, there's not very much difference between the two parties any longer.

Corporatism and statism rule the political landscape now.

I could see myself supporting Rand Paul, but the fact that he doesn't have the money behind him and the GOP establishment against him lead me to believe that he's not going to get the nomination.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-10-2015, 12:11 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Me personally, I gave up on the R vs D paradigm a while ago.  

When you get through the talking points and rhetoric and focus on what they actually DO, there's not very much difference between the two parties any longer.  

Corporatism and statism rule the political landscape now.  

I could see myself supporting Rand Paul, but the fact that he doesn't have the money behind him and the GOP establishment against him lead me to believe that he's not going to get the nomination.

So far as I know, there is only one serious candidate for President who supports an end to "corporatism", if by corporatism you mean the use of corporate money to control and influence politicians. His name is Bernie Sanders.

Rand Paul never had a chance at the nomination anyway; he is destined to be another perennial also-ran like his father.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 12:15 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So far as I know, there is only one serious candidate for President who supports an end to "corporatism", if by corporatism you mean the use of corporate money to control and influence politicians. His name is Bernie Sanders.

Rand Paul never had a chance at the nomination anyway; he is destined to be another perennial also-ran like his father.

I'll pass on the socialist with the rape fantasies. 

I do respect him for not accepting big dollar donations from Wall St and the filthy rich, but that's about the only good thing I can say about the guy. 

Socialism works great until you run out of everybody else's money.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-10-2015, 12:24 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'll pass on the socialist with the rape fantasies. 

I do respect him for not accepting big dollar donations from Wall St and the filthy rich, but that's about the only good thing I can say about the guy. 

Socialism works great until you run out of everybody else's money.  

Wonderful series of bumper sticker slogans you have there.

I don't believe somebody should be judged based on a piece of creative writing they produced over 40 years ago, and I'd love to hear why you think they should; assuming of course that what you said was anything more than a laughable cheap shot.

So in other words, you want a candidate who isn't accepting big corporate donations, but won't actually attempt to do anything to prevent that from happening in American politics anymore?

Trump is your man.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 12:27 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Wonderful series of bumper sticker slogans you have there.

I don't believe somebody should be judged based on a piece of creative writing they produced over 40 years ago, and I'd love to hear why you think they should; assuming of course that what you said was anything more than a laughable cheap shot.

So in other words, you want a candidate who isn't accepting big corporate donations, but won't actually attempt to do anything to prevent that from happening in American politics anymore?

Trump is your man.

I hate Trump just as much, if that means anything. 

And yes, I was sort of being facetious on the rape fantasy thing. 

I don't think there's any one guy that's going to be able to change it.  Someone may come along and try.  It won't work though.  There's too much money involved and way too much corruption. 

I'm no tin-foil guy, but we're on borrowed time as a nation...and embracing socialism would speed that process up. 

I'm a registered libertarian who hasn't voted for a GOP candidate in the national election since Bush in '00.  I doubt very seriously I'll be voting for a GOP candidate this time around. 

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2015, 07:05 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I think the biggest factor behind his appeal is his honesty. 

It is really scary that so many people say this because almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a blatant lie.

Immigrants from mexico are no more likely to be criminals than U. S. Citizens

The Mexican government is not sending its worst citizens to the US.

It is impossible for him to make Mexico pay for a border fence or pay us $20K for each illegal immigrant.

He can't negotiate a trade agreement that will stop US businesses from opening plants ion other countries.

He could not have negotiated a better Nuclear Arms agreement with Iran than our current administration got.



Basically Trump is leading because he tells people what they want to hear instead of the truth.  That is a great way to get people to like you, but it will not get him elected. And he actually doesn't even want to be President.  all he wants is attention.  That is why everything he does or says is about getting attention instead of addressing any actual facts. 

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2015, 12:24 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Socialism works great until you run out of everybody else's money.  

Every industrialized country on earth has some form of government health care except the United States.

Unregulated capitalism works great if you are in the top 1% economically and don't mind breathing toxic air in an environmental wasteland.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 12:09 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You use "true conservative" the same way Baptists use "true Christian": if you don't like them, they aren't "true"; don't bother asking you to define the word with anything other than examples of what you don't like.

True conservative must be stated. Due to progressives trying to coop the conservative label . Same problem with the liberals. That's why it must be stated as such.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 12:24 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Socialism works great until you run out of everybody else's money.  

Then it just becomes full on Communism.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-10-2015, 01:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is really scary that so many people say this because almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a blatant lie.

Immigrants from mexico are no more likely to be criminals than U. S. Citizens

The Mexican government is not sending its worst citizens to the US.

It is impossible for him to make Mexico pay for a border fence or pay us $20K for each illegal immigrant.

He can't negotiate a trade agreement that will stop US businesses from opening plants ion other countries.

He could not have negotiated a better Nuclear Arms agreement with Iran than our current administration got.



Basically Trump is leading because he tells people what they want to hear instead of the truth.  That is a great way to get people to like you, but it will not get him elected. And he actually doesn't even want to be President.  all he wants is attention.  That is why everything he does or says is about getting attention instead of addressing any actual facts. 

Let me clarify: when I refer to his "honesty", I'm speaking only of his straightforwardness on the issue of money in politics.

Like everyone else on that stage, his positions on just about everything else are, of course, built on falsehoods.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-10-2015, 01:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: True conservative must be stated.   Due to progressives trying to coop the conservative label .  Same problem with the liberals.    That's why it must be stated as such.

True conservative should not be stated until you can manage to define it.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 02:21 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: True conservative should not be stated until you can manage to define it.

I have many times. Hit search

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 01:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Every industrialized country on earth has some form of government health care except the United States.

Unregulated capitalism works great if you are in the top 1% economically and don't mind breathing toxic air in an environmental wasteland.

I never advocated for unregulated capitalism, so maybe you can argue that point with someone who's in favor of it. 

We have plenty of government healthcare.  The VA and Medicaid, which are both disasters from a fiscal standpoint, not to mention the costs that Medicaid forces regular consumers to pay because the HC providers have to make up for the money that they lose. 

There are ways to deal with HC that could have made it much better, but unfortunately the only two choices we have with the two parties are:

GOP:  No ideas
DNC:  Bad ideas

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-10-2015, 09:20 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: but unfortunately the only two choices we have with the two parties are:

GOP:  No ideas
DNC:  Bad ideas

You'll fit in around here with unbiasedness

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 09:20 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I never advocated for unregulated capitalism, so maybe you can argue that point with someone who's in favor of it. 

We have plenty of government healthcare.  The VA and Medicaid, which are both disasters from a fiscal standpoint, not to mention the costs that Medicaid forces regular consumers to pay because the HC providers have to make up for the money that they lose. 

There are ways to deal with HC that could have made it much better, but unfortunately the only two choices we have with the two parties are:

GOP:  No ideas
DNC:  Bad ideas

Fred thinks its either all the regulation we have or none. He has trouble with the concept of very limited regulation.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 03:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fred thinks its either all the regulation we have or none.   He has trouble with the concept of very limited regulation.

Yeah, it's not unusual to encounter those that would rather argue strawmen rather than actually responding to what's being said.

As for HC, the costs are out of control and I do believe that something should be done about it.  The problem is that a lot of the costs have gone up because of government interference and over-regulating, and neither side seems willing to do anything about it.

The ACA is a turd. 

If I had my way, I would start by getting insurance companies out of the way for routine things like check-ups, physicals, and sick visits.  Everyone enjoys the low co-pays that they get for routine office visits, but insurance companies are raking in big money for these. 

Getting insurance companies out of the way for the routine and sick visits would lower the price of insurance premiums, and allow people to purchase catastrophic plans at much lower cost because they wouldn't be covering every single visit.  

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 06:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, it's not unusual to encounter those that would rather argue strawmen rather than actually responding to what's being said.

As for HC, the costs are out of control and I do believe that something should be done about it.  The problem is that a lot of the costs have gone up because of government interference and over-regulating, and neither side seems willing to do anything about it.

The ACA is a turd. 

If I had my way, I would start by getting insurance companies out of the way for routine things like check-ups, physicals, and sick visits.  Everyone enjoys the low co-pays that they get for routine office visits, but insurance companies are raking in big money for these. 

Getting insurance companies out of the way for the routine and sick visits would lower the price of insurance premiums, and allow people to purchase catastrophic plans at much lower cost because they wouldn't be covering every single visit.  

I have always wondered if we could drop all insurance except catastrophic. Then just pay per use.