It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[Uncensored2008]

If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.

There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.

I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.

Are you senile or just stupid?

Besides, you're registered Hezbolah, everyone here knows that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No it isn't "time". This isn't even an election year. Get a ride to a clue store.

Then fuck off and don't discuss it. I don't recall anyone sending you an engraved invitation, desperate to hear your opinions, anyway.

Possum boy wants to be the center of attention in a discussion he doesn't belong in.


I'm still behind Marco Rubio. He has modified his immigratiin stance to where I can live with it and I think he can carry enough Conservatives into Congress along with him that the GOP would have 2 or maybe 4 years to fix a lot of what the current community organizer in chief has broken.

Let's get frank for a bit here. The Presidential election is nearly as much a beauty contest as a political rivalry.
It looks like the Democrats will end up with an old white guy from Vermont, or maybe what's her name, if she can stay out of jail long enough.
Beating either in a beauty contest isn't much of a challenge, but you gotta admit that Ted Cruz looks a lot like a grown up Eddie Munster. Kind of creepy... think Richard Nixon
Rubio is a good looking guy, very personable who I actually spent some time talking with back when he was running for the Senate.
He's got a cheerleader wife and cute kids.... John Kennedy

http://communitytable.parade.com/151898/galinaespinoza/at-home-with-marco-rubio/

Rubio supports open borders and firing American professionals so that low cost foreign replacement can have their jobs.

I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for that scumbag.

 

[Ernie S.]

You're getting false information.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're getting false information.

About what?

Rubio himself advocated for H1B's in the second debate. He is a promoter of this kind of shit;

{
Southern California Edison (SCE) announced a “transition effort” that will dump 500 employees and replace them presumably cheaper H-1B visa holders imported from India. Many laid-off employees are complaining that in a demoralizing betrayal, some laid-off workers are being assigned to train their India replacements on how to do their jobs.}

SCE Dumps American Staff, Imports H-1B Tech Workers from India - Breitbart

Rubio is bad for anyone who has a job in America.

{
A guy whose entire career has been dedicated to giving cheap labor to employers while driving down American wages should steer clear of complaining about “special interests.” It’s like a hooker complaining about promiscuity.

– He said the “problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough.”

I wonder if the dump of millions of low-wage foreign workers on our country has anything to do with that?

– He gave a brave little speech announcing his opposition to jihadists — setting him apart from everyone else on that stage, who LOVES Islamic jihadists! — and claimed that radical terrorist groups “recruit Americans using social media.”

No, Marco, ISIS doesn’t recruit “Americans” on social media. It recruits immigrants and their children — whom you want to import more of, by the way.

Given his record, it’s too late for Rubio to take America’s side on immigration. But it’s still amazing that only Ted Cruz is smart enough to adopt Trump’s runaway, most popular position.}

Ann Coulter - Don’t Ask Him That! It Would Be Too Obvious

 

[Toro]

I haven't decided. I don't have to decide until March 15.

The only thing I have decided is that I'm not going to vote for that unstable, unsuitable for President, Trump. He doesn't have the temperament to be President. There is no way that guy should be deciding on whether to send our children to die in war.

 

[Toro]

Trump has the so called "independent moderates" locked down at the moment, shining light on the moonbat lie.

Link?

 

[Toro]

Trump work financials,

Trump is a disaster financially.

This is common knowledge for anyone with a modicum of financial knowledge.

 

[dcraelin]

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of.

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects, but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.

I characterize our current lot as overspending. Taking 90% of someone'e earnings is over-taxing.

The Fed 'targets' interest and inflation values. Some of our borrowing recalls funds from a weakening trade balance. We wont completely stop selling debt. Rather than taxing, why wont we get investment for our infrastructure? From these same 'the rich' you're talking about?

? like I said its not taking 90%, but more than the aprox 16% they pay now

I dont understand the rest of what you re sayng

 

[dcraelin]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

No it won't.

I'd explain, but I've explained so many times that I know leftist can't learn.

So yo tell me how taking money out of the economy helps the economy.

and remember, under that 91%, no one got rich.

I would guess plenty of people got rich...Ross Perot made his fortune largely in this time.

borrowing money also takes money from the economy...and because of interest takes more than straight taxation.

 

[Two Thumbs]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

No it won't.

I'd explain, but I've explained so many times that I know leftist can't learn.

So yo tell me how taking money out of the economy helps the economy.

and remember, under that 91%, no one got rich.

I would guess plenty of people got rich...Ross Perot made his fortune largely in this time.

borrowing money also takes money from the economy...and because of interest takes more than straight taxation.

so you know it wrong to heavily tax people, but not as bad as borrowing.

What do you think about cutting down the size of government?

decreased costs would mean we wouldn't have to increase taxes or borrow (if the cuts were serious enough)

 

[Programmer]

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of.

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects, but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.

I characterize our current lot as overspending. Taking 90% of someone'e earnings is over-taxing.

The Fed 'targets' interest and inflation values. Some of our borrowing recalls funds from a weakening trade balance. We wont completely stop selling debt. Rather than taxing, why wont we get investment for our infrastructure? From these same 'the rich' you're talking about?

? like I said its not taking 90%, but more than the aprox 16% they pay now

I dont understand the rest of what you re sayng

I'm saying that paying the debt is not the economic boost that you're talking about and a silly justification to overtax the economy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll modernize the brackets, but with all said and done @ $130K a 1 billion dollar income taxed 91% above $130k is indeed taxed more than 90%.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life. It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes. The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?

You think you control how much involvement the federal government has in your life?

I didn't say a damned thing about "blue collar", but it is a fact that Presidents used to do their jobs without people having to hear about it and from them several times a week.

Yes. I feel in charge of my government exposure. Regarding the press component of that, I was raised a political spectator, so again, there's no way I'm ever going to understand where you're coming from. That's a bit off the topic, though.

This couldn't be the chief factor in your decision. Did the last debate influence your position at all?

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth about collar color. You described the behavior expected of blue collars. Executives like the POTUS are indeed expected to face the public.

Is THAT what you think government involvement is, just how often it's on the news? You think you just shut off the TV, and voila! The government is gone?

I'm not talking about watching press releases. I'm talking about not being able to buy the type of toilet you want because the federal government has decreed you have to have one that requires three flushes to clear the bowl in the name of "environmental consciousness". Or buy the type of light bulb I want. Or any of dozens of other purchases.

I'm talking about my streets not being safe to walk down at night because I live an hour from the Mexican border and the President - who doesn't live anywhere near the Mexican border - has decreed that we are not going to enforce the border because it isn't "nice", and my city is overrun with criminals who wandered over the border with impunity.

I'm talking about pretty soon not being able to buy cough syrup when I have a lousy cold without taking a day off from work to visit a doctor and get a prescription for it because the FDA has decided adults can't be trusted and is pushing through a new regulation.

I'm talking about my city spending 42 days being extorted by the Teamsters Union via bus driver strike because the federal government subsidizes metro transit systems and in exchange, decrees that unions must be kowtowed to and that the city government itself - for all that it actually OWNS the transit system - cannot be involved in negotiations to represent the people of the city.

I can go on and on, but I really don't feel like it. The upshot is, why in God's name does my daily life as an individual involve THIS much interaction with the federal government? Why in the hell are they this involved?

So yeah. My ideal candidate is someone who thinks the federal government is way too front-and-center in people's lives, and wants to scale that back in reasonable ways (I always hear about whichever Paul lunatic is currently running at this point, so let's skip that this time around).

 

[Cecilie1200]

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

After Romney pissed it all away?.....no it should absolutely be a criteria.

Are you a Republican? No? Then may I ask why your criteria for Republican primary debates should mean a fart in a windstorm to anyone? Yeah, I'm sure you love every opportunity you leftists get to obscure any sort of meaningful information exchange on the right regarding candidates. Hey, let's require that debates be moderated by partisan hacks asking retarded questions that apply to fuck-all; let's require that we haul out someone the voters rejected and treat him like the front runner, because it's IMPORTANT right now that he won a caucus four years ago.

Sorry, Chuckles. The debates are about who and what matters to the GOP's voters right now. Go tend to your own party and candidates. Spend some more time trying to convince the rest of the world - and yourself - that Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate and you're THRILLED to be voting for her.

 

[Cecilie1200]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

Oh, believe me, we never forget how much you leftists LOVE the idea of people working and risking everything in order to keep only a dime out of every dollar they earn.

Well, people other than YOU, that is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

I agree, but remember, Reagan tried the primary more than once.

No one's saying you can't run as many times as you like, but the fact that you ran last time does not by itself convey any "primary stage" privileges. What counts is whether or not you get the supporters THIS time.

Santorum was ultimately a dud last time, and he's a nobody this time. The fact that he won a caucus four years ago does not entitle him to be in the main stage debates now. Reagan, on the other hand, came back a second time and got people fired up about supporting him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
©Reprints

Ah, the one-issue voter...fragmenting the GOP since at least 2008...

That's funny, coming from people whose "one issue" is whether there's an (R) or a (D) after a candidate's name. No other info needed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
©Reprints

While I dont particularly care for Cruz he did hit the nail on the head when he said at the debate that there would be less support for immigration if bankers and lawyers were immigrating in mass. Then he added journalists I think.

What he actually said was that the politics and the media coverage of immigration would be very different if lawyers or bankers or journalists were crossing the Rio Grande and driving wages down. THEN we'd be hearing about what an economic calamity it is, instead of being told how "anti-immigrant" it is to object.

 

[dcraelin]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

No it won't.

I'd explain, but I've explained so many times that I know leftist can't learn.

So yo tell me how taking money out of the economy helps the economy.

and remember, under that 91%, no one got rich.

I would guess plenty of people got rich...Ross Perot made his fortune largely in this time.

borrowing money also takes money from the economy...and because of interest takes more than straight taxation.

so you know it wrong to heavily tax people, but not as bad as borrowing.

What do you think about cutting down the size of government?

decreased costs would mean we wouldn't have to increase taxes or borrow (if the cuts were serious enough)

the history of government, our government, shows, no matter what the political makeup of congress, substantial cuts are never made. This may be a flaw in the system and I believe it is in part. (see my outline for a new constitution) But history does show we can tax enough to at least pay the debt down slowly. That is where we should be.

 

[dcraelin]

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of.

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects, but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.

I characterize our current lot as overspending. Taking 90% of someone'e earnings is over-taxing.

The Fed 'targets' interest and inflation values. Some of our borrowing recalls funds from a weakening trade balance. We wont completely stop selling debt. Rather than taxing, why wont we get investment for our infrastructure? From these same 'the rich' you're talking about?

? like I said its not taking 90%, but more than the aprox 16% they pay now

I dont understand the rest of what you re sayng

I'm saying that paying the debt is not the economic boost that you're talking about and a silly justification to overtax the economy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll modernize the brackets, but with all said and done @ $130K a 1 billion dollar income taxed 91% above $130k is indeed taxed more than 90%.

? no it doesnt, if the 91% rate doesnt kick in until 130,000, and the next lowest rate is say 35% then a guy making 130,001 pays 35% + 91cents , and not even that because he pays say a lower rate of 15% on his first 15,000, and so on.

here is a good site a found that shows u todays rates, the highest bracket doesnt kick in till 413,200. a married couple making 130000 currently is in the "25% bracket" but pays 18.53%

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2015 and 2016

 

[dcraelin]

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

After Romney pissed it all away?.....no it should absolutely be a criteria.

Are you a Republican? No? Then may I ask why your criteria for Republican primary debates should mean a fart in a windstorm to anyone? Yeah, I'm sure you love every opportunity you leftists get to obscure any sort of meaningful information exchange on the right regarding candidates. Hey, let's require that debates be moderated by partisan hacks asking retarded questions that apply to fuck-all; let's require that we haul out someone the voters rejected and treat him like the front runner, because it's IMPORTANT right now that he won a caucus four years ago.

Sorry, Chuckles. The debates are about who and what matters to the GOP's voters right now. Go tend to your own party and candidates. Spend some more time trying to convince the rest of the world - and yourself - that Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate and you're THRILLED to be voting for her.

first, I'd say the same in a similar situation in the democratic party......(I havent voted democrat for president in years, I vote 3rd party )

The Republicans tried Romney last time...that didnt work in general......so that would tend to tell them to try a different tack this time around.....maybe the guy that came in second last time?