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

[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.

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.

typical of you to get the math wrong, which I believe I explained with a link in a post above this one. And no one is singled out by party according to the tax code

 

[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.

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.

A caucus?......he won 11 states, against a formidable money machine in Romney. That is pretty impressive and I think if he was allowed on the main debate stage he would do better this time around.

 

[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.

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.

typical of you to get the math wrong, which I believe I explained with a link in a post above this one. And no one is singled out by party according to the tax code

I guess it was in a different thread but here is a good link to show you the current math. Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2015 and 2016

 

[dcraelin]

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.

right, and I agree

 

[Pete7469]

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.

 

[Programmer]

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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

 

[Programmer]

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.

Yeah. I wish he'd fold up, but he may have a glimmer in his eye over past performance. There's so much $ for the mediocre that they can stay in this thing.

 

[Programmer]

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).

I've got where you're coming from. I try to curb this sort of exposure, but yes, at tax time I have the obamacare thing to deal with and some local government bullshit can't be avoided.

Jeb Bush will make a difference in this column over 8 years. I'm looking for more 'exciting' than that with the Trump. I think Rand Paul and Ted Cruz also represent 'small-government' people, but they present too many crazy ideas that are not 'exciting'. They're not as well thought out as they need to be in order to improve on how we currently work. I'm really concerned that revolutionary economic policy bullshit from these two or from Sanders will have the biggest, least avoidable negative impact on my life. They really don't know or care what they're talking about.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

 

[Programmer]

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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

 

[dcraelin]

? 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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

 

[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.

typical of you to get the math wrong, which I believe I explained with a link in a post above this one. And no one is singled out by party according to the tax code

That "whooshing" noise was the point flying over your head and parting your hair.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

 

[Zander]

I proudly support "ABCOB" ...anyone but Clinton or Bush.

 

[Interpol]

Of all the candidates on both sides, and this does not mean I fully endorse all of their policy positions, I feel Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-equipped to take charge on day one. Part of what I hope is involved in anyone's decision making process for President is that fundamental ability.

Watching the Democratic debate last night, it seemed more clear than ever that their candidates are engaged in a conversation fit for thoughtful adults, whereas the Republican debates so far have given us nothing but grandstanding, name-calling, cheap shots, put downs, smack talk, and total pie-in-the-sky plans like somehow building a great long wall and having Mexicans pay for it.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush are right about immigration. Rand Paul is right about the military and many spending issues.

But on the other side, Bernie Sanders just gets it when it comes to Wall Street reform and on Middle East policy. We're only going to get somewhere on terrorism by getting Muslim countries to put some skin in the game. He was ahead of most of us on his opposition to going into Iraq. He just gets it that we've rigged our economic system so that money flows straight to the top and then out of the country. Totally noble of anyone to say they will vote for him because that fundamental issue of economic fairness transcends politics, in my opinion. There are just as many struggling working people that are Democrats as there are Republicans and their interests deserve to be represented.

I like him on many policies and think he's a perfectly respectable candidate, but when it comes to who I want twisting arms when we need to twist arms both at home and abroad, I want Hillary Clinton. It was President Clinton who was ahead of everyone on bringing the military up to speed with the new challenges of the 21st century. The idea of utilizing more field agents to break up terror networks instead of a big, bulky army that continues to be trained for the kinds of wars we don't have anymore.

We all know we need a sleeker, better counter-terrorism apparatus. It's the one thing holding back the office of the presidency, regardless of party. I think her presidency would continue on the path Bill Clinton had set it on, which meant a more effective offensive strategy without the costly overhead of more tanks and other outdated things of that nature. On the economy, I'm attracted to the Clinton 90's. Things were really moving there for a time. For now, I'd have to say Hillary Clinton has the edge. When she speaks at the debates, she simply has the gravitas of a President.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the election is still a year away I would say it's not time to pick anyone

 

[Programmer]

? 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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

This one's like Pol Pot. There has to be a deep seeded greed and self doubt among these commies.

 

[Mac1958]

Jim Webb

 

[dcraelin]

? 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

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

 

[dcraelin]

Of all the candidates on both sides, and this does not mean I fully endorse all of their policy positions, I feel Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-equipped to take charge on day one. Part of what I hope is involved in anyone's decision making process for President is that fundamental ability.

Watching the Democratic debate last night, it seemed more clear than ever that their candidates are engaged in a conversation fit for thoughtful adults, whereas the Republican debates so far have given us nothing but grandstanding, name-calling, cheap shots, put downs, smack talk, and total pie-in-the-sky plans like somehow building a great long wall and having Mexicans pay for it.

John Kasich and Jeb Bush are right about immigration. Rand Paul is right about the military and many spending issues.

But on the other side, Bernie Sanders just gets it when it comes to Wall Street reform and on Middle East policy. We're only going to get somewhere on terrorism by getting Muslim countries to put some skin in the game. He was ahead of most of us on his opposition to going into Iraq. He just gets it that we've rigged our economic system so that money flows straight to the top and then out of the country. Totally noble of anyone to say they will vote for him because that fundamental issue of economic fairness transcends politics, in my opinion. There are just as many struggling working people that are Democrats as there are Republicans and their interests deserve to be represented.

I like him on many policies and think he's a perfectly respectable candidate, but when it comes to who I want twisting arms when we need to twist arms both at home and abroad, I want Hillary Clinton. It was President Clinton who was ahead of everyone on bringing the military up to speed with the new challenges of the 21st century. The idea of utilizing more field agents to break up terror networks instead of a big, bulky army that continues to be trained for the kinds of wars we don't have anymore.

We all know we need a sleeker, better counter-terrorism apparatus. It's the one thing holding back the office of the presidency, regardless of party. I think her presidency would continue on the path Bill Clinton had set it on, which meant a more effective offensive strategy without the costly overhead of more tanks and other outdated things of that nature. On the economy, I'm attracted to the Clinton 90's. Things were really moving there for a time. For now, I'd have to say Hillary Clinton has the edge. When she speaks at the debates, she simply has the gravitas of a President.

she said, if I remember right, 'we cant contain terrorism we have to kill it', tough, demagogic talk , but illogical,, and dangerous.

You can never kill terrorism, it is a tactic, and the more we try the more resentment builds up and seeds itself in a new generation.

Obama's containment is closer to the right path to take.