Jump to content

2016 Presidential Election - Who will the nominees be? Make your prediction here.


LooseGoose
 Share

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

Romney would have had this countries economy humming, imo.

Its always tough to be elected when 1 candidate says "We'll give you a check for everything, healthcare included and the other thinks hard work, investment, etc is the way out of this mess.

Peeps chose a free paycheck.

what a joke. Yet again, the GOP is the victims. Woe is them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. As you have said before, you can't slide a credit card between the differences of Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney on foreign policy.

Except you totally can. For instance, Hillary was integral in the Iran deal as SoS. You seriously think Cheney would have anything to do with that?

That's just one example of how they're different from very recent history.

I find it spectacularly false to claim there's no difference between these two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country was and has been great without handing out free college paid for by hardworking taxpayers. Taxpayers are burdened enough already.

If you don't understand the debt we have, I don't know what to say.

so taxpayers currently aren't paying for college? mkay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country was and has been great without handing out free college paid for by hardworking taxpayers. Taxpayers are burdened enough already.

If you don't understand the debt we have, I don't know what to say.

Because it isn't as if there is a shortage of Americans who have crushing college debt.

Setting aside the 'giving **** away is ruining America' rhetoric - just set it aside for a moment please - there needs to be a fundamental recognition that our citizens are going to need to receive more and more education as time goes on to remain competitive in the workplace. It simply has to happen, if we are to stay competitive.

We benefit, as a society, if corporate investment happens in the US rather than other countries. One way we can motivate that corporate investment is by either being the low cost provider of labor or the provider of highest skill labor.

Given the standard of living we enjoy and I presume we want to continue to enjoy, the latter option is really the only way to go. Besides, being the low cost provider of labor is a race to the bottom anyway.

Colleges and universities are currently deriving almost all of the economic benefit from students getting degrees. This wasn't the case when I graduated 20 years ago, nor was it the case further back in the past, but it is the case now. That makes no sense and runs counter to the very American idea that people need to pull themselves up and is best accomplished by providing a meaningful financial incentive for them to do so.

The cost of higher education has to be controlled and a real financial incentive must exist for students to merit the time and effort necessary to get a degree just for this country to potentially be the land of employment opportunity that we all want it to be.

I submit free market pricing is not working in higher education right now. These universities are scanning the market to see what they can charge and are not actively competing with each other on price. In other words, universities are engaging in tacit collusion.

You don't want socialized higher education? I am fine with that. I am not sold on that idea either, FWIW.

But what I am sold on the idea tacit collusion by universities must be broken at a minimum if we want higher education in this country to work in a manner remotely close to the way we need it to as a society in order to motivate the level and type of corporate investment in America I think we need.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the judgement of our government dating back to Clinton, as was the intelligence on the infrastructure that was so wildly inaccurate. And in all of the UN haggling, can you name me the government that disagreed with this assessment?

Ah, yes, Clinton thought the same thing. This cannard again.

So, lemme ask... if he had the same intel, why didn't he invade? Oh, because y'alls boy CHOSE differently.

Personal responsibility.... until you can blame a Democrat. Typical of these pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if we wanted better independent intelligence, we could have avoided trying to torpedo the UN agencies we commissioned to get some answers...(note this goes back to Clinton as well)

How the IAEA went from lapdog to watchdog in Iraq | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"We" didn't want better intelligence. "We" really, really loved the intelligence "we" had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the judgement of our government dating back to Clinton, as was the intelligence on the infrastructure that was so wildly inaccurate. And in all of the UN haggling, can you name me the government that disagreed with this assessment?

I saw Mike Morrell (Bush's former briefer and Obama CIA appointee) pushing a book several weeks ago. He said nobody pressured the CIA and that they just had it wrong. He also went into some detail about the daily briefs filled with chatter about suitcase bombs and other massive attacks. Pretty interesting stuff.

Hillary should not get near the White House because she is a coward who decided to blame Bush to dodge responsibility for her own vote.

And iirc after the Hussein regime was taken into custody and questioned, most thought they had nerve gas, mustard gas, whatever it was they used on the Kurds. They thought they manufactured more. They were getting bluffed by the scientists who made the stuff. I remember hearing reports like that anyway. Not sure how true they were though.

The Iraq war can be debated all day long, but I don't think the Bush admin had to lie or make a bunch of stuff up, as they have been accused of, about the Iraqis having WMD. It was the intel we had at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And iirc after the Hussein regime was taken into custody and questioned, most thought they had nerve gas, mustard gas, whatever it was they used on the Kurds. They thought they manufactured more. They were getting bluffed by the scientists who made the stuff. I remember hearing reports like that anyway. Not sure how true they were though.

The Iraq war can be debated all day long, but I don't think the Bush admin had to lie or make a bunch of stuff up, as they have been accused of, about the Iraqis having WMD. It was the intel we had at that time.

Yet other presidents didn't invade. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The invasion would t have been necessary if the matter had been taken care of during Gulf I. Blame the UN.

Even though I have made this argument, I do not think it really holds water for 2 reasons. The first is that it implies that Bush wanted to occupy Iraq, and the UN prevented this, and I do not believe this to be the case. The second is that it is assumed that the 2003 invasion of Iraq necessary, which many, if not most, don't believe to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if we could have in 1991 pushed the envelope to regime change...but that coalition was impressive. H.W. Bush deserves praise for his luck as well as his acumen.

To the best of my knowledge, regime change was never the intent. One could argue that a regime change would have likely lead to a mire that is currently being experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering why I saw a Trump tweet last night that was targeting Rand, and this probably explains it. Trump is an equal opportunity basher, and he doesn't care that Rand is running near the bottom currently.

I don't think it ends well for Rand, but he has to do it for several reasons.

The first being that Rand's campaign is going no where and frankly he has no other way to catapult himself back into the top echelon.

The second being that he probably believes that he will get Republican street cred for being the one to knock off Trump, if he can pull it off. He's disillusioned in that, I believe, as the establishment would never let him take credit for it and even if they did they would still marginalize him as party fringe. But the establishment has been unable to take care of Trump despite their best efforts, so they probably would owe Rand if he was the one who did it.

And third, Trumps supporters are in fact and largely were counted on being Rand supporters by his campaign. Basically he lost most of his support to Trump, probably more than any other of the candidates. Conservatives realize that the Republican establishment will never let Rand win, just like his father, and have shifted to a 'burn it down' strategy through supporting Trump. Rand obviously doesn't want that, because he wants the nomination, but he's probably to late to change its course. The only thing that could probably do that is some sort of self-inflicted Trump implosion. That is possible, but won't be because of a PC blow-up, but it would probably have to be something more ideological like Trump suggesting tax increases or of that nature. Something that would really irk conservatives.

Besides the fact that I think Rand fails in this endeavor, I would rather see politicians stand for what they believe in and try to highlight the differences between themselves and their opponents, and win on that basis. If that what Rand has in mind, then he has grown as a politician, and may be ready for the job at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denninger is going donkey kong on the republicans, and he is right.

My comment: It didn't work, Fox; in fact, it blew up in your face.

What is being misunderstood is that this is not so much about Trump as it is about the Republican party, which has lied repeatedly over the last several decades and, when in power, has failed to deliver on any of its promises despite having the ability to do so.

The mealy-mouthed games have finally awakened the people of this country who understand that there is a Constitution and it has meaning -- the original meaning in the words, not some load of crap after-the-fact that happens to be convenient for you at the time.

The cuckservative games, whether condescending crap that spews repeatedly from John McCain, the crying of Boehner, the outright lies of Ryan and McMorris-Rodgers and more have finally reached the point that the people of this country with a view toward the original intent and wisdom of the founders of this nation, never mind the Republican structure of our government, have simply had enough.

We're not going to vote for another McCain, no matter what name he has. We're not going to vote for a Bush who takes credit for a Florida "economic miracle" that was in fact all built on housing market leverage, liar loans and illegal mexican labor. We're not going to vote for those who claim to be opposed to virtually every program President Obama has championed and led yet while holding the power of the purse to stop every last one of them they were instead funded, continued and expanded! We're not going to vote for a Doctor who refuses to raise and debate the issue of outrageous monopoly interests that drive the price of medical care up by 10x what it should cost, and why the people involved are not under indictment and in prison rather than driving around in a Mercedes. And we're not interested in the excuses coming from the various orifices of these candidates while they bow before the Koch Brothers and their money, or show up at Redstate when its leader bars Trump from coming after he, and the media, charged him with using words he never spoke, turning a well-justified riposte for an uncivil and intentionally dishonest attack put forward by the big corporate media into words he never uttered.

We, those of mind such as myself and others, simply refuse to play this "but if you don't vote for our jackass, evil though he may be, Hillary will win" game any more. This garbage was run with McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and it's not happening again. I voted for Cthulu last time for this very reason and vowed to never again lend support or assistance to any such crap by the cuckservative Republicans -- then or in the future. I meant it.

Yes, this means that if Trump is improperly treated by the Republican Party and/or their media affiliates and as a result he decides to run on a third party or independent ticket, an act he certainly can do and fund himself, I will vote for him. If you think I fail to understand the consequence of this you're wrong; my intent is to destroy the Cuckservative party now masquerading as "Republican", and I'm not alone.

Yes, that is a threat Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ryan, Mr. McConnell, Ms. McMorris-Rodgers and all of the rest of you. It is a lawful and political threat. It is a gigantic "**** you" middle finger in your direction, exactly as I expressed in plain language to a McMorris-Rodgers staffer after all of you folded in the debt ceiling debacle rather than doing what you were elected to, and promised to, do.

I will accept no more excuses nor will I accept any more lies. I am done and so are millions of others who identify as Conservative. You are not conservatives, you are cuckservatives, sellouts, frauds, liars and thieves and you will either reform now and turn back all of what you have done to destroy this republic, federalism and the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution before you ask for my vote once again or I, and millions of others, will take every legal political action available to us to destroy YOU.

THAT is what this -- and Trump's popularity -- is about.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230492

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading on Bush 41 recently and you have to remember the balancing act at the time. The Soviet Union still existed. He had to balance that... as well as get Israel to agree to back off if they were attacked by Iraq... the latter being something Saddam was going to do to try to get the Arab nations to break from the coalition. It didn't work. Bush 41 was a diplomatic genius and call it Providence if you will, but he was the right guy to be in there at the time. A career as UN Ambassador, Envoy to China, and globe trotting VP helped him build up relationships and contacts that paid off during that crisis. He knew right away invasion would happen but had no intention to invade Iraq. Some others have suggested that Schwarzkopff wanted to go in but Powell disputed that in his book. The goal from the beginning was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. That was it. Bush knew if he went beyond that his coalition would fall apart and with the news that the economy in the US was beginning to fade he knew it wouldn't be cost effective to invade. He was aware of that. He went through great measures to get the effort funded by as many other nations as possible.

(Then you have Carter doing what he did which could have been treason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      97.1k
    • Total Posts
      3.1m
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...