Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy -(FORUM CLOSED)-' started by davriver209, Aug 11, 2015.

  1. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    3,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Besides the gun issue, Hillary has nothing on Bernie.
     
  2. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    28,475
    Likes Received:
    62,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Hillary's only advantage in debates is that she's a ruthless politician and she's got dirt on everyone. Her own agenda is downplayed by her attacking others' positions which works well in debates.

    I still see Sanders as the far and away leader of that group though. America will vote for a woman president soon, but it won't be Clinton. She's terrifying.

    Also, that representative from Baltimore was just crushed by Anderson towards the beginning of the debate.
     
    revgen, Barnstable and John3:16 like this.
  3. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    Tell me again who is the party of old rich white people. Not a lot of disparity on that stage, 3 of whom I still don't know and probably never will.

    Sanders and Clinton got so much more time than everyone else. Clearly set up in their favor.

    The thing I liked is, they weren't fighting like the GOP, but again, it was staged so no real attacks. Put Hillary up against Fiorina and watch her squirm.

    Out of the 5, I liked what Sanders had to say, but I don't agree with how he thinks we can get there. Think we'd be 30 trillion in debt after he left office.

    Recap:
    Sanders - everything should be free
    Clinton - I agree with Sanders, but I want more things free and I'm a woman.
    The other 3 - when do we get to talk? and yes, we agree with our good friend Hillary too.
     
    revgen, Barnstable and therealdeal like this.
  4. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers All Star -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,220
    Likes Received:
    10,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    Unfortunately, "the other 3" didn't really have anything to talk about. If they did, they'd make a stand no matter if it was there turn or not. That's what makes Bernie a strong candidate and debater. He just goes for it no filter. He doesn't care. That's why he gets the time.

    Sanders has his objectives, and he's fighting for them. Clinton seemingly just falls in line with predisposed "Yes" statements that try to make her out on top. The media eats it up, but the people don't. And the media will and have say that Clinton "won." Ha.

    Yes, the Bernie "Everything should be free" campaign sounds exhausting as it is. But he's not here to debate logistics in this debate, he's there to win votes. Most normal citizens aren't going to understand every single detail that goes into his plans, and will get thrown off on how it all works financially. That's not an ideal campaign strategy right? Trump is the same way (except Bernie knows what he's saying) in which he's biting on the popular topics in which he knows he can win votes.

    The WSJ tried to call out Bernie about how his plans would put the US in a crippling debt. But in an MSNBC interview, he proved that WSJ were just pulling numbers based on assumptions and laid out his plan a little more in-depth on how it would be managed.
     
    John3:16 and Barnstable like this.
  5. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,269
    Likes Received:
    18,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    I still haven't seen the debates. I want to watch it tonight.

    I want to hear all the answers to "Black lives matter, or all lives matter?"
     
  6. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    Lakerfan2 -- I agree about Sanders and Trump. Both are old rich men who are passed the point of being PC. They'll say what they want. And yes, Sanders can back it up and Trump can't.

    And I don't like either.
     
  7. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,269
    Likes Received:
    18,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    Yes Yes and F*** YES!!!

     
  8. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    3,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Bernie - Speaks to the base of the party, a true progressive liberal, represents the consciousness of the Democratic party.
    Hillary - Corporate, political, electable. Rhetorically a liberal, but in practice a moderate.
    O'Malley - Basically Hillary Clinton without the fame, name recognition, and expectation of being overtly political. Might be slightly more to the left than her.
    Webb - Not sure if he was at the right debate, didn't really like how he connected everything to his military service. I want to say he's somewhere between a Reagan Democrat and Bob Dole.
    Chafee - I want to give him credit for being the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War, but his "my dad died, therefore I voted to repeal Glass Steagall" excuse basically means he needs to get out of the race like now.
     
    Barnstable likes this.
  9. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
  10. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    Oh yeah, one thing that bothered me was they were asked the question and had all kinds of ideas about how to provide medical benefits to illegal aliens, but no one had a plan how to fix the VA and take care of Vets (21 of who are committing suicide every day). Sanders tried to say he was Chairman and had reform, yada yada yada. IT'S STILL BROKEN!
     
    therealdeal likes this.
  11. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    3,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Not exactly, almost all of the candidates proposed a progressive tax system and curbing military spending. The amount of money we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan alone can fund a public works program to fix are crippling infrastructure transportation system.
     
    Barnstable likes this.
  12. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,269
    Likes Received:
    18,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    Exactly.

    I don't know about the rest of them, but Sanders has outlined how we can afford all the programs he's proposing pretty clearly. It all involves reallocating funding from other areas of government, and getting the rich to actually pay their fair share of taxes.
     
  13. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    In your opinion, what is fair share?
     
  14. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers All Star -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,220
    Likes Received:
    10,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    Honestly, it's mostly getting rid of the ability for the rich to circumvent the tax system, because of course they do. That's why they're rich.

    Most people don't like the idea of a higher tax bracket for the upper income range because it seems unfair right? Logically, there is no right answer that will make one side happy.

    A person making $50,000 a year paying $20,000 in taxes will be angry that someone making four times as much paying the same amount. Conversely, a percentage amount of say 40% will make that upper range questioning why their amount is not the same as a lower income.

    If there was a right answer that person would win a Nobel Prize. But, in all fairness to the people, as much as it seems "unjust" to take more from the upper income people, is it not an issue of increasing poverty in America, a depleted middle class, a broken education and healthcare system and issues like that, to contribute a bit more to taxes? When, that bracket is MORE than capable of doing so? Do these issues of poverty and poor education not lead to more issues such as violence and resorting to other means of income such as drugs?

    Most of the low-middle class conservatives arguing against this program won't be affected by it as much as Bernie's main target of taxation of the corrupt big businesses and those who defrauding the government, the obviously corrupt Financial trading system, and tax evaders. That's where the main source of finance for these programs will come from along with reallocating funding from big budget programs backed by big business. Most arguing that it takes away from the freedom of capitalism will almost never scratch the surface of ending up in that 1%, so it won't really matter to them anyway.

    That is the basis of Bernie's DEMOCRATIC Socialism.

    Please tell me how that does not make sense, and please explain to me the counterargument for Bernie's plan from any of the other candidates out there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
    John3:16 likes this.
  15. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    ^^ I agree with what a lot of what you said. My question to Barns was twofold. 1. I really value his opinion and wonder if the number he deems fair is above or below the current rate they're paying. 2. I have never heard a politician say what "their fare share" is. They use terms such as "they can afford to pay a little more." "They" just paid 70% of all the taxes our government brought in, and they want more?

    IMO, they are paying too much. We all are. The government can afford to stop wasting so much. When I was in the Air Force I saw rampant waste. "Spend it all or you don't get it next year."

    When anyone is giving the government more than half their income, I say it's wrong. I don't care how much you earned or need. Taking more than half is criminal.

    And what most people don't understand, those CEOs have knowledge and skills the average Joe doesn't. Everyone thinks they're Steve Jobs because they own an Apple phone. They have a work ethic and vision we don't. They worked 18 hour days to get to that point. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

    And why does the Left attack a CEO that creates jobs, but has no problem with a Beyonce making $50 million a year or an actor putting out crap movies and raking in the $$$$.
     
    Barnstable and lakerfan2 like this.
  16. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,269
    Likes Received:
    18,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    Well first, let's start with them actually paying taxes, not letting them live here, make money here, and then hide there money off shore, nor letting them find loopholes to not pay.

    Second, as you go up in income, taxes do and should go up as well. This needs to be more thoughtfully distributed because there's a certain amount of money needed to just live a descent life. No one should be working and not able to put food on the table and a roof over their kids head. This should be true whether employers want to raise the minimum wage or not. The poor shouldn't pay taxes IMO. You want more people paying taxes, create less poor in this country by providing living wages.

    Third, and that being said, once you pass the point of having enough to live, your taxes should be based on a percentage of your income and financial holdings IMO. What's the percentage, I don't know.

    Also, I'm not totally opposed to a flat tax, but I don't think it's the best rout because people don't always buy things. They can just save and keep money without buying anything, and so and they're earning, but not contributing to the economy.
     
  17. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    7,269
    Likes Received:
    18,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    Totally agree. Rich people do earn their money, but...

    Mostly because Beyonce or that actor doesn't vote to give themselves a raise or huge bonus while their company is struggling and in the red.
     
  18. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    15,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    Agree 100%. Get rid of the loopholes. I thought Obama was gonna do that. Maybe if he had a majority House and Senate. /sarcasm

    While I agree the percentage does and can go up, I'm more in favor of a flat tax. The other side of that coin is, in regard to the poor not being able to take care of their families, people without skills to earn a decent living shouldn't be having kids. I'm not in favor of abortion (that's another discussion), but personal responsibility comes into play. Growing up, we were poor. My mother was a nurse, but was raising 3 kids on her own in SF. Didn't qualify for public assistance, but we didn't have extras and definitely went without a lot. I counsel poor families now. I go in their homes (homes, not apartments) and the parents don't work, but they have big TVs, cell phones, tons of BluRays, air conditioning, full fridges, etc. basically, a lot more "niceties" than I had growing up and I survived and my mom worked! The majority of the "poor" in this country have it WAY better than the rest of the world, so my level of sympathy only goes so far.

    Most people making over $500K are paying more than half. I don't make that, but I have a problem with it. As I said, I think we all pay too much. How about the government stop wasting so much?

    Gotta spend it eventually. And it's their choice. It's all of ours. Our goal is to support our families and take care of our own, in ways we choose. Not to support the government. So yes, I'm in favor of a flat tax.
     
  19. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers All Star -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,220
    Likes Received:
    10,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    I mean, there are jobs that come along with entertainment too. Without a Beyoncé, there is no manager, no PR team, no merchandise, no production team. Essentially, they are CEO's.

    And that's not to say that they probably have their fair share of some sort of evasion or lobbying for themselves as well.

    Bernie wants to regulate those CEO's who are in the wrong. The tax evaders, the ones who cut jobs but still get huge bonuses and pensions, the ones who throw money at politicians to benefit their company. Companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people, compared to the entertainment industry. That affects so much more than one Beyoncé or Kobe does.

    That corruption is clearly there, but it's all behind the scenes where an everyday citizen won't even ever hear about in their life. These type of decisions that are made to influence policies one way or another can shift the economic and financial balance easily to benefit these major players.

    That's why it's such a big deal when these guys get caught in the act. The economic crisis of 2007-2008? Clearly the government turning their heads away from the loan industry that was feeding on the poor with its shark loans.

    And this is not an isolated incident and Bernie knows it because he's seen it all. I'm not sure even as President he would have the tools and power to fight the money corruption that is there, but what he's saying and procuring really makes me believe that it is a start.

    Yes, these other issues of foreign policy and drugs and immigration are big topics too, but really should be ancillary to the main issue at hand and that is how our government is regulated. Not our people, the government.
     
    John3:16 likes this.
  20. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    3,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    A starter would be pre-Bush tax cuts, tax rates.
     

Share This Page