Think Trump is bad?

[Sergeant Thorne]

What? You mean like every man in the U.S. would feel like they're being tag-teamed by a couple of damn liberal women? If they held the office with honor, upheld the constitution, brought jobs/industry back to the country, strengthened the courts, and decreased the size of government, I could find it in my heart to respect them. But since this is Hillary we're talking about, no matter who her running mate is (or what your politics are ) I say we replace the "glass ceiling" with about 12 inches of solid acrylic.

[callmeslick]

one need look no further than the other major party candidate to see the lunacy of a man in charge.

[Sergeant Thorne]

"lunacy of a man in charge"? Maybe barrow your balls back from the feminists long enough to not be such a sexist against your own gender.

Lunacy is trading freedom for big government--something that has never actually served the interests of the people effectively. The problem with you folks is you're too cerebral, and you just like to ★■◆● with things endlessly, thinking nothing of a 50% or less success rate. Trump is eccentric, and he's a businessman, but he isn't a lunatic.

[vision]

Maybe barrow your balls back from the feminists long enough to not be such a sexist against your own gender.

Classy. You've been studying at the woodchip's School for Boys and Young Gentlemen?

Lunacy is trading freedom for big government--something that has never actually served the interests of the people effectively.

Freedom and the size of government are not mutually exclusive concepts. Also, this statement can be proven 100% false.

The problem with you folks is you're too cerebral...

Thinking is bad!

...and you just like to ★■◆● with things endlessly, thinking nothing of a 50% or less success rate.

Interesting statistic. Can you back that up with some hard data?

Trump is eccentric, and he's a businessman, but he isn't a lunatic.

Coming from a right-wing anarchist, this statement means nothing.

[Tunnelcat]

What? You mean like every man in the U.S. would feel like they're being tag-teamed by a couple of damn liberal women? If they held the office with honor, upheld the constitution, brought jobs/industry back to the country, strengthened the courts, and decreased the size of government, I could find it in my heart to respect them. But since this is Hillary we're talking about, no matter who her running mate is (or what your politics are ) I say we replace the "glass ceiling" with about 12 inches of solid acrylic.

Well, I can't vouch for Hillary either and I agree that she's probably not the best "example" of the female species to be representing our first woman president. But Trump certainly doesn't represent what's best in the male species either. In fact, he's probably the one of the worst on the planet, so pick your poison ST.

[Sergeant Thorne]

True statement. I'll take Trump, and that largely because he's not establishment.

[vision]

I'll take Trump, and that largely because he's not establishment.

Nevermind that he's shown himself through the debates to be completely unqualified...

[Sergeant Thorne]

Blow smoke all you want. Not only is he qualified enough to take on the job, which is not a solo gig done in a vacuum, but he specifically wants a VP with political experience. Qualification is not the issue you or anyone else would like to make it out to be. The man has significant leadership experience, which is really the most crucial qualification.

[Spidey]

By definition…laws and governance limit freedoms, the trick is to find the correct balance. And so yes…excessive government would be mutually exclusive to freedoms. Of course the definition of “excessive” is open to debate. “Big” in this context is relative, so not really much help.

Unfortunately the Libertarians/Republicans and the control freaks (Progressives/Liberals) try to keep us moving to one extreme or the other.

Yes, that was a cheap shot…I just couldn’t resist.

[vision]

By definition…laws and governance limit freedoms...excessive government would be mutually exclusive to freedoms.

BUZZZZZZ! Wrong.

A good percentage of laws created in a functioning democracy prevent people from taking away the freedom of others. You can have an extremely small government with few laws and it can be more oppressive than a big government with many laws. The devil is in the details and how you want to define freedom. "Big government limits freedom" is an asinine catch-phrase parroted by conservatives.

[Spidey]

No it’s not wrong, there are just a few exceptions.

[Sergeant Thorne]

In this case the devil's advocate is hiding behind the details.

[Sergeant Thorne]

With regard to the number of laws in relation to the size of government, a small government does not suffer from the inability to pass necessary laws in order to preserve freedom. The problem is rather the other way around, in reality--that large government ensures an ever-increasing number of laws, leading inevitably to oppression, not greater freedom.

[vision]

No it’s not wrong, there are just a few exceptions.

My point was that the concepts of freedom and governance are not mutually exclusive and you did not show otherwise.

With regard to the number of laws in relation to the size of government, a small government does not suffer from the inability to pass necessary laws in order to preserve freedom.

Absolutely untrue. Gridlock can happen whenever there are conflicting ideologies. Plus "small government" is an arbitrary size. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem is rather the other way around, in reality--that large government ensures an ever-increasing number of laws, leading inevitably to oppression, not greater freedom.

Oppression is built into the character of the law, not the quantity of laws. It's completely unrelated to the size of government. You can have big government with few laws and small government with many laws.

You can keep spitting out stupid catch-phrases though. I have fun knocking them down.

[Spidey]

First of all…I agree that governance and freedom are not mutually exclusive, my point was “excessive” governance and freedoms are mutually exclusive. (everything here is a matter of degree)

And I don’t have to “show otherwise” because it’s the nature of the beast, and to anybody with a brain should be self evident…that’s what laws and governance do…they restrict freedoms, whether it’s to protect other freedoms or not.

Yes, even the act of protecting a freedom means restricting another or even multiple others. The problem is…many government protected freedoms are made up.

I will give one example of what I mean:

For the woman next door to enjoy the freedom to have her three kids in public school, people like me must have our freedom restricted, and that restriction could well mean having to give up living in our own homes after retirement. (or even before)

Yes…many older people have to give up their freedom to continue living in their homes because of high property taxes. (or at the very least severely limit the places they can own a private home, or type of home then can afford to live in)

One true freedom restricted to protect a manufactured freedom, and it’s not like I am against the idea of free public school, it’s just the nature of the beast, and we as a society must then choose what freedoms we wish to have and which we choose to give up.

And you mentioned having to define freedom, but it’s much more than that…it also means choosing some freedoms over others. And the more made up ones you protect…the more natural ones you lose.

[callmeslick]

rather loose definitions of 'freedom' above. Since when is public schooling a 'freedom'? It's an available choice, decided upon by the vast majority, as a benefit of citizenry, harking back to the idea of Right to Pursue Happiness, perhaps, but owing far more to thinking like the General Welfare clause of the Constitution, which is about role of government. Likewise, who has the 'freedom' to live in a place they cannot afford, for whatever reason. This is utter nonsense. Part of the price of ownership always will be taxation in a viable society. As a citizen, one has input on such, but ZERO implicit right to continue to own something you cannot afford. In fact, a component of the past economic crash of 2007-2009 was that far too many people got it into their heads that they deserve to own stuff they couldn't afford, and far too many people in government went along with the illusion.

[Spidey]

In this context rights and freedoms are interchangeable.

ZERO implicit right to continue to own something you cannot afford

Like healthcare.

[callmeslick]

In this context rights and freedoms are interchangeable.

ZERO implicit right to continue to own something you cannot afford

Like healthcare.

exactly, unless you make HEALTCARE ITSELF a right of birth into the US society. Many of us wish that to be the case. Most of the rest of the civilized world recognizes that right.

[woodchip]

Except the health care will not be free. To pay for it the govt will add a tax to your payroll kinda like they have for medicare (except when you retire medicare is still not free...you have to pay a monthly fee. I pay 103.00 a month)

[callmeslick]

we handle all sorts of privileges of society that way: from voting on down. Nothing is free. Taxation pays for it. A right is not defined as something without costs to the collective society. It is merely an agreed-upon privilege of living in that society for ALL.

[vision]

To pay for it the govt will add a tax...

So what? Most of what we benefit from as a country is done this way. I don't see how this is some sort of argument against national health care. I'll gladly pay more taxes for national health care.

[Ferno]

Hey woody...

How do you think the interstate system was paid for?

The power grid was paid for?

Sewers? Water? And the rest of infrastructure?


Police? Firefighters?

Even the military?

/sigh.

[woodchip]

And just how far are you willing to let the govt. waste ever more of our tax dollars. For gods sake, we're 20 trillion in debt already...12 of which was added on in the last 8 years. What do we have to show for it. IRS has collected record amounts of taxes and spent every last dime of it and then spent more. We're a train wreck waiting to happen. Throw in a national health care proggy and that could be the train conductor falling asleep just before dead mans curve.

[callmeslick]

And just how far are you willing to let the govt. waste ever more of our tax dollars. For gods sake, we're 20 trillion in debt already...12 of which was added on in the last 8 years. What do we have to show for it.

two wars in the Muslim world ran up some of it and the rest? What you have to show for that spending is:
1. You can go to an ATM and get at your money.
2. Unemployment never hit 40%
3. No large scale bread lines or wholesale dependance on food banks and soup kitchens

IRS has collected record amounts of taxes and spent every last dime of it and then spent more. We're a train wreck waiting to happen. Throw in a national health care proggy and that could be the train conductor falling asleep just before dead mans curve.

the usual right-wing recipe for disaster and justification via made-up reality.

[Krom]

The argument that national healthcare will raise taxes is overlooking something. Healthcare right now costs money, a lot of money. The US spends the largest portion of its GDP on healthcare of any nation in the world, noteworthy because the US also has the largest GDP in the world. Meaning, we spend more money on healthcare than any other country on earth. Other countries saw what was happening here and nationalized their healthcare in order to control costs. So if we copied one of theirs, like say the Canadian system of healthcare, taxes would rise but healthcare expenses would drop even more, so ultimately there would be more money in the economy not less.

Heaven forbid you have to pay an extra $500 in taxes in exchange for not having to pay $500,000 in under-insured and over-billed medical expenses.

[Ferno]

You wouldn't even have to pay that much.

Depending on your income, you could pay zero up to 75 a month if you're a single person, zero to 136 a month for a couple or family of two, or zero to 150 a month of you have three or more family members.

CAR payments cost more than healthcare.

[callmeslick]

You wouldn't even have to pay that much.

Depending on your income, you could pay zero up to 75 a month if you're a single person, zero to 136 a month for a couple or family of two, or zero to 150 a month of you have three or more family members.

CAR payments cost more than healthcare.

further, if one wishes extra bells and whistles beyond good,comprehensive health care, one can purchase supplemental plans. Even then, the ticket would be vastly under the current $2100 per month I'm shelling out(for two adults).

[woodchip]

Funny slick, how at the start of Obamacare you said you were entitled to subsidies and only have to pay a couple hundred a month. What happened?

[callmeslick]

Funny slick, how at the start of Obamacare you said you were entitled to subsidies and only have to pay a couple hundred a month. What happened?

I inherited a few million, then I inherited a bit more than that. Overall, the balance sheet is still working in my favor, but I cannot restrict my income to $85K per annum, where I got the break(only because I am legally liable for 3 grandkids as well), and the break was only $900 of the total. Now, I pay $1600 per month, and the deductables and out of pocket make up the rest of what I quoted.

[Tunnelcat]

He doesn't like Hillary either and for the same reasons I have about her and the Democratic Party. What a sad state of affairs for the Dems. They're handing the general over to Trump on a silver platter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-boy ... 03742.html

[callmeslick]

that is a silly piece, frankly, TC. They are not handing the election to Trump under any circumstance.

[woodchip]

Stop being blind and/or obtuse slick. If you can't acknowledge that Dems are upset and might vote for Trump, then you are being exceptionally tone deaf.

[callmeslick]

Stop being blind and/or obtuse slick. If you can't acknowledge that Dems are upset and might vote for Trump, then you are being exceptionally tone deaf.

actually, no I'm not. I've been helping out with a couple projects of late, and have seen a lot of polling. The crossover for Dems coming this year is going to less than both 2008 and 2012, I'll guarantee you that at this point.

[woodchip]

Only poll I could find is this tho a bit dated:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democr ... id/708859/

You'll have to show me something newer to show your veracity.

[callmeslick]

your own words make the point, it is a matter of when this is looked at during a primary process. I am looking at trends post May 20. Dems firmed up real well, seemingly as pegged to the point when Trump clinched as the one where Hillary did. No real deep thought on the numbers, but don't sit around expecting Trump to pull in hardcore Dem voters. His battle is for the indy voters, and thus far not looking good. It's early, so I'm not about to assume anything about those trend. The party crossover vote drops at a pretty steady rate from June to election day, and that trend never fails. If we were looking at around 30 percent at this point, there might be cause for worry, but the numbers I'm seeing are half that, and on election day, a 10% crossover is about average for the Dems. Likewise for the GOP(the consistency bit), they run a bit tighter ship as I've heard with around 7 or 8% any given election going with the Dem candidate. It will be interesting to see THAT number this year.

[woodchip]

And just how far are you willing to let the govt. waste ever more of our tax dollars. For gods sake, we're 20 trillion in debt already...12 of which was added on in the last 8 years. What do we have to show for it.

two wars in the Muslim world ran up some of it and the rest? What you have to show for that spending is:

Except the Iraq war was over. The Bush years did not see this kind of spending

1. You can go to an ATM and get at your money.

So you would have to of gone to your local bank for cash?

2. Unemployment never hit 40%

May not of anyways

3. No large scale bread lines or wholesale dependance on food banks and soup kitchens

No proof that there would of been. Food stamps and Disability claims did sky rocket.

IRS has collected record amounts of taxes and spent every last dime of it and then spent more. We're a train wreck waiting to happen. Throw in a national health care proggy and that could be the train conductor falling asleep just before dead mans curve.

the usual right-wing recipe for disaster and justification via made-up reality.

I wonder how much of the 20 trillion interest payment could pay for shovel ready jobs. Just wait until interest rates start going up:

Given its sheer size, if the interest rate on that debt were to rise by even 1%, the annual federal deficit rises by $190 billion. A 2% increase in interest rate levels would up the federal deficit by $380 billion, and if rates were 5% higher, the annual federal deficit rises by $950 billion.

Still think that 20 trillion is a ant on a elephants ass?

[callmeslick]

Except the Iraq war was over. The Bush years did not see this kind of spending

yes. they did, they just depleted available cash. Like most unbudgeted projects the bills came in later, and are STILL coming in, frankly.

So you would have to of gone to your local bank for cash?

um, no, with loss of liquidity, NO BANKING would be possible. Emergency bailout money saved you from that. Twice, under Obama's watch

I wonder how much of the 20 trillion interest payment could pay for shovel ready jobs. Just wait until interest rates start going up:

you realize that 20 trillion is the accumulation, and that about 8 trillion DID go for jobs.

Still think that 20 trillion is a ant on a elephants ass?

yes, in very real terms. Funny how you dismiss the VERY real possibility of a total economic collapse, which experts all view as having been extremely likely, yet
sum your argument with a bunch of specious what-ifs about the future economy that almost ASSUME economic collapse. Which is it?

[Tunnelcat]

Stop being blind and/or obtuse slick. If you can't acknowledge that Dems are upset and might vote for Trump, then you are being exceptionally tone deaf.

Oh, don't be so deluded. Trump could only win because those disaffected Dems decide to sit out the vote. I'm almost in that camp this time. I hate all the candidates with equal vigor and I want neither one as president. Besides, I can guarantee you that most Sanders supporters certainly wouldn't vote for an unfit, racist, misogynist, egomaniacal, geographically clueless, loudmouthed idiot like Trump anyway.

[Spidey]

Why not…they were getting ready to vote for worse.

[callmeslick]

nothing to worry about.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz