Jump to content


Photo

US 2016 Presidential Election (Part 3)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
673 replies to this topic

#21 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 29 January 2016 - 12:38 PM

Heard my boy Rand was beast. Will watch the highlights.

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#22 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 29 January 2016 - 12:40 PM

Heard my boy Rand was beast. Will watch the highlights.

Good thing he will never win.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#23 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 29 January 2016 - 12:59 PM

No doubt it's good for Democrats.

Rand would crush Sanders or Hillary in a general election.
  • Misty and Red_Sand Beach like this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#24 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 02:18 PM

Rand would crush Sanders or Hillary in a general election.


:lol:

There's no way. Rand couldn't crush Trump. He got kicked off the main stage. And he's still in the lower digits in polling. I do believe that Rand could crush O'Malloy though.
 

This "debate" was a hit job. Every candidate got destroyed by the mods


Fox is doing God's Trump's work? :lol:

I have to watch the debates now. I heard they were rerunning clips that were clearly contradicting what the candidate's were saying. I also heard that Carson was as incoherent as ever.
  • Miss.J likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#25 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 29 January 2016 - 02:31 PM

There's no way. Rand couldn't crush Trump. He got kicked off the main stage. And he's still in the lower digits in polling.


General elections and primaries have vastly different electorates, mate.
  • Red_Sand Beach likes this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#26 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 02:53 PM

General elections and primaries have vastly different electorates, mate.


True. But that doesn't change the fact that Rand is not a strong enough candidate.
  • Petite Fleur likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#27 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 05:09 PM

So I just heard Ted Cruz's plan for repealing the ACA. On its face, it sounds somewhat reasonable.
 
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd... just like that Ted Cruz is fill of **** on immigration/amnesty.
 
Marco Rubio: "One of Hillary Clinton's first acts as President may be to pardon herself" ... :lol: Classic.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#28 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 05:27 PM


Marco Rubio: "One of Hillary Clinton's first acts as President may be to pardon herself"

 

Damn son



#29 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 05:39 PM

Losers of this debate were Rubio and Cruz. The winners of this debate were Paul and Kasich.


Overall, everyone did much better without Trump there.

Edited by DarkNemesis, 29 January 2016 - 05:40 PM.

  • Petite Fleur likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#30 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 29 January 2016 - 05:41 PM

True. But that doesn't change the fact that Rand is not a strong enough candidate.


In a general? No reason to believe he wouldn't easily defeat Hillary or Sanders. He'd win the fiscal conservatives (plenty of whom are Democrats), the evangelicals, minorities (particularly black voters) and young voters. Single women would be the only question mark.

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#31 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 05:47 PM

Fiscal conservatives and young Republicans are certainly going to be Paul's greatest strengths when it comes to votes. Evangelicals are looking more towards of Cruz or Huckabee so their participation is questionable. Minorities won't be as impactful as they will be for Clinton. Women in general, Clinton has locked down. Young voters, Sanders has them in damn near 'We won the Super Bowl and everyone goes to Disneyland' riot status. So yeah, it's not clear-cut for Paul at all. 'Easily beaten' is your enthusiasm enjoying too much molly :P
  • Petite Fleur and /2aw like this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#32 Chillman

Chillman

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 06:19 PM


Women in general, Clinton has locked down.

 

http://www.npr.org/s...-up-think-again

 

Debatable.


  • DarkNemesis and Red_Sand Beach like this

#33 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 12:50 AM

Losers of this debate were Rubio and Cruz. The winners of this debate were Paul and Kasich.


Overall, everyone did much better without Trump there.

Not true. 

The debate lost 10 million viewers without trump aka 10 million people didnt hear or care about their message. 

 

In other words, they all lost. Paul has about 3%, same with Kasich. A win isn't going to get them anything


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#34 Red_Sand Beach

Red_Sand Beach

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 01:05 AM

Fiscal conservatives and young Republicans are certainly going to be Paul's greatest strengths when it comes to votes. Evangelicals are looking more towards of Cruz or Huckabee so their participation is questionable. Minorities won't be as impactful as they will be for Clinton. Women in general, Clinton has locked down. Young voters, Sanders has them in damn near 'We won the Super Bowl and everyone goes to Disneyland' riot status. So yeah, it's not clear-cut for Paul at all. 'Easily beaten' is your enthusiasm enjoying too much molly :P


well think of it more like 40% vote dem and 40% vote republican always unless the candidate is wayy out there like trump maybe on election who knows. But the remaining 20% will choose rand over hillary or the commie jew. Hiillary because they dont trust her and bernie cuz well, his taxes are insane

Edited by Red_Sand Beach, 30 January 2016 - 01:05 AM.


#35 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 03:28 AM

well think of it more like 40% vote dem and 40% vote republican always unless the candidate is wayy out there like trump maybe on election who knows. But the remaining 20% will choose rand over hillary or the commie jew. Hiillary because they dont trust her and bernie cuz well, his taxes are insane

yes compare to cutting taxes. If there was only a state were we can see the effects of cutting taxes.Oh wait we have one.http://www.cbpp.org/...assive-tax-cuts


  • DarkNemesis likes this

p5Y5w8P.jpg


#36 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 01:12 PM

yes compare to cutting taxes. If there was only a state were we can see the effects of cutting taxes.Oh wait we have one.http://www.cbpp.org/...assive-tax-cuts

 

Never a good idea to link to a think-tank. All of those mentioned are non-points, cleverly worded to elicit a reaction from the ill-informed.

 

Tax cuts leading to a reduction in revenue is obvious. Neither that or the mention of cuts to public institutions are good arguments, since there are plenty who believe that both are great things. The writer doesn't bother to explain why cuts to public education is a bad thing.

 

That reduction in tax rates offers the wealthy "lopsided benefits" is middle school math. The usual, progressive classist rhetoric employed to encourage division among people. 

 

Economic growth isn't solely tied to tax rates. Conditions of the market, such as the demand for labor, prices and wages, and inflation are all just a few of the many cogs in an economic machine. Amusing to see a think-tank to specializes in leftist fiscal matters get such basic economics wrong. The conditions of the market in Kansas vary greatly from those in Colorado and Oklahoma. There's plenty of precedent for believing that lower/nonexistent taxes are beneficial to economic growth, hell, that's what half of modern economic thought believes. A clear, undeniable example is the state of Texas. Good to see such thinking making a well-needed comeback in political discourse globally.

 

As for the verdict on Kansas, far too soon to tell if Governor Sam's ambitious program has delivered. So far, we've seen only positive results.

 

In comparison with neighboring/nearby states, Migration to Kansas has drastically increased (which increases demand), and hourly wages have risen in comparison. The increase in net income per tax return is fairly huge between Kansas and Missouri, even between neighboring counties. Savings have far out-benefited families and individuals than businesses. Unemployment has remained well below the nation's average.

 

Try harder.


L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#37 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 01:40 PM

So more rich people are moving into Kansas because they get lower tax rates. So your article and wale's article are in agreement on that.
 
It seems that Kansas and Texas have another thing in common. Those who are employed are in low-wage jobs and high-wage jobs aren't growing very fast. Therefore state revenue isn't high enough to pay for the state's expenditures.

LINK: http://www.kansascit...le47176275.html

So yeah, @waleuska is on to something. To be fair, massive tax hikes don't sound all that appealing to me either.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#38 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:11 PM

Never a good idea to link to a think-tank. All of those mentioned are non-points, cleverly worded to elicit a reaction from the ill-informed.

 

Tax cuts leading to a reduction in revenue is obvious. Neither that or the mention of cuts to public institutions are good arguments, since there are plenty who believe that both are great things. The writer doesn't bother to explain why cuts to public education is a bad thing.

 

That reduction in tax rates offers the wealthy "lopsided benefits" is middle school math. The usual, progressive classist rhetoric employed to encourage division among people. 

 

Economic growth isn't solely tied to tax rates. Conditions of the market, such as the demand for labor, prices and wages, and inflation are all just a few of the many cogs in an economic machine. Amusing to see a think-tank to specializes in leftist fiscal matters get such basic economics wrong. The conditions of the market in Kansas vary greatly from those in Colorado and Oklahoma. There's plenty of precedent for believing that lower/nonexistent taxes are beneficial to economic growth, hell, that's what half of modern economic thought believes. A clear, undeniable example is the state of Texas. Good to see such thinking making a well-needed comeback in political discourse globally.

 

As for the verdict on Kansas, far too soon to tell if Governor Sam's ambitious program has delivered. So far, we've seen only positive results.

 

In comparison with neighboring/nearby states, Migration to Kansas has drastically increased (which increases demand), and hourly wages have risen in comparison. The increase in net income per tax return is fairly huge between Kansas and Missouri, even between neighboring counties. Savings have far out-benefited families and individuals than businesses. Unemployment has remained well below the nation's average.

 

Try harder.

Yes, i have no idea why cutting the school budgets and the road budgets are a bad thing.

 

It has been three years and the state growth is still less than the national growth. So, just cutting taxes isn't going to give more jobs. We are in agreement with that point.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#39 Red_Sand Beach

Red_Sand Beach

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:16 PM

Yes, i have no idea why cutting the school budgets and the road budgets are a bad thing.

It has been three years and the state growth is still less than the national growth. So, just cutting taxes isn't going to give more jobs. We are in agreement with that point.


I beg to differ, the government and businesses are the only things that create jobs. Cut taxes and people start businesses. Cut corporate taxes and businesses expand. If the government increases taxes, people get laid off, or their wages stagnate, or at the very least, businesses won't hire more people nor will new ones start. Unless you think the government taxing people is going to use all that money to hire more government employees, it's better to cut taxes. 


Edited by Red_Sand Beach, 30 January 2016 - 02:34 PM.


#40 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:34 PM

I beg to differ, the government and businesses are the only things that create jobs. Cut taxes and people start businesses. Cut corporate taxes and businesses expand

And in this case it didn't happen.

 

http://www.npr.org/2...s-mixed-results

 

 

CHACE: It hasn't actually worked out this way, and it's because when you look at how some of these small businesses actually responded there's this key thing they have not done that is part of Brownback's plan. Alex Harb for instance in Wichita, he runs a computer chain in town called Ribbit Computers and a restaurant.

ALEX HARB: Beef and chicken, shawarmas, falafel sandwiches, hummus. We have the Mediterranean-style, the fattoush salad, you know. It's fresh, and it's delicious, and it's inexpensive.

HARB: I honestly didn't really believe it, so I called my accountant. He said, yeah, you're not going to pay any taxes next year, so I was like, great.

CHACE: Alex's first move was exactly what Governor Brownback wanted to happen. He took the money he saved from his taxes and invested in his computer business.

HARB: We added more iPads into our inventory with that money.

CHACE: You got a bunch of iPads?

HARB: Yes.

CHACE: Now he plans to sell iPads at Ribbit Computers. So this is the first step in the Brownback experiment, the reinvestment. The next step is supposed to be hiring.

CHACE: Did you hire anybody?

HARB: Not really, because you hire people not based on how much money you have - based on your business. So it didn't really have immediate help on the business. I didn't really notice any more business purchasing, you know, around here. So didn't really trigger anything to hire more employees.


p5Y5w8P.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users