Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: AZDuffman

But no money was taken from taxpayers. That has already been established.

The money hasn't been taken YET. The deal won't be finalized until Trump takes office, if then. Doesn't mean that the theft isn't planned.

Quote: stinkingliberal

The money hasn't been taken YET. The deal won't be finalized until Trump takes office, if then. Doesn't mean that the theft isn't planned.

Still no money is being taken. IN was going to take the money from Carrier at the point of a gun, now they aren't.

It is as if you had $700 on you. I don't know if you have $700 handy but assume you did. I was going to rob it from you and decided not to do so. Did I ''give you $700?"

Quote: stinkingliberal

"Trickle down economics" is what's actually nonsense--it was discredited when Reagan tried it in the 1980s and we wound up with massive deficits and inflation.

Where were you at? Not in the USA, that's for sure!

1980 inflation was about 13%
1988 inflation was about 4%**

**this means inflation fell by 2/3 under Reagan

1980 tax revenue $517 billion
1988 tax revenue $909 billion*

*this means deficits were a spending and not a revenue issue.

I guess facts are not your strong suit? Liberal talking points are so much easier.

Quote: AZDuffman

Still no money is being taken. IN was going to take the money from Carrier at the point of a gun, now they aren't.

It is as if you had $700 on you. I don't know if you have $700 handy but assume you did. I was going to rob it from you and decided not to do so. Did I ''give you $700?"

How was Indiana going to take any money from Carrier? Other than requiring them to pay their taxes, which now, they aren't. Sweetheart Crooked Donald deal.

Quote: AZDuffman

Where were you at? Not in the USA, that's for sure!

1980 inflation was about 13%
1988 inflation was about 4%**

**this means inflation fell by 2/3 under Reagan

1980 tax revenue $517 billion
1988 tax revenue $909 billion*

*this means deficits were a spending and not a revenue issue.

I guess facts are not your strong suit? Liberal talking points are so much easier.

Got any sources to cite? No? I didn't think so. That's not the Duffy Way.

Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. No President before or since has even come close to doing that. He spent the next generation's money and maxed out the nation's credit cards. Then he left for Alzheimer's Land and stuck us all with the bill. Genius. Hero. God. Savior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shouting-match-erupts-between-clinton-and-trump-aides/2016/12/01/7ac4398e-b7ea-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.13d9a3c8943b

You can read the title in the URL.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Got any sources to cite? No? I didn't think so. That's not the Duffy Way.

Google it, easy to find.

By the way, I just gave you $900. See, I was going to steal it from you but I won't. So I guess I gave it to you.

Quote: rxwine

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shouting-match-erupts-between-clinton-and-trump-aides/2016/12/01/7ac4398e-b7ea-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.13d9a3c8943b

You can read the title in the URL.

Like him, hate him, whatever...Trump ran a campaign to win.

Hillary ran a campaign that assumed victory was hers.

You can throw all the word salad you want at either one of them about the greatness or how terrible they are, but it all came down to connecting with the people in the right places to win the EC. All the clamoring about the Popular vote versus EC is silly; this election and every one before it was about winning the EC. If you change the rules and make it about how many left-handed people vote for you, the candidates will aim their campaigns at left-handed people.

The good thing about our system is that the one who won only has a year or so to make some of the promises made come true or to somehow otherwise make people happier or that person stands to lose ground in the mid-terms and, if the trend to not get things done continues, could well lose everything in the 2020 election.

Quote: TheCesspit

It's a dumb idea,

Yeah, I had a feeling saying "200,001" instead of "200,000" just pushed it over the top.

Quote:

in any case that removes the ability of parties to nominate their own candidates on a state by state basis.

That's precisely the point.

Quote:

The primary system is a pretty good way of working out whose worth backing, and kicking the tires of the candidates. Just because it ended up picking people that many don't like is hardly the point...

That's the whole point.

Most voters in the primaries are of the parties' "base," meaning those more committed to strict, unbending ideologies that are anathema to the other party. The candidates chosen are either committed ideologues themselves, or must pretend to be. In either case, it narrows the field of views and solutions a candidate can adopt.

This is most pernicious in legislative races, especially in the House. Typically Congressional districts are "safe" for years and years. So the only practical way of unseating a Representative is to challenge them in the primary.

And we wonder the country's becoming riven by partisanship?

Look, when party A accuses party B of partisanship, they mean "They won't let us have our way." When party B urges party A to show bipartisanship, they mean "shut up and let us have our way."

This would be ok if either party was 100% right, or could get agreement from 100% of the population. as it is, they're both right about some things and wrong about others. But instead of compromising over laws and policies, each party now tries to seize power and plant its agenda deep, while tearing out the other party's agenda. Eventually party A goes out of power and party B tries the same thing.

Keep the primaries, by all means, but let everyone vote in them: your party, the other party, and people without a party. That would lead to saner candidates that are not completely unacceptable to half the country.

Quote: kenarman

I would sooner see that $8750 per job for a viable industry than the $7500 subsidy for an electric car. Still a subsidy just different strokes for different folks.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it,

So we're bound to get more companies saying they're moving jobs to Mexico, in order to collect subsidies from the taxpayers.

BTW, Carrier's still moving 700 jobs to Mexico. No doubt they'll all go to rapists and drug dealers.