Presidential Elections

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
tim said:
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?

We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.

I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.

Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.

Btw, both potential candidates scare the s*%t out of me.
 
HomeOwner Irvine said:
tim said:
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?

We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.

I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.

Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.

Btw, both potential candidates scare the s*%t out of me.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying.


 
eyephone said:
Bring jobs back to America, but make your products in other countries?
Click to expand...

Sure...  It would be unwise of him not to outsource.  As a businessperson he knows why companies outsource and probably has an idea of actual measures that would make outsourcing less desirable to business owners.

Remember the Carly Fiorina vs Barbara Boxer campaignhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2lDIHyqo7Q

A simple minded approach would be that Carly wouldn't be able to stop the outsourcing.  The logical approach would be that all this outsourcing actually happened on Barbara Boxer's watch while she held this position.  Boxer's commercial should have hurt Boxer, however, they did work and hurt Carly.  But what can you expect from our typical voters?
 
HomeOwner Irvine said:
Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.
Click to expand...

I hear you. As a programmer, I want this too. But it isn't going to happen. I haven't seen anyone in politics that understands cyber security. Some of them think they understand it, which is worse. :)
 
The screams grow louder

Clinton Email Scandal: It?s Time Hillary Suspended Her Campaign

If the Clinton camp thinks her email scandal will die down, it?s mistaken. The news will keep coming and none of it will be good for Clinton. Even if the Justice Department declines to charge her, the backlash would be harsh. If that happens, expect two things: Watchdog groups will sue for investigative documents to be made public while the most damning of those documents will be leaked to media outlets that will actually publish them.

The total number of Clinton emails that hold classified material exceeds 2,000, and we know at least 22 had top-secret information. Voters are aware that the National Security Agency, not just the FBI,  has a ?beef? with Clinton?s behavior and that one of those watchdog groups, Judicial Watch, says it might depose Clinton. It already has plans to question Bryan Pagliano, the director of information technology for Clinton?s 2008 campaign who installed her email system, after federal investigators have finished with him.

Clinton should do what?s right and suspend her campaign until this issue is resolved. It?s unseemly for one of the party?s top candidates to be under such a growing cloud of suspicion.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/
 
morekaos said:
The screams grow louder

Clinton Email Scandal: It?s Time Hillary Suspended Her Campaign

If the Clinton camp thinks her email scandal will die down, it?s mistaken. The news will keep coming and none of it will be good for Clinton. Even if the Justice Department declines to charge her, the backlash would be harsh. If that happens, expect two things: Watchdog groups will sue for investigative documents to be made public while the most damning of those documents will be leaked to media outlets that will actually publish them.

The total number of Clinton emails that hold classified material exceeds 2,000, and we know at least 22 had top-secret information. Voters are aware that the National Security Agency, not just the FBI,  has a ?beef? with Clinton?s behavior and that one of those watchdog groups, Judicial Watch, says it might depose Clinton. It already has plans to question Bryan Pagliano, the director of information technology for Clinton?s 2008 campaign who installed her email system, after federal investigators have finished with him.

Clinton should do what?s right and suspend her campaign until this issue is resolved. It?s unseemly for one of the party?s top candidates to be under such a growing cloud of suspicion.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/
Click to expand...

Yeah...same crazy people screaming.  Meanwhile, HRC is well on her way to the presidency.  Thanks for trying.
 
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.
 
aquabliss said:
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.
Click to expand...

What's the cut off?  Between $2k and $10k per year more in taxes doesn't seem that substantial for people making $300k+ percentage wise.  By that, I mean, you probably are getting off easy if it's under $10k. 

The equal pay laws that she mentions scare me.  While they wont affect me, they lead us down a slippery slope where the government might start defining how much people should be paid based on their job duties. 
 
aquabliss said:
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are quoting Bernie numbers or you are comparing against the R plans. I believe for incomes up to $250K it would be essentially be status quo (delta of < $1K against current policies). Trump would net you $5K more and Cruz a bit higher than that. But that comes at the cost of a loss of tax revenue close to $10tr over 10 years. That may have flown in the "deficits do not matter" years. Not sure how the current Congress would react to that.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trumps-tax-plan-vs-hillary-clintons-policy-how-would-your-paycheck-be-affected-2329159
 
I've never been too concerned with how much my personal tax bill will change. I am more concerned about whether I think a tax plan is good for the country. I think a progressive income tax structure is important to have. Without that and inheritance tax, we end up with too much of an oligarchy. And multiple generations of rich people who don't have to contribute much to society and still stay rich.
 
...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.
 
morekaos said:
...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.
Click to expand...

We may be different, but I think the taxes I mention encourage people to work hard and innovate. If you can just get millions of dollars from your parents and live off that, what motivates you? It is harder to make the first $10 million than the next $10 million. How has Paris Hilton innovated? People do have essentially selfish motivations. If one can get rich and then do nothing and keep getting richer due to investments and interest, then why would these selfish people ever do anything productive? Even with our current tax structure, the lists of the richest people in the country are cluttered with those who inherited their money and don't have to do a thing but will still leave a fortune to their children. And those rich grandchildren will have all the money they need to buy politicians to get what they want. And since they are selfish, what they want will probably not be what is needed to encourage hard work and innovation.

Of course, I also think that no man is an island. No successful person got there alone. Not a single one. If you think you did, you are delusional. Taxes helped get you where you are. You have to pay back into our country to keep and improve it. You have to pay to have security; to live without starving, riotous people on the streets; to have a stock exchange; to have the world's dominant currency; to have enough fans to support the NFL where you have your private suite; to have roads and bridges; to have structured bands in the electromagnetic spectrum; to have public education so there are people to work at companies and to be consumers; etc.
 
morekaos said:
It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie.
Click to expand...

LOL. You may want to look up Trump's positions and statements. Universal "Donaldcare" funded by an increase in corporate taxes. A proposal to tax total wealth @ 14.25% (not even Bernie is that extreme). Interfere with free markets by imposing tariffs on imported goods.
 
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.
 
morekaos said:
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.
Click to expand...

What's ironic is that the biggest squandering of taxes is military spending yet that's what the Pubs wants more of.
 
morekaos said:
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.
Click to expand...

I have heard many others who claim they are a self-made man and don't want the govt to take any of it. I lumped you in with them. I read your post talking about Collectivism vs Individualism and people being selfish and such as leading that way. We can agree that we should never stop asking our government to be more efficient and to waste less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top