Mel Kiper on Nebraska

[TheLiberalHunter]

Why do you say trump would be hailed as a saint if he ran on the other side of the ticket? Because you think he's playing a character and he would say/do different things if he were playing a dem?

Primarily because of his Populist message. It works for many of the blue collar folks...and, this year in particular, he is a far better option than HRC (based on her proven past) and a devoted Communist.

Not to mention, Trump was a pretty popular guy until he came out on the Right. I never heard any vitriol tossed his way.

How can he possibly be worse than the current Parties that have gotten us 20T in Debt, amongst all the other current issues?

 

[TheBeav815]

You aren't troubled in the least by Bernie Supporters? A guy that honeymooned in Russia? A guy that pines for a System proven not to work throughout history? A guy that has no idea how a Socialist Economy may or may not be able to drive a World Economy?

See, it's that stuff that I find so confusing or hypocritical(not necessarily pointed at you!) in general.

You're mistaking Democratic Socialism with Communism. Communism doesn't work. Many Democratic Socialist countries are thriving. You can't fly to one extreme or the other, you need to be somewhere in the middle with proper checks and balances on both sides to keep the far left or far right from getting too far up its own ass.

Essentially what Sanders is proposing is straight out of the terms of guys like FDR and Eisenhower. Particularly Eisenhower, under whom the interstate highway system was built. I am fully on board with it IF AND ONLY IF it is paid for by generating the necessary tax revenue and/or cutting expense elsewhere.

The man isn't saying anything that can't be held up with facts from the history of our own nation in that Baby Boom era that everyone likes to recall so fondly as America's greatest days. The fact is, taxes were much more progressive. Wages were much higher. There was much greater domestic spending on public works projects. State schools were heavily subsidized and college was much more affordable through the combination of better earning power and lower tuition.

Our parents had these things. Gradually they were eroded. What's wrong with bringing them back if we pay for it?

 

[red rover 70]

Why do you say trump would be hailed as a saint if he ran on the other side of the ticket? Because you think he's playing a character and he would say/do different things if he were playing a dem?

It's because Trump's a Democrat. I really debated about staying home this election but I changed my mind.

 

[nebcountry]

I wondered how this thread could have ballooned. Oh well, hope Kiper is correct.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

You're mistaking Democratic Socialism with Communism. Communism doesn't work. Many Democratic Socialist countries are thriving. You can't fly to one extreme or the other, you need to be somewhere in the middle with proper checks and balances on both sides to keep the far left or far right from getting too far up its own ass.

Essentially what Sanders is proposing is straight out of the terms of guys like FDR and Eisenhower. Particularly Eisenhower, under whom the interstate highway system was built. I am fully on board with it IF AND ONLY IF it is paid for by generating the necessary tax revenue and/or cutting expense elsewhere.

The man isn't saying anything that can't be held up with facts from the history of our own nation in that Baby Boom era that everyone likes to recall so fondly as America's greatest days. The fact is, taxes were much more progressive. Wages were much higher. There was much greater domestic spending on public works projects. State schools were heavily subsidized and college was much more affordable through the combination of better earning power and lower tuition.

Our parents had these things. Gradually they were eroded. What's wrong with bringing them back if we pay for it?

Oh, I understand the difference in all the "isms". People will point to Scandinavia as the model. What about those tax rates there? There are some good articles out there lining out the many problems they have and how what they do only works in their homogenous society. now, with the unfettered immigration, their society is breaking down.

Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, etc...all Democratic Socialist Countries.

As you, I am FULLY onboard with some of the public works programs to get people back to work however, you cannot tax the Entrepreneurs to death.

As with immigration, it takes all kinds to make it work...well, the same goes with jobs and income levels...some people are happy as heck at subsistence level living and enjoy a great life with no complaints. Some like extravagance. Why criticize either?

When you say "we" pay for it...I'm fine if "we" all pay a fixed %. 47 or 48% paying -0-(or whatever it is) doesn't seem like load sharing.

I also am on board with MUCH lower tuition. There is no conceivable reason a 4 year school should cost 200K where the same basic info is the same no matter where it is taught.

Cutting expenses is the key. Where? The one that needs addressed seems untouchable.

I can't think of a single instance where a Country taxed itself into prosperity.

 

[TheBeav815]

Primarily because of his Populist message. It works for many of the blue collar folks...and, this year in particular, he is a far better option than HRC (based on her proven past) and a devoted Communist.

Not to mention, Trump was a pretty popular guy until he came out on the Right. I never heard any vitriol tossed his way.

How can he possibly be worse than the current Parties that have gotten us 20T in Debt, amongst all the other current issues?

He's a mixed bag as far as what his policies might actually look like. In terms of "populist" comments, it's apples and oranges. I will agree that Sanders is running on a populist message, but his focus is on wealth/income/fiscal issues.

Trump, on the other hand, is being called populist when he says things that basically would get you sent to HR if you said them in an office building. His "populist" statements are about demographics and why you can't trust them. There happen to be a lot of people who agree with him, but I don't think he would have any success as a Dem trying to keep Muslims and Mexicans out of the country.

 

[red rover 70]

Oh, I understand the difference in all the "isms". People will point to Scandinavia as the model. What about those tax rates there? There are some good articles out there lining out the many problems they have and how what they do only works in their homogenous society. now, with the unfettered immigration, their society is breaking down.

Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, etc...all Democratic Socialist Countries.

As you, I am FULLY onboard with some of the public works programs to get people back to work however, you cannot tax the Entrepreneurs to death.

As with immigration, it takes all kinds to make it work...well, the same goes with jobs and income levels...some people are happy as heck at subsistence level living and enjoy a great life with no complaints. Some like extravagance. Why criticize either?

When you say "we" pay for it...I'm fine if "we" all pay a fixed %. 47 or 48% paying -0-(or whatever it is) doesn't seem like load sharing.

I also am on board with MUCH lower tuition. There is no conceivable reason a 4 year school should cost 200K where the same basic info is the same no matter where it is taught.

Cutting expenses is the key. Where? The one that needs addressed seems untouchable.

I can't think of a single instance where a Country taxed itself into prosperity.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

He's a mixed bag as far as what his policies might actually look like. In terms of "populist" comments, it's apples and oranges. I will agree that Sanders is running on a populist message, but his focus is on wealth/income/fiscal issues.

Trump, on the other hand, is being called populist when he says things that basically would get you sent to HR if you said them in an office building. His "populist" statements are about demographics and why you can't trust them. There happen to be a lot of people who agree with him, but I don't think he would have any success as a Dem trying to keep Muslims and Mexicans out of the country.

I should clarify...had he opted to run Dem, he wouldn't have listed the Muslims and Mexicans.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make....he was a cool dude until that, according to many...a Celebrity...and the Left likes Celebrity.

He just tailored his message a bit.

 

[huskerfan1414]

While I won't argue that those cities don't have their share of problems (you forgot Baltimore), it's a complete red herring. It also ignores the fact that southern red states repeatedly score wretchedly in measures of public health, education, and quality of life. So ultimately it's a pissing contest of cherry picking examples of, "Oh yeah, well Chicago is liberal and they have a bad budget!" "Oh yeah? Well Mississippi is super conservative and that whole state is just awful!"

Ok...so we've shown that people of any idealogical background can execute things stupidly. Now what?

Red Herring?
St. Louis--run by liberals since 1949...dangerous crime rate 26 percent poverty rate
Newark New Jersey--26 percent poverty rate--people are actually leaving while crime is going up..run by liberals forever
Cincinnati has over half of their children in poverty and might go bankrupt...run up by guess who
Philly...30 percent poverty, worst credit rating among major cities...choosing to close schools due to budget...libs since 1950
Milwaukee 30 percent poverty, run by libs for 100 years
And it goes without saying...Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco (bankruptcy issues/major housing and cost of living issues), Los Angeles.

Dunno where you get the quality of life in south thing....
One thing about the southern states that are republican tends to be forgotten: their past. If you can say that lives of African Americans are still affected by slavery, then you can't deny that the economies of those states are still effected by slavery, too. But that doesn't go far enough. While some southern states are considered in poverty, people still live there and still vote republican. Why? Cost of living and affordibility. It's much easier to own a home with a few cars in say Alabama than it is in say Massachusetts. Forbes said that in Red States housing averages 119 per square foot while in blue states it averages $227 per square foot. Home ownership is very, very difficult in blue states for those in the middle class. Therefore, the "poorest states" lead to richer lives for people living there, especially the middle and lower class. No, Im not saying poverty isnt an issue as it is an issue in every state and always will be to some degree, and no im not saying rep. do a great job in every state or city they are elected in.
Heck Obama was just in Indiana talking up his economic policies at the RV production capitol of the US. He took credit for the turnaround in that city from his first years in office until now. He wasnt welcomed with open arms...why? Because anyone with a brain knew the turnaround was due to oil fracking in the US which saved the RV industry by dropping gas prices and causing a high demand for RVs for oil employees and businesses who were working outside of towns and needed a place to live during the boom. Ironic considering Obamas stance on fracking and oil. The best govt. stays out of the way...rep or dem.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

He's a mixed bag as far as what his policies might actually look like. In terms of "populist" comments, it's apples and oranges. I will agree that Sanders is running on a populist message, but his focus is on wealth/income/fiscal issues.

Trump, on the other hand, is being called populist when he says things that basically would get you sent to HR if you said them in an office building. His "populist" statements are about demographics and why you can't trust them. There happen to be a lot of people who agree with him, but I don't think he would have any success as a Dem trying to keep Muslims and Mexicans out of the country.

on a side note, it seems many use the phrase "we are a Nation of Immigrants". I'm pretty sure what sets us apart is we are a "Nation of Laws"

Why do you think the Left would have an issue with enforcing one of the most basic laws?

I'm all for Policy difference discussion but there are certain things that ALL Parties SHOULD agree on...especially considering everything coming across the border. I just can't reconcile why that particular item would be an issue for anybody.

 

[TheBeav815]

Oh, I understand the difference in all the "isms". People will point to Scandinavia as the model. What about those tax rates there? There are some good articles out there lining out the many problems they have and how what they do only works in their homogenous society. now, with the unfettered immigration, their society is breaking down.

Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, etc...all Democratic Socialist Countries.

As you, I am FULLY onboard with some of the public works programs to get people back to work however, you cannot tax the Entrepreneurs to death.

As with immigration, it takes all kinds to make it work...well, the same goes with jobs and income levels...some people are happy as heck at subsistence level living and enjoy a great life with no complaints. Some like extravagance. Why criticize either?

When you say "we" pay for it...I'm fine if "we" all pay a fixed %. 47 or 48% paying -0-(or whatever it is) doesn't seem like load sharing.

I also am on board with MUCH lower tuition. There is no conceivable reason a 4 year school should cost 200K where the same basic info is the same no matter where it is taught.

Cutting expenses is the key. Where? The one that needs addressed seems untouchable.

I can't think of a single instance where a Country taxed itself into prosperity.

I assume you're alluding to military spending. We've got to get to a point as a nation where we stop acting like having a strong military means we need to just spend, spend, spend clear above and beyond everyone else. I'm good with having a strong military as a deterrent. But when we're pumping trillions into the middle east while our public education systems fall apart and we've got utilities in desperate need of modernization, you start to wonder whose benefit everything is for.

I don't know that Scandanavian-style socialism can work in the U.S. for exactly the reasons you point out. They have a nation the size of one of our states, they're lower population, highly-educated. Could we get greater success to take root in the U.S. through improved access to education, job training, etc? Maybe, over generations.

More likely with the political climate here is that the pendulum swings the other way in 8-12 years and the conservatives leave the popular stuff and gut a bunch of other stuff so that it's not technically gone, but it's so gutshot that it will fail and then people will say, "See? It doesn't work!"

As for tax rates, I'm with Mr. Buffet when he says it's a bunch of BS that you can tax people who want to get rich into not wanting to get rich any more. As I always say to my conservative friends, "What are you waiting for? If it's so great and cushy to be 'on the dole' and not work for anything, if that's such an easy life, then get started! You go get fired and start collecting unemployment, SNAP, move into Section 8, do all of that. You life on that government cheese and I want to hear back from you about how great it is."

They never do.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

I assume you're alluding to military spending. We've got to get to a point as a nation where we stop acting like having a strong military means we need to just spend, spend, spend clear above and beyond everyone else. I'm good with having a strong military as a deterrent. But when we're pumping trillions into the middle east while our public education systems fall apart and we've got utilities in desperate need of modernization, you start to wonder whose benefit everything is for.

I don't know that Scandanavian-style socialism can work in the U.S. for exactly the reasons you point out. They have a nation the size of one of our states, they're lower population, highly-educated. Could we get greater success to take root in the U.S. through improved access to education, job training, etc? Maybe, over generations.

More likely with the political climate here is that the pendulum swings the other way in 8-12 years and the conservatives leave the popular stuff and gut a bunch of other stuff so that it's not technically gone, but it's so gutshot that it will fail and then people will say, "See? It doesn't work!"

As for tax rates, I'm with Mr. Buffet when he says it's a bunch of BS that you can tax people who want to get rich into not wanting to get rich any more. As I always say to my conservative friends, "What are you waiting for? If it's so great and cushy to be 'on the dole' and not work for anything, if that's such an easy life, then get started! You go get fired and start collecting unemployment, SNAP, move into Section 8, do all of that. You life on that government cheese and I want to hear back from you about how great it is."

They never do.

Actually, I meant Entitlements. I'm a BIG military proponent.

As far as the last paragraph...It isn't that I won't want to make any more money. My thought is If I make X per year I get taxed 35% but if I make any more it will be at 75%. X, in my life is far more than I need so I opt to take time off and enjoy it instead of chasing more.

Who actually gets hurt when I lose the additional motivation? It isn't me.

I think that is the point being argued by some....at least by me.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

I assume you're alluding to military spending. We've got to get to a point as a nation where we stop acting like having a strong military means we need to just spend, spend, spend clear above and beyond everyone else. I'm good with having a strong military as a deterrent. But when we're pumping trillions into the middle east while our public education systems fall apart and we've got utilities in desperate need of modernization, you start to wonder whose benefit everything is for.

I don't know that Scandanavian-style socialism can work in the U.S. for exactly the reasons you point out. They have a nation the size of one of our states, they're lower population, highly-educated. Could we get greater success to take root in the U.S. through improved access to education, job training, etc? Maybe, over generations.

More likely with the political climate here is that the pendulum swings the other way in 8-12 years and the conservatives leave the popular stuff and gut a bunch of other stuff so that it's not technically gone, but it's so gutshot that it will fail and then people will say, "See? It doesn't work!"

As for tax rates, I'm with Mr. Buffet when he says it's a bunch of BS that you can tax people who want to get rich into not wanting to get rich any more. As I always say to my conservative friends, "What are you waiting for? If it's so great and cushy to be 'on the dole' and not work for anything, if that's such an easy life, then get started! You go get fired and start collecting unemployment, SNAP, move into Section 8, do all of that. You life on that government cheese and I want to hear back from you about how great it is."

They never do.

I may be wrong on this but aren't we spending MORE on Public Education than ever? I think it may not be a spending issue regarding education.

 

[TheBeav815]

Red Herring?
St. Louis--run by liberals since 1949...dangerous crime rate 26 percent poverty rate
Newark New Jersey--26 percent poverty rate--people are actually leaving while crime is going up..run by liberals forever
Cincinnati has over half of their children in poverty and might go bankrupt...run up by guess who
Philly...30 percent poverty, worst credit rating among major cities...choosing to close schools due to budget...libs since 1950
Milwaukee 30 percent poverty, run by libs for 100 years
And it goes without saying...Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco (bankruptcy issues/major housing and cost of living issues), Los Angeles.

Dunno where you get the quality of life in south thing....
One thing about the southern states that are republican tends to be forgotten: their past. If you can say that lives of African Americans are still affected by slavery, then you can't deny that the economies of those states are still effected by slavery, too. But that doesn't go far enough. While some southern states are considered in poverty, people still live there and still vote republican. Why? Cost of living and affordibility. It's much easier to own a home with a few cars in say Alabama than it is in say Massachusetts. Forbes said that in Red States housing averages 119 per square foot while in blue states it averages $227 per square foot. Home ownership is very, very difficult in blue states for those in the middle class. Therefore, the "poorest states" lead to richer lives for people living there, especially the middle and lower class. No, Im not saying poverty isnt an issue as it is an issue in every state and always will be to some degree, and no im not saying rep. do a great job in every state or city they are elected in.
Heck Obama was just in Indiana talking up his economic policies at the RV production capitol of the US. He took credit for the turnaround in that city from his first years in office until now. He wasnt welcomed with open arms...why? Because anyone with a brain knew the turnaround was due to oil fracking in the US which saved the RV industry by dropping gas prices and causing a high demand for RVs for oil employees and businesses who were working outside of towns and needed a place to live during the boom. Ironic considering Obamas stance on fracking and oil. The best govt. stays out of the way...rep or dem.

Here's where I get quality of living:

Income by state, states 38-50 are red states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Worst educated states according to Fox Business, bottom 10 are red states: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states.html

Worst states for life expectancy, bottom 13 are red states with D.C. mixed in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

Poverty by state, worst ones are those same southern red states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

Obesity rates, the worst ones are red states: http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

Like I said, we could do this all day. "Well this city is liberal and it sucks." "Yeah well that city is conservative and it sucks!"

Turns out you can't prove that one thing is better than another because no two places in America are doing it exactly alike and there are way too many variables involved.

 

[TheBeav815]

Actually, I meant Entitlements. I'm a BIG military proponent.

As far as the last paragraph...It isn't that I won't want to make any more money. My thought is If I make X per year I get taxed 35% but if I make any more it will be at 75%. X, in my life is far more than I need so I opt to take time off and enjoy it instead of chasing more.

Who actually gets hurt when I lose the additional motivation? It isn't me.

I think that is the point being argued by some....at least by me.

Your example is a jump from 35% to 75%? That's about as useful as that guy who goes, "Well screw it, let's just pay the kid at burger king a million bucks a week!"

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Here's where I get quality of living:

Income by state, states 38-50 are red states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Worst educated states according to Fox Business, bottom 10 are red states: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states.html

Worst states for life expectancy, bottom 13 are red states with D.C. mixed in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

Poverty by state, worst ones are those same southern red states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

Obesity rates, the worst ones are red states: http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

Like I said, we could do this all day. "Well this city is liberal and it sucks." "Yeah well that city is conservative and it sucks!"

Turns out you can't prove that one thing is better than another because no two places in America are doing it exactly alike and there are way too many variables involved.

I think Quality of Living and Fiscally Responsible/Regulation are being conflated here.

The Right says the States in the most trouble are fiscally irresponsible and try to throw money at the social issues instead of addressing the root issue(s).

I can't believe nobody is complimenting us on civil conversation. They may not want to admit we aren't the demons they assume.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Your example is a jump from 35% to 75%? That's about as useful as that guy who goes, "Well screw it, let's just pay the kid at burger king a million bucks a week!"

I don't think so. Look at France and what they wanted to tax millionaires ...and then how many left. It isn't the rich that get hurt by this.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

LOL.

where's the "well, that escalated quickly" gif when you need it!

 

[TheBeav815]

I may be wrong on this but aren't we spending MORE on Public Education than ever? I think it may not be a spending issue regarding education.

Yes, we are, and it's not necessarily a raw spending issue. If there's one thing people are good at, it's figuring out when the government is cutting checks and rushing in to say, "You know what you need? A bunch of these things that I sell!" The facilities arms race in universities has been discussed. I'm watching K-12 schools do the same thing. Gotta be the school that puts a new iPad in every kid's hand! Because that's a thing now! That's fine if the iPad is actually cheaper than all that paper, but I learned just fine with grainy old film strips and an overhead projector. Meanwhile the kids can't read or add any better than they could 10 years ago.

The general state of public education in a lot of places in the U.S. is a disaster. I'd like not necessarily just to throw money at that, but to have real reform. Sad fact is on that, you probably need more things in the style of charter schools where the kids who actually want to learn and the parents who will support them can go get an education. The parent, IMO, is the #1 problem with U.S. education today. So could we build/rennovate schools and let the kids who care go have decent facilities and teachers who are better than some 22 year old kid making $20K who got sent here by Teach for America? Could we get educator salaries to a place where it's not a lifelong act of charity to go into teaching? Could we figure out why we're developing such bloat in terms of administrative staff levels and pay while teachers are shouldering more and more of the work?

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

"They," meaning climatologists, meterorologists, actual scientists..."changed the name" due to the fact that the general public is too stupid to understand the concept. While the average global temperature IS increasing, other microclimates experience cooling. Then you get dickbags like James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee, walking into hearings and denying climate change is occurring because he made a snowball.

The Liberal Hunter and Inhofe...birds of a feather.

I take it you aren't going to answer, in a scientific way, the questions I posed?

Go ahead..take the Cersei Walk of Shame back to the kiddie pool.

 

[TheBeav815]

I don't think so. Look at France and what they wanted to tax millionaires ...and then how many left. It isn't the rich that get hurt by this.

Can I get a source on that? All I'm finding is that anyone making more than about 152K Euros (~$172,200) pays 45%.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Yes, we are, and it's not necessarily a raw spending issue. If there's one thing people are good at, it's figuring out when the government is cutting checks and rushing in to say, "You know what you need? A bunch of these things that I sell!" The facilities arms race in universities has been discussed. I'm watching K-12 schools do the same thing. Gotta be the school that puts a new iPad in every kid's hand! Because that's a thing now! That's fine if the iPad is actually cheaper than all that paper, but I learned just fine with grainy old film strips and an overhead projector. Meanwhile the kids can't read or add any better than they could 10 years ago.

The general state of public education in a lot of places in the U.S. is a disaster. I'd like not necessarily just to throw money at that, but to have real reform. Sad fact is on that, you probably need more things in the style of charter schools where the kids who actually want to learn and the parents who will support them can go get an education. The parent, IMO, is the #1 problem with U.S. education today. So could we build/rennovate schools and let the kids who care go have decent facilities and teachers who are better than some 22 year old kid making $20K who got sent here by Teach for America? Could we get educator salaries to a place where it's not a lifelong act of charity to go into teaching? Could we figure out why we're developing such bloat in terms of administrative staff levels and pay while teachers are shouldering more and more of the work?

We agree on this, especially the parenting part.

As far as going into Teaching...the FSLP Program forgives any remaining Student Loan debt if you work in the Public Sector for 10 years and make the payments as agreed.

I've tuned a number of people into that from all professions that had lots of Loan Debt.

I wonder if there would be a way that costs were tied to post Collegiate Earning Potential. Just a thought.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Can I get a source on that? All I'm finding is that anyone making more than about 152K Euros (~$172,200) pays 45%.

Give me a bit. Gerard Depardieu was one of the ones leaving, I believe. I need to go find it again.

 

[ellobo]

Primarily because of his Populist message. It works for many of the blue collar folks...and, this year in particular, he is a far better option than HRC (based on her proven past) and a devoted Communist.

Not to mention, Trump was a pretty popular guy until he came out on the Right. I never heard any vitriol tossed his way.

How can he possibly be worse than the current Parties that have gotten us 20T in Debt, amongst all the other current issues?

Well if that is your personal experience I can't argue against it though I might surmise it has something to do with your location. Here in NYC he has not been well liked at all...I'm talking about going back decades and by people who actually know him in one way or another. I've seen plenty of vitriol tossed his way over the years. Right now his most redeeming quality (in the eyes of many in NYC) is he's not Ted Cruz. Now before you go after me calling me a communist or whatever...I don't like Hillary either. I'm quite frankly astonished that politics has gotten to the point that neither party can find anyone willing to run that is at least somewhat likable.

 

[GretnaShawn]

It's interesting from a behavioral study standpoint to read one of these threads and not be involved in it. Basically it always goes like this:

Poster A: This has nothing to do with the thread, but I hate liberals.
Poster B: Me too! Liberals are stupid!
Poster C: Why did you just bring that up? It has nothing to do with the thread. Anyhow, how do you reconcile this set of three facts?
Poster A: (Ignores three facts, does not respond to them) I found something in your post that made me feel a feeling! Liberals are stupid and so are you!
Poster B: Yeah! Typical stupid liberal!
Poster D: You both just ignored the facts you were asked about. Also, what about these two additional facts?
Poster B: Lol we got them liberals mad now! Liberals are always mad. Better get 'em a safe space!

I would be very interested in having the "I'm not voting" and "I'm voting for Gary Johnson" conversation. I've gotten very annoyed with several friends for saying that. These happened to be "Bernie Bros" who want to act like they wouldn't have been totally advocating for Hillary had Bernie never decided to run.

Faced with the real possibility of having to utter the words "President Trump," I regard it as an outright shirking of civic duty not to vote against him. He is wildly unfit for ANY office, let alone the highest office in the nation.

You could say the same for Hilary, IMO. Her and Trump (and Bernie for that matter) have no business being the President. She should be in prison, not elected office. (I realize pulling the #HilaryForPrison card makes me sound a little biased. But after reading a lot of articles and speaking with a family member who is an Army Colonel, I can't come to any other conclusion. She should be behind bars.)

EDIT - After reading my comment back to myself, I want to clarify, Bernie shouldn't be president due to his ridiculous economic policies, not for being unethical.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Can I get a source on that? All I'm finding is that anyone making more than about 152K Euros (~$172,200) pays 45%.

I suck technically and don't know how to post links....if you google: france proposed tax rate on millionaires
all the relevant articles will come up for you.

 

[TheBeav815]

Actually, I meant Entitlements. I'm a BIG military proponent.

As far as the last paragraph...It isn't that I won't want to make any more money. My thought is If I make X per year I get taxed 35% but if I make any more it will be at 75%. X, in my life is far more than I need so I opt to take time off and enjoy it instead of chasing more.

Who actually gets hurt when I lose the additional motivation? It isn't me.

I think that is the point being argued by some....at least by me.

When you say "military proponent" what exactly do you mean the role of the military should be? And how much should be spent on that relative to other superpowers?

Also, how do you define entitlements? My thing on "welfare" is this: I'm not excited about it, but in a lot of cases it costs society more money to deal with the consequences of letting the poor rot than it does to help them just subsist. I don't want to pay for winos to have an apartment and a supply of booze, but the fact is they cost less that way than they do pissing on the entrance to some business and getting arrested for vagrancy, or getting sent to the ER when they're freezing to death.

So eff it, so you're a homeless drunk, I can't make you turn your life around. But if I can make you cost less, let's do it!

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Well if that is your personal experience I can't argue against it though I might surmise it has something to do with your location. Here in NYC he has not been well liked at all...I'm talking about going back decades and by people who actually know him in one way or another. I've seen plenty of vitriol tossed his way over the years. Right now his most redeeming quality (in the eyes of many in NYC) is he's not Ted Cruz. Now before you go after me calling me a communist or whatever...I don't like Hillary either. I'm quite frankly astonished that politics has gotten to the point that neither party can find anyone willing to run that is at least somewhat likable.

Not sure why you would say that...I've NEVER attacked someone without first being attacked.

 

[TheBeav815]

I suck technically and don't know how to post links....if you google: france proposed tax rate on millionaires
all the relevant articles will come up for you.

Interesting. Sounds like it wasn't as bad as some said, but it didn't really do any good either. 75% is awfully high. By the time somebody makes enough for 75% to sound reasonable, their tax revenue wouldn't end up mattering much anyhow because there are so few of them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-supertax-idUSKBN0K11CC20141223

People say they'll do a lot of things, if taxes were as pure a motivator as we let on, we'd all live in Wyoming. Yet hardly anyone does. Meanwhile, last time I drove through Winnetka, it was still populated.

 

[TheBeav815]

You could say the same for Hilary, IMO. Her and Trump (and Bernie for that matter) have no business being the President. She should be in prison, not elected office. (I realize pulling the #HilaryForPrison card makes me sound a little biased. But after reading a lot of articles and speaking with a family member who is an Army Colonel, I can't come to any other conclusion. She should be behind bars.)

EDIT - After reading my comment back to myself, I want to clarify, Bernie shouldn't be president due to his ridiculous economic policies, not for being unethical.

The sad fact about Hillary is she's perfectly suited to run the corrupt mess we've all crafted for ourselves. She's a politician through and through.

 

[ellobo]

Not sure why you would say that...I've NEVER attacked someone without first (possible) being attacked.

If you are referring to my comment on you calling me a communist...it was more to address your point that he wasn't disliked until he ran republican (than thinking you would actually call me a name). My political views have nothing to do with my distaste for Trump.

 

[jackie_moon33]

Walked in here thinking that Mel Kiper's opinion on Nebraska must have been really polarizing...

 

[GretnaShawn]

The sad fact about Hillary is she's perfectly suited to run the corrupt mess we've all crafted for ourselves. She's a politician through and through.

The problem with Hilary is, even if she is great at selling her soul, she has zero regard for national security. Her email server might as well been an aol account. People may have very well died because her lack of security/caring. And to add to that, what I rarely hear people discuss, she had all these emails on her server after she left office. So she had top secret and classified info as a private citizen. She needs to go to prison. If her name wasn't Clinton, she would be.

 

[dinglefritz]

The problem with Hilary is, even if she is great at selling her soul, she has zero regard for national security. Her email server might as well been an aol account. People may have very well died because her lack of security/caring. And to add to that, what I rarely hear people discuss, she had all these emails on her server after she left office. So she had top secret and classified info as a private citizen. She needs to go to prison. If her name wasn't Clinton, she would be.

AOL? More like Facebook......She's an elitist idiot that rules don't apply to. Trump at least scares the hell out of the trust fund elites because he proposes taxing the hell out of the trust fund babies' trust income. That's something that scares the hell out of both party's elitist ruling class because right now the Bushes AND the Kennedys pay virtually no tax on their trust fund dividend income.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

When you say "military proponent" what exactly do you mean the role of the military should be? And how much should be spent on that relative to other superpowers?

Also, how do you define entitlements? My thing on "welfare" is this: I'm not excited about it, but in a lot of cases it costs society more money to deal with the consequences of letting the poor rot than it does to help them just subsist. I don't want to pay for winos to have an apartment and a supply of booze, but the fact is they cost less that way than they do pissing on the entrance to some business and getting arrested for vagrancy, or getting sent to the ER when they're freezing to death.

So eff it, so you're a homeless drunk, I can't make you turn your life around. But if I can make you cost less, let's do it!

In order..

Whether we like it or not, there are elements that resent our way of life. Our way of life sometimes depends on other Countries being stable. I also am not one to fight fair. if a guy wants to fight, it will be while I am at my strongest and I'm not giving him 6 months to get in shape.

So, I am for the strongest military we can possibly afford...to be the strongest one in a potential fight. Keep in mind the #1 PURPOSE of the Gov't is to keep the Country safe. If that means intervening overseas, so be it. I prefer to be the Ruler rather than the ruled.

On Entitlements, we can do a lot...but it will require difficult decisions. keep in mind, decisions should be for the good of the Country, not the individual.

We can stop importing poverty for one. That seems to just add another name to the dole. I think a form of SS revamping would work by giving people control of their contributions. How can it be that anyone here illegally is entitled to any of our tax funds?

No more than 1 yr on unemployment. If more than that then maybe some Public Works Projects for them.

I think keeping some of the blue collar jobs here is more the answer. A guy could have a good life and raise a family without a degree. Those jobs now head elsewhere under "Agreements" as opposed to "a "Treaty".

There's a lot you can do.

Most of all, it has to be recognized that we are all promised equal opportunity, not equal result. I don't think that a lifetime of bad decisions by a person needs to result in punishment for all...

 

[TheBeav815]

In order..

Whether we like it or not, there are elements that resent our way of life. Our way of life sometimes depends on other Countries being stable. I also am not one to fight fair. if a guy wants to fight, it will be while I am at my strongest and I'm not giving him 6 months to get in shape.

So, I am for the strongest military we can possibly afford...to be the strongest one in a potential fight. Keep in mind the #1 PURPOSE of the Gov't is to keep the Country safe. If that means intervening overseas, so be it. I prefer to be the Ruler rather than the ruled.

On Entitlements, we can do a lot...but it will require difficult decisions. keep in mind, decisions should be for the good of the Country, not the individual.

We can stop importing poverty for one. That seems to just add another name to the dole. I think a form of SS revamping would work by giving people control of their contributions. How can it be that anyone here illegally is entitled to any of our tax funds?

No more than 1 yr on unemployment. If more than that then maybe some Public Works Projects for them.

I think keeping some of the blue collar jobs here is more the answer. A guy could have a good life and raise a family without a degree. Those jobs now head elsewhere under "Agreements" as opposed to "a "Treaty".

There's a lot you can do.

Most of all, it has to be recognized that we are all promised equal opportunity, not equal result. I don't think that a lifetime of bad decisions by a person needs to result in punishment for all...

Jflores can more eloquently address my thoughts on the military's recent work overseas. Basically I agree with him, but he says it a lot better because he lives it. I don't mind being the #1 military. What I mind is the notion that there needs to be a massive gap between #1 and #2 at all times. Particularly given the ability of terror/guerilla tactics to keep the U.S. sustained in conflict at huge cost while the enemy is this ragtag outfit making IEDs out of trash and popping up in a new country as soon as they're pushed out of another. I'm not saying you allow them, but it's not possible to end them. They're not a sovreign nation unto themselves that can be invaded and forced to surrender.

I would be 100% in favor of public works employment for the unemployed and anyone else. You got no job and need to keep your house? This ditch needs the trash pulled out of it. Hop to. I'm cool with that. I would love to see a bunch of those WPA programs come back. Show up here at 8, we're getting on a bus and we're gonna go paint a bridge for $12 an hour. Here's a shovel, this area needs a drainage canal. Why not?

As it is, you're supposed to prove that you're actively seeking work to stay on unemployment. But again, that's one where it's cheaper to give people a little to get by than it is to deal with the consequences of them being put out on the streets.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Jflores can more eloquently address my thoughts on the military's recent work overseas. Basically I agree with him, but he says it a lot better because he lives it. I don't mind being the #1 military. What I mind is the notion that there needs to be a massive gap between #1 and #2 at all times. Particularly given the ability of terror/guerilla tactics to keep the U.S. sustained in conflict at huge cost while the enemy is this ragtag outfit making IEDs out of trash and popping up in a new country as soon as they're pushed out of another. I'm not saying you allow them, but it's not possible to end them. They're not a sovreign nation unto themselves that can be invaded and forced to surrender.

I would be 100% in favor of public works employment for the unemployed and anyone else. You got no job and need to keep your house? This ditch needs the trash pulled out of it. Hop to. I'm cool with that. I would love to see a bunch of those WPA programs come back. Show up here at 8, we're getting on a bus and we're gonna go paint a bridge for $12 an hour. Here's a shovel, this area needs a drainage canal. Why not?

As it is, you're supposed to prove that you're actively seeking work to stay on unemployment. But again, that's one where it's cheaper to give people a little to get by than it is to deal with the consequences of them being put out on the streets.

I also have a few questions for Jflores that I may pose. A few things that I can't figure out that would sure make life easier. Explanations I can't find in all the reading I do that there has to be a somewhat reasoned response to.

 

[Cornicator]

What the fvck is wrong with you people?

 

[mkbrkloster]

95% of all elected officials in America....
Does not matter if they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent....
They all have ONE thing in common....

They are either religiously considered a Catholic or Christian.

So.
Maybe it is time to stop blaming the Party.
And start blaming all these problems on it's source.
The Church.

@gunNrun
Curious what you think the rate of Christianity was of elected officials for the previous 240 years of our country (including our founding fathers), and whether or not you consider our country to be in worse shape today than in other times when the Christianity rate was perhaps similar. I'll give you some help...if the rate of Christianity of elected officials is the same/similar, and the country is in far worse shape, the two most likely are not related.

I submit that the rate of actual Christian legislators is FAR below 95%, and FAR FAR below the historical rate, but don't let that opinion affect your answer to the above question.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Is this the part where someone cries and whines? You know, because "talk football" is why they come here?
Lol. What a joke.