President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Oh, great, now Republicans are going to want a Constitutional Amendment that says people have the right to own a hammer. Thrilling.

Isn't it sad that Republicans might have to stand up for the right to own one because of stupid idiots.

People have no more of a right to own a hammer than they do health care. It's the stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical Republicans who believe they do.

[Monker]

Oh, great, now Republicans are going to want a Constitutional Amendment that says people have the right to own a hammer. Thrilling.

Yep right after the progressive liberals start calling for a ban on or licenses for them. Which wouldn't surprise me one bit. Just think of the revenue each state could make on the licenses alone.

I have no issue with sin taxes. I would have no problem if the federal government put a %100 tax on all firearms and ammunition. Sounds like a great idea to me. They could use the $'s to fund more mental health programs. Each state should do the same thing.

[Monker]

Why the fuck won't anyone, politician, or otherwise, bring up Boortz's Fair Tax? In one fell swoop it would get rid of the horrendous tax code, close loopholes, and expand the tax base. Not everyone works, but everyone spends.

Because it's a fucking stupid idea...especially in a weak economy.

You are encouraging run away inflation by adding a consumption tax. It also unfairly hits the poor who will have a huge tax increase with this. Finally, there is a huge loophole...all we have to do is purchase from out of the country. Canada, Mexico and all Internet business outside of the US will love this idea. I can just imagine mega-malls set up just over the border to cater to people wanting to avoid paying this tax.

It's a bad - a very bad - idea. Even I could probably get away with paying nearly 0 taxes.

[Monker]

So next year, under Democrat obama, social security is staying flat, no cost of living increase, yet Medicare part B is going to have a 52% increase in monthly cost. In an election year.

This has nothing to do with who is in office but is an automatic increase due to a 40yr old law. And, it does not affect %70 of the people in part B.

So blame President Nixon, or Ford, whoever. Or, instead, stop your whining and blaming, contact your representatives and tell them to change the law.

[S2M]

Why the fuck won't anyone, politician, or otherwise, bring up Boortz's Fair Tax? In one fell swoop it would get rid of the horrendous tax code, close loopholes, and expand the tax base. Not everyone works, but everyone spends.

Because it's a fucking stupid idea...especially in a weak economy.

You are encouraging run away inflation by adding a consumption tax. It also unfairly hits the poor who will have a huge tax increase with this. Finally, there is a huge loophole...all we have to do is purchase from out of the country. Canada, Mexico and all Internet business outside of the US will love this idea. I can just imagine mega-malls set up just over the border to cater to people wanting to avoid paying this tax.

It's a bad - a very bad - idea. Even I could probably get away with paying nearly 0 taxes.

It's not a bad idea. I've read Boortz's book...have you? Do drug dealers pay taxes? No. Do illegals? No. But they sure as hell SPEND. Fair Tax gets rid of EVERY existing tax on the books....EVERY tax. In lieu of a consumption tax.

It's NOT a VAT tax, like Europe has. AND it hits those big ticket items that those RICH fuckers buy.

I suggest you read up on it...cause I KNOW you don't know a thing about it. You mentioned the poor...see, IF you HAD read up on it - you would know that EVERYONE would get a 'voucher', or 'rebate' to offset the cost of basic neccesities. The poor wouldn't lose at all. "The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level."

The cost of filing taxes each year for businesses AND personal reaches 300 billion, and the cost of COLLECTING taxes costs 500-600 billion. The Fair tax would save that....

Yeah Monker....this looks like a VERY bad idea. And it would also bring back businesses to the states that have gone overseas because of high business taxes.

[Monker]

Why the fuck won't anyone, politician, or otherwise, bring up Boortz's Fair Tax? In one fell swoop it would get rid of the horrendous tax code, close loopholes, and expand the tax base. Not everyone works, but everyone spends.

Because it's a fucking stupid idea...especially in a weak economy.

You are encouraging run away inflation by adding a consumption tax. It also unfairly hits the poor who will have a huge tax increase with this. Finally, there is a huge loophole...all we have to do is purchase from out of the country. Canada, Mexico and all Internet business outside of the US will love this idea. I can just imagine mega-malls set up just over the border to cater to people wanting to avoid paying this tax.

It's a bad - a very bad - idea. Even I could probably get away with paying nearly 0 taxes.

It's not a bad idea. I've read Boortz's book...have you? Do drug dealers pay taxes? No. Do illegals? No. But they sure as hell SPEND. Fair Tax gets rid of EVERY existing tax on the books....EVERY tax. In lieu of a consumption tax.

It's NOT a VAT tax, like Europe has. AND it hits those big ticket items that those RICH fuckers buy.

I suggest you read up on it...cause I KNOW you don't know a thing about it. You mentioned the poor...see, IF you HAD read up on it - you would know that EVERYONE would get a 'voucher', or 'rebate' to offset the cost of basic neccesities. The poor wouldn't lose at all. "The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level."

The cost of filing taxes each year for businesses AND personal reaches 300 billion, and the cost of COLLECTING taxes costs 500-600 billion. The Fair tax would save that....

Yeah Monker....this looks like a VERY bad idea. And it would also bring back businesses to the states that have gone overseas because of high business taxes.

Whatever. It isn't going to happen. And, even if for some odd reason it does, I'll pay virtually no taxes. I'll pay taxes on gas for the car, the electric bill, and that's about it. Everything else, I'll buy on the Internet from Canada. And, I'm not exaggerating.

So go for it.

[Monker]

Hey Monker, people have a right to own a hammer, IF THEY PAY FOR IT. Healthcare should be the same. Did you get wood when the Democrats were debating who was the biggest Communist tuesday night?

I'm glad Sanders labeled himself a socialist. It needs to stick now so people realize he can't win the election. In most ways, I think he handed the nomination to Clinton. I think he knows he can't win. He is 20pts down nationally...any other year, people would be saying he should drop out.

As for the hammer - you're an idiot. But, you probably believe you have the right to own the cocaine you bought to stuff up your nose, too. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you have the right to own a hammer. If the federal government drafts laws to make it illegal - too bad.

[S2M]

Why the fuck won't anyone, politician, or otherwise, bring up Boortz's Fair Tax? In one fell swoop it would get rid of the horrendous tax code, close loopholes, and expand the tax base. Not everyone works, but everyone spends.

Because it's a fucking stupid idea...especially in a weak economy.

It's not a bad idea. I've read Boortz's book...have you? Do drug dealers pay taxes? No. Do illegals? No. But they sure as hell SPEND. Fair Tax gets rid of EVERY existing tax on the books....EVERY tax. In lieu of a consumption tax.

It's NOT a VAT tax, like Europe has. AND it hits those big ticket items that those RICH fuckers buy.

I suggest you read up on it...cause I KNOW you don't know a thing about it. You mentioned the poor...see, IF you HAD read up on it - you would know that EVERYONE would get a 'voucher', or 'rebate' to offset the cost of basic neccesities. The poor wouldn't lose at all. "The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level."

The cost of filing taxes each year for businesses AND personal reaches 300 billion, and the cost of COLLECTING taxes costs 500-600 billion. The Fair tax would save that....

Yeah Monker....this looks like a VERY bad idea. And it would also bring back businesses to the states that have gone overseas because of high business taxes.

Whatever. It isn't going to happen. And, even if for some odd reason it does, I'll pay virtually no taxes. I'll pay taxes on gas for the car, the electric bill, and that's about it. Everything else, I'll buy on the Internet from Canada. And, I'm not exaggerating.

So go for it.

Great...and that's your choice. I'm sure there will be a provision for such skirting of the law. 23% tax on goods from other countries. So you're stuck either way. taxing income is unconstitutional.

[Boomchild]

and the Treasury Sec just reported that the Gov will be out of money around the end of the month.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that Barack Obama’s February and March 2015 travel for golf vacations and fundraisers totaled $4,436,245.50 in taxpayer-funded transportation expenses. The documents regarding the Obama travel expenses came in response to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by Judicial Watch. To date, the Secret Service has not provided requested information, as required

No problem. They'll just borrow some more from China. BTW, who here has started to learn to speak Chinese?

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm glad Sanders labeled himself a socialist. It needs to stick now so people realize he can't win the election. In most ways, I think he handed the nomination to Clinton. I think he knows he can't win. He is 20pts down nationally...any other year, people would be saying he should drop out.

This is just completely WRONG. As of August, Bernie was polling better on a national level than Obama was at the same point in 2007. Also, by this time in 2007, Obama and other Dems had received far more exposure after participating in nearly TEN televised debates. Now, after just ONE Dem debate, you think Bernie should drop out and the nomination should be handed to Hillary? In less than two days since the debate, Sanders raised 2 million from small donors - which, again, outmatched Obama's contributions at this same point in his campaign. For the most recent quarter, Hillary raised $28 million compared to Bernie's $26 million. She has already LOST her fundraising advantage and this is with Hillary being financed by some of the biggest donors in the universe. So it's pretty obvious that Hillary has a real problem and supporters like you are sounding uninformed and unhinged. Once the big money spigot is turned off, Hillary will flounder. It is already a proven fact that many of her Twitter followers are fake, which is emblematic of her support as a whole. Nobody really likes her. Bernie is filling stadiums while Hillary can barely fill a YMCA gymnasium. Thanks to Sanders, Hillary is feeling the burn like the first time Bill gave her an STI. Fuck off.

[Monker]

I'm glad Sanders labeled himself a socialist. It needs to stick now so people realize he can't win the election. In most ways, I think he handed the nomination to Clinton. I think he knows he can't win. He is 20pts down nationally...any other year, people would be saying he should drop out.

This is just completely WRONG. As of August, Bernie was polling better on a national level than Obama was at the same point in 2007. Also, by this time in 2007, Obama and other Dems had received far more exposure after participating in nearly TEN televised debates. Now, after just ONE Dem debate, you think Bernie should drop out and the nomination should be handed to Hillary? In less than two days since the debate, Sanders raised 2 million from small donors - which, again, outmatched Obama's contributions at this same point in his campaign. For the most recent quarter, Hillary raised $28 million compared to Bernie's $26 million. She has already LOST her fundraising advantage and this is with Hillary being financed by some of the biggest donors in the universe. So it's pretty obvious that Hillary has a real problem and supporters like you are sounding uninformed and unhinged. Once the big money spigot is turned off, Hillary will flounder. It is already a proven fact that many of her Twitter followers are fake, which is emblematic of her support as a whole. Nobody really likes her. Bernie is filling stadiums while Hillary can barely fill a YMCA gymnasium. Thanks to Sanders, Hillary is feeling the burn like the first time Bill gave her an STI. Fuck off.

Look, Clinton consistently polls between %15 - 20 ahead of Sanders nationally. How much he gets in donations or how many people turn up at rallies matter little if people don't vote for him.

What I heard is Bernie is going to stop the huge rallies and start working smaller crowds so he can connect better. He knows these large crowds are nice to show off, but it hasn't translated to the votes he needs to win. He knows that he's lucky to be where he is but if he can't get more people to vote for him then he can't win. Money and crowds don't matter nearly as much as the votes.

And, that's where the difference is between Sanders and Obama...Obama got the votes. Also, I picked Obama to win just as early as I picked Clinton this time...and argued for months with Dean that he would beat Clinton. At that time, Clinton was unelectable and Obama was a force that couldn't be stopped. Nowadays, Sanders is unelectable and Clinton has her shit together so she looks more presidential that anybody else on the Democrat side, and most of the Republican side, too.

I don't believe Sanders is Clinton's real threat anyway. I think Biden is. If Biden enters, then Clinton has a big problem because it is going split her support and suddenly all three of them; Clinton, Sanders, and Biden have a real shot at the nomination. And, Biden is polling the best against the Republicans. THAT is the real threat here, not Democrat Socialism.

Finally, if Biden announces he is not running - I expect Clintons donations to go way, way up...and this race will be over before a single vote is cast.

And, your prediction of Hillary dropping out or being indicted by November was dead wrong.

[Monker]

and the Treasury Sec just reported that the Gov will be out of money around the end of the month.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that Barack Obama’s February and March 2015 travel for golf vacations and fundraisers totaled $4,436,245.50 in taxpayer-funded transportation expenses. The documents regarding the Obama travel expenses came in response to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by Judicial Watch. To date, the Secret Service has not provided requested information, as required

No problem. They'll just borrow some more from China. BTW, who here has started to learn to speak Chinese?

Nah, we will have a whiney baby like Ted Cruz attempt to shut down the government, even though it will be the worst decision available.

Again, unless you are willing to increase taxes, cut military AND social spending, then you are not serious and should talk about something else.

[Monker]

Hey Monker, people have a right to own a hammer, IF THEY PAY FOR IT. Healthcare should be the same. Did you get wood when the Democrats were debating who was the biggest Communist tuesday night?

I'm glad Sanders labeled himself a socialist. It needs to stick now so people realize he can't win the election. In most ways, I think he handed the nomination to Clinton. I think he knows he can't win. He is 20pts down nationally...any other year, people would be saying he should drop out.

As for the hammer - you're an idiot. But, you probably believe you have the right to own the cocaine you bought to stuff up your nose, too. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you have the right to own a hammer. If the federal government drafts laws to make it illegal - too bad.

Hell monker, every one of those assholes had a contest to see who the biggest socialist was except Webb. And Webb got screwed out of more time then any of them. That was one staged event to crown the Queen of the Bitches. Anderson Cooper surprised me with very good questions. Too bad none of them answered them. Of course they did stay away from the economy, Middle East, Lybia , ect.

Oh, please, Clinton explicitly went to the right of Sanders and took him on with his modeling of socialist policies from European countries. But, I know you are one who likes to reject reality and substitute your own.

[Monker]

Great...and that's your choice. I'm sure there will be a provision for such skirting of the law. 23% tax on goods from other countries. So you're stuck either way. taxing income is unconstitutional.

If income tax is unconstitutional, take the state and federal governments to court. It will be interesting to read what the judges have to say about that one.

Yeah, other countries are going to be forced to collect a sales tax for the US. That makes a LOT of sense. I can imagine mega-malls popping up along the Canadian border for those wishing to not pay the tax. Hell, since Minnesota went "no tax" on food and clothing, and opened their mega-mall, to compete Iowa had to create their own "no tax" day...because a LOT of people were taking weekend road trips to Minneapolis.

What are they going to do for those who drive over the Canadian border to buy stuff? Have some type of border police to check stuff? They better really expand the US Customs to handle this to collect taxes. Trump would probably have to build a second wall on the Northern border.

And, there are other problems, since "used" goods are taxed much less - or not at all, there is very little incentive to buy a new car when you could pay a lot less tax on a used one. That destroys an entire industry. The same goes with other things like boats and such. Then there are houses, why would anybody want to buy a new house and pay that kinda tax on it? That's just stupid. I bet a lot more garage sells start happening, too.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm glad Sanders labeled himself a socialist. It needs to stick now so people realize he can't win the election. In most ways, I think he handed the nomination to Clinton. I think he knows he can't win. He is 20pts down nationally...any other year, people would be saying he should drop out.

This is just completely WRONG. As of August, Bernie was polling better on a national level than Obama was at the same point in 2007. Also, by this time in 2007, Obama and other Dems had received far more exposure after participating in nearly TEN televised debates. Now, after just ONE Dem debate, you think Bernie should drop out and the nomination should be handed to Hillary? In less than two days since the debate, Sanders raised 2 million from small donors - which, again, outmatched Obama's contributions at this same point in his campaign. For the most recent quarter, Hillary raised $28 million compared to Bernie's $26 million. She has already LOST her fundraising advantage and this is with Hillary being financed by some of the biggest donors in the universe. So it's pretty obvious that Hillary has a real problem and supporters like you are sounding uninformed and unhinged. Once the big money spigot is turned off, Hillary will flounder. It is already a proven fact that many of her Twitter followers are fake, which is emblematic of her support as a whole. Nobody really likes her. Bernie is filling stadiums while Hillary can barely fill a YMCA gymnasium. Thanks to Sanders, Hillary is feeling the burn like the first time Bill gave her an STI. Fuck off.

Look, Clinton consistently polls between %15 - 20 ahead of Sanders nationally. How much he gets in donations or how many people turn up at rallies matter little if people don't vote for him.

What I heard is Bernie is going to stop the huge rallies and start working smaller crowds so he can connect better. He knows these large crowds are nice to show off, but it hasn't translated to the votes he needs to win. He knows that he's lucky to be where he is but if he can't get more people to vote for him then he can't win. Money and crowds don't matter nearly as much as the votes.

And, that's where the difference is between Sanders and Obama...Obama got the votes. Also, I picked Obama to win just as early as I picked Clinton this time...and argued for months with Dean that he would beat Clinton. At that time, Clinton was unelectable and Obama was a force that couldn't be stopped. Nowadays, Sanders is unelectable and Clinton has her shit together so she looks more presidential that anybody else on the Democrat side, and most of the Republican side, too.

I don't believe Sanders is Clinton's real threat anyway. I think Biden is. If Biden enters, then Clinton has a big problem because it is going split her support and suddenly all three of them; Clinton, Sanders, and Biden have a real shot at the nomination. And, Biden is polling the best against the Republicans. THAT is the real threat here, not Democrat Socialism.

Finally, if Biden announces he is not running - I expect Clintons donations to go way, way up...and this race will be over before a single vote is cast.

And, your prediction of Hillary dropping out or being indicted by November was dead wrong.

Biden has run several times and gone absolutely nowhere. He's a proven loser, like Hillary. You're delusional. The Obama vs Hillary comparison is meaningless. Back then, the media still had some sort of control over framing the election. And the media pushed Obama relentlessly, even as he was losing debates to candidates like Biden, Kucinich, and even Gravel. Sanders is doing better now than Obama was in 2007. That's a fact you just choose to ignore.

[Monker]

Biden has run several times and gone absolutely nowhere. He's a proven loser, like Hillary. You're delusional.

Now your argument is so bad you are quoting KC, LOL.

The Obama vs Hillary comparison is meaningless.

It has just as much meaning as you comparing Obama to Sanders.

Sanders is doing better now than Obama was in 2007. That's a fact you just choose to ignore.

True. The bottom line for me is Obama was far, far, far a better candidate that Sanders is

Unless Biden shakes things up, I say Clinton wins the nomination. If he joins in, and I think he will, I say it's a toss up between those three and the rest should drop out soon after.

[Monker]

Put simply, there is absolutely no reason to believe these two statistics are related to each other. It's a reach, at best, and political manipulation at worst to link the two.

FBI: Violent Crime Falling As Gun Sales Rise

The FBI has released figures demonstrating that over the course of 15 years, NICS background checks for gun ownership have increased 82 per cent, while violent crime has dropped by 18 per cent.

In the 2014 version of Crime in the United States, the estimated number of reported violent crimes dropped 0.2 per cent and the estimated number of property crimes decreased 4.3 per cent compared with 2013 statistics. Homicides committed with firearms in 2014 are down 3.9 per cent on a year-to-year basis, contesting the view that gun ownership creates, rather than eliminates, violent crime. While handguns were consistently the weapon of choice, rifles accounted for a mere 3 per cent of murders in 2014, lower than murders committed with knives, blunt objects, and brute human force.

“While the one-year numbers may not look that dramatic, they are nonetheless important because they serve to illustrate the long-term, 20-year downward trend in crime in the United States is continuing.

Using NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data over a ten-year period since 2005, the best proxy we have for firearms sales, we see a 74.1 percent increase in background checks even as the violent crime fell 16.2 percent. The 15-year trend is even more dramatic, showing an 81.8 percent increase in NICS numbers even as violent crime fell 18.2 percent.

Put simply, more firearms in the hands of the mostly law-abiding American population have not yielded an increase in crime.”

The figures come as the White House prepares additional gun control measures in wake of the Umpqua College shooting, which left nine people dead.

[trekman]

Loving Texas today.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-de ... d=32807130

Agreed. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/19/texas-governor-issues-clear-three-word-response-to-hillary-clinton-after-her-remarks-on-mandatory-gun-buy-backs-spark-confiscation-fears/

And: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/16-states-now-looking-to-ban-sharia-law/

[The_Noble_Cause]

Now your argument is so bad you are quoting KC, LOL.

Not quoting anyone. It's a fact that Biden has run previously and lost. In 2008, he wasn't even top 3 material. Joe has the gift of gab, no denying that. But then again, so do used car salesmen.

It has just as much meaning as you comparing Obama to Sanders.

No, my claims, (such as how Bernie has outpaced Obama in 2008 fundraising or that he has reached one million contributors faster than Obama in 2008), are demonstrably true. Your comparisons and claims, on the other hand, such as - "the difference is between Sanders and Obama...Obama got the votes" - are bullshit. What votes? Did the first primary already occur and I missed it? At this same time in October of 2007, Hillary was leading in a landslide. Not Obama.

True. The bottom line for me is Obama was far, far, far a better candidate that Sanders is.

Yea, Obama sure has been greeeeat. Hillary and Obama were both terrible in 2008. If Hillary gets the nom, I am proudly voting for Trump.

[Monker]

"the difference is between Sanders and Obama...Obama got the votes" - are bullshit. What votes? Did the first primary already occur and I missed it? At this same time in October of 2007, Hillary was leading in a landslide. Not Obama.

You keep comparing this to an election which had a completely different dynamic. Right now, there are only two viable candidates: Clinton and Sanders. Sanders seems he has peaked. He has not gained any ground on Clinton in a very long time...even with the Email thing coming to a head right now. He had a good debate and still Clinton's polling numbers go up and his stay about the same. I do not see him gaining any more ground.

True. The bottom line for me is Obama was far, far, far a better candidate that Sanders is.

Yea, Obama sure has been greeeeat. Hillary and Obama were both terrible in 2008. If Hillary gets the nom, I am proudly voting for Trump.

Statistically, Trump can't win. He has alienated himself from all minorities, including women. The Republican party can't win unless they get votes from both women and Hispanics. Trump loses on both of those demographics.

As for Obama, the statement was about him being a better candidate than Sanders. He was, both times. It was not about his Presidency. He was far superior to McCain and out debated and maneuvered Kerry politically.

In addition, if you look at the Republican party in general right now, they are in chaos. The Tea Party has messed the Republicans up so badly that they can't even elect a speaker. If they nominate Trump, and he loses as badly as I suspect he will, well...nominating unelectable goofballs who can't win a seat as a representative is not nearly as damaging as nominating an unelectable goof ball who can't win the presidency...

[Monker]

Oh PLEASE DO! It could be DINO SEASON.
http://news.yahoo.com/democrat-webb-wei ... 05839.html

Meh. I don't see how Webb going independent means much. He gets the lowest poll numbers of any Democratic candidate. I don't see him being a Ross Perot...he's not exactly somebody who attracts a lot of media attention. Trump or Sanders going independent would matter...probably killing their current party's chance at even being competitive.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You keep comparing this to an election which had a completely different dynamic. Right now, there are only two viable candidates: Clinton and Sanders.

And how is that remotely different from 2008? In 2008, you had O, Hillary, and maybe, maybe, John Edwards. The dynamic only changed once the economy collapsed and by then, Obama already had the nomination.

Sanders seems he has peaked.

This has been said by Hillary supporters repeatedly. And yet, the Bernie crowds keep growing, the Bernie money keeps flowing, and Hillary keeps changing her positions (Keystone, TPP) to sound just like Bernie. Why don't you mention how Hillary couldn't fill an auditorium at Georgetown or how 2 million of her Twitter followers are bots? You seem to live in a reality where Hillary has the same mass appeal as Bill. She doesn't. Horrible retail politician. Nobody likes her.

He has not gained any ground on Clinton in a very long time...even with the Email thing coming to a head right now. He had a good debate and still Clinton's polling numbers go up and his stay about the same. I do not see him gaining any more ground.

So Hillary had a slight bounce from the debate. Btw, the first of five more debates to go. Hillary's unfavorability is at over 50% nationally. If she gets the nom, Dems will lose in a landslide.

[S2M]

Admittingly, I don't have the political chops that a few of you have here...all I know is we need a Consumption Tax, we need to get rid of the Electoral College, and finally....dumb people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Voting should be an INFORMED decision. IF you WANT to call it a 'right' - a person has the RESPONSIBILITY to be well-informed, and knowledgeable about the candidates, their platforms, AND just what a president HAS the ability to accomplish in that position, in THIS country, at THIS point in time. Bernie's solutions sound great...really, they do. But unless the Dems own BOTH the House AND Senate, he may as well be asking for free parking on Pennsylvania Ave. The dumb electorate get all mesmerized by buzz words: Change, FREE stuff, lower taxes, better america...etc. Without realizing that just because a candidate has a great plan, doesn't mean they will get everything through congress. I guess the question is.....is having great ideas enough to get elected?

[Monker]

.

[Monker]

Sanders seems he has peaked.

This has been said by Hillary supporters repeatedly.

Don't know what others are saying. All I know is his poll numbers have been stagnant for months now.

And yet, the Bernie crowds keep growing, the Bernie money keeps flowing, and Hillary keeps changing her positions (Keystone, TPP) to sound just like Bernie.

Like I said, that does not mean anything if those people don't vote for him.

Why don't you mention how Hillary couldn't fill an auditorium at Georgetown or how 2 million of her Twitter followers are bots?

Because those things really don't matter. When it comes to down to who people are going to vote for they pick Clinton almost 2 to 1 ahead of Sanders.

You seem to live in a reality where Hillary has the same mass appeal as Bill. She doesn't. Horrible retail politician. Nobody likes her.

No, I live in the reality where the polls at realclearpolitics.com put Clinton ahead of Sanders by 20-30pts now.

So Hillary had a slight bounce from the debate.

10pts isn't just a 'slight' bounce.

Btw, the first of five more debates to go. Hillary's unfavorability is at over 50% nationally. If she gets the nom, Dems will lose in a landslide.

We'll see. How much she wins by really depends on who the Republicans nominate.

[Monker]

TNC, what I saw yesterday that shocked me,mainly because it was CBS, was that Hillary not only didn't have a bounce from the debate, but stayed the same, and Sanders went up to 28%.

This is what CBS says:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-2016-po ... n-fiorina/

[Monker]

Yep. After I typed that, I turned on Fox before I had to go out the door. I should have went with a trusted News Source in the first place. Although it was yesterday I heard the fat old bitch had no change at all after that dog and pony show democrats called a debate. Now she's on the rise because people are beieving the liberal horse shit about the Benghazi pannel.

Oh, please, you screwed up. Don't blame CBS for your mistakes.

realclearpolitics.com shows EVERY poll in an unbiased way. FOX may present polls but then puts them in the context of surrounding it with a bunch of bias commentary. They are no more or less trustworthy than CBS, or any other network that presents these polls and then adds political commentary to it.

Clinton's popularity rose after the debate. There was a lot of time between when McCarthy made his statements and when the debate happened. Your reasoning is flawed. Her popularity went up because no other Democrat on that stage, including Sanders, looked as ready for the office as she did. In fact, she looked more ready than most of the Republicans, including Trump.

[Monker]

Admittingly, I don't have the political chops that a few of you have here...all I know is we need a Consumption Tax, we need to get rid of the Electoral College, and finally....dumb people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Voting should be an INFORMED decision. IF you WANT to call it a 'right' - a person has the RESPONSIBILITY to be well-informed, and knowledgeable about the candidates, their platforms, AND just what a president HAS the ability to accomplish in that position, in THIS country, at THIS point in time. Bernie's solutions sound great...really, they do. But unless the Dems own BOTH the House AND Senate, he may as well be asking for free parking on Pennsylvania Ave. The dumb electorate get all mesmerized by buzz words: Change, FREE stuff, lower taxes, better america...etc. Without realizing that just because a candidate has a great plan, doesn't mean they will get everything through congress. I guess the question is.....is having great ideas enough to get elected?

As long as one party has a faction that wants to deny fundamental facts and a network that spreads this propaganda and substitutes a fantasyland reality then everything you say above is absolutely meaningless.

And, you can also say everything above about Trump, not just Sanders.

[trekman]

I dont know If Ben Carson has the backing to be elected. I think its still very early to see who Really does. But i like everyone of his answers here!

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/10/21/rapid-fire-qa-watch-how-ben-carson-responds/

[trekman]

More encouragement for illegals and votes for democrats.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-is-about-to-take-massive-immigration-action-far-scarier-than-anyone-could-have-imagined/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_campaign=BestOfDay&utm_content=2015-10-21&dlvrit=1810606