Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

If you voted in a Democratic Primary in 2016 who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton
7
19%
Bernie Sanders
16
44%
Martin O'Malley
1
3%
Lincoln Chafee
1
3%
Jim Webb
3
8%
Joe Biden
8
22%
Other; Specify
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 36

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby Darkylightytwo » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:03 am

PaleRider wrote:Sanders shows his policy chops by proposing spending that will create $18 trillion deficits: http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/15/ ... n-deficit/

While Clinton continues her slide in the polls: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hilla ... le/2565693
<

A website written by conservatives, you can't call that a neutral source, nor a valid argument.

The Entire budget of the US is less then 4 trillion, there is no way someone can create a deficit of 18 trillion, even in 10 years, thatn would 1,8 trillion deficit by year, 50% of the budget

I don't believe in such sources, now I know why
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby CanadianEh » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:09 am

Can I also add that Republicans are so gung ho about military spending that there would be no balanced budget. The Bush administration did nothing about debt.
Kirlawa Liberals - Inactive
Baltusia Conservatives - Inactive
Rutanian Democratic Party - Inactive
Conservative Party of Luthori - Active

In all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom -- John Locke
User avatar
CanadianEh
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:22 pm
Location: Canada / Luthori

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby PaleRider » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:13 am

Darkylightytwo wrote:
PaleRider wrote:Sanders shows his policy chops by proposing spending that will create $18 trillion deficits: http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/15/ ... n-deficit/

While Clinton continues her slide in the polls: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hilla ... le/2565693
<

A website written by conservatives, you can't call that a neutral source, nor a valid argument.

The Entire budget of the US is less then 4 trillion, there is no way someone can create a deficit of 18 trillion, even in 10 years, thatn would 1,8 trillion deficit by year, 50% of the budget

I don't believe in such sources, now I know why
CanadianEh wrote:Can I also add that Republicans are so gung ho about military spending that there would be no balanced budget. The Bush administration did nothing about debt.

The source is the highly reputable Wall Street Journal. And most of the cost comes from the massive explosion of entitlements and social services this guy is proposing. The costliest measure is his single payer healthcare system, a similar system which his home state of Vermont tried and which failed earlier this year due to higher than expected cost overruns. And this is Vermont, not exactly a conservative bastion.

CanadianEh wrote:Can I also add that Republicans are so gung ho about military spending that there would be no balanced budget. The Bush administration did nothing about debt.

We are yes, but the GOP is not prepared to see trillion dollar deficits over military spending outside of wartime. And speaking of the Bush Administration, you have to view the second Bush as a war time president. 9/11 changed his thinking and the outlook of his presidency, something he admits to in his book. Had 9/11 not happened we most likely wouldn't have plunged into the Global War on Terror or launched the Iraq invasion as swiftly as we did. But once Al Qaeda declared war on us with 9/11, we had to act and act decisively. Throughout the Clinton years, known terrorist recruitment areas and areas of control were not dealt with. The Afghan problem was allowed to fester as that country tore itself apart, Al Qaeda was not dealt with properly despite the Africa embassy bombings and the USS Cole strike in Yemen in 2000. Bush had to make the call that either we go back to the same old failed Clinton policies of not dealing effectively with the issues, or destroying their sanctuaries. Thus started the Global War on Terror. Had that not happened, even with the two rounds of Bush tax cuts, the administration would've run a surplus all the way up until the 2008 financial crisis. The largest Bush deficit by the way was what, 400 billion in 2008? Obama cranked up spending with 4 years of trillion dollar deficits.
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby TheNewGuy » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:25 pm

Damnit Pale, you troll me harder than pretty much anyone else has been able to.
I once was full of promise. Oops.
The artist formerly known as Zanz, Troll King, Scourge of Dynastia and Confidant of IdioC
All posts are subject to the intense anal-retentive scrutiny of concerned citizens of the community

Particracy Realism Project
TheNewGuy
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby JuliaAJA » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:24 pm

Zanzicus, can I say I told you so yet or do we have to wait for Bernie to be chosen?
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
JuliaAJA
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Cildania

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby TheNewGuy » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:18 pm

Jessaveryja wrote:Zanzicus, can I say I told you so yet or do we have to wait for Bernie to be chosen?


Lol, there hasn't even been a Democratic debate yet, I'm not ready to call it for Bernie.
I once was full of promise. Oops.
The artist formerly known as Zanz, Troll King, Scourge of Dynastia and Confidant of IdioC
All posts are subject to the intense anal-retentive scrutiny of concerned citizens of the community

Particracy Realism Project
TheNewGuy
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Democratic 2016 Presidential Field

Postby TheNewGuy » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

PaleRider wrote:
Darkylightytwo wrote:
PaleRider wrote:Sanders shows his policy chops by proposing spending that will create $18 trillion deficits: http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/15/ ... n-deficit/

While Clinton continues her slide in the polls: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hilla ... le/2565693
<

A website written by conservatives, you can't call that a neutral source, nor a valid argument.

The Entire budget of the US is less then 4 trillion, there is no way someone can create a deficit of 18 trillion, even in 10 years, thatn would 1,8 trillion deficit by year, 50% of the budget

I don't believe in such sources, now I know why
CanadianEh wrote:Can I also add that Republicans are so gung ho about military spending that there would be no balanced budget. The Bush administration did nothing about debt.

The source is the highly reputable Wall Street Journal. And most of the cost comes from the massive explosion of entitlements and social services this guy is proposing. The costliest measure is his single payer healthcare system, a similar system which his home state of Vermont tried and which failed earlier this year due to higher than expected cost overruns. And this is Vermont, not exactly a conservative bastion.


Since when is Rupert Murdoch's WSJ a reputable source, or at the very least how do you claim it to be free of bias when Murdoch and his empire stand to lose so much from a potential Sanders success?

It's (yet another) hit piece not based in fact. There are plenty of other articles from equally "reputable" sources (Washington Post, which has written it's own hit pieces on Sanders) that call the WSJ piece for what it is, absolute crap.

Bernie isn't perfect, I'll grant that. I can't even say I'll vote for him if there were a general election with his name on the ticket - I just hate the Democratic Party too much. But come on, WSJ as "reputable," that's rich.

Also, for the record, as a Vermonter, the failure of single payer there was pretty much sealed as soon as Obamacare passed. That federal act (which was a terrible blow for real healthcare reform because it's more insurance company written bullshit cloaked in the language of actual reform) poisoned the waters of reform, and it also cost our state an incredible amount that would otherwise have been spent on single-payer. VT had a relatively expansive healthcare system, much preferable to many places in the US, prior to the ACA that was crippled by federal reforms. My own father was removed from the state(state as in Vermont, not federal)-subsidized health insurance program he'd been on for years and was told he had to purchase through the Exchange - a process which was both tedious and remarkably more expensive for him.
I once was full of promise. Oops.
The artist formerly known as Zanz, Troll King, Scourge of Dynastia and Confidant of IdioC
All posts are subject to the intense anal-retentive scrutiny of concerned citizens of the community

Particracy Realism Project
TheNewGuy
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 pm

Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests