[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Dotini]

Since Cruz won big in Texas, as well as taking wins in Oklahoma and Alaska, the delegate count remains somewhat close at Trump 315, Cruz 205 and 106 for Rubio who managed a win in Minnesota. It's conceivable the contest can be protracted unto the the convention, where anything could happen. Trump will probably hang fire on his VP choice until he needs to use it to secure an electoral advantage. For instance he could offer it to Carson in trade for his delegates.

 

[Dennisch]

If the GOP doesn't really want Chump in charge, wouldn't it be smart for Rubio to pull out and endorse Cruz?

 

[Dotini]

If the GOP doesn't really want Chump in charge, wouldn't it be smart for Rubio to pull out and endorse Cruz?

It might seem that way. But Cruz is an abhorrent super-hard right Tea-Party interloper, and Rubio is the little plastic man wholly owned and controlled by the establishment. The establishment would sooner have the insipid Trump than the dangerous Cruz. Now do you see why the establishment is so flummoxed?

 

[mustafur]

This is worst case scenario for the GOP Establishment, you got to love it.

 

[Danoff]

Consider this, Sanders and Trump are the same thing. Both refuse to move to the middle, both are plain spoken, anti-establishment types. Both are refusing to appear influenced by lobbyists. Both are outspokenly jerks to segments of the society, willing to trample the minority to appeal to their majority.

 

[Tornado]

What about Trump/Palin.... or Trump/Trump?

I'd put up with The Donald if we got four years of Ivanka as VP

 

[squadops]

When it all started I thought, oh well another Bush it shall be, now it looks like a Clinton, I didn't think she was electable until a little while ago

If any of you are serious about American politics you should think locally, seriously, go to a state session and see just how silly you are being represented.

 

[Biggles]

Consider this, Sanders and Trump are the same thing. Both refuse to move to the middle, both are plain spoken, anti-establishment types. Both are refusing to appear influenced by lobbyists. Both are outspokenly jerks to segments of the society, willing to trample the minority to appeal to their majority.

Consider this: you are (as usual) making totally false equivalents. Sanders is nothing at all like Trump. He isn't a self-obsessed, vulgar, arrogant billionaire, he doesn't have a trophy wife, he has the courage to be an openly bald man, has spent his life fighting for the underclasses rather than enhancing his own wealth & ego, he has actual policy positions, & he doesn't constantly throw personal insults at anyone who opposes him.

Your continuing concern for the mega-rich minority is touching, but I've got news for you: they're doing OK, they really don't need any help from you.

 

[mustafur]

When it all started I thought, oh well another Bush it shall be, now it looks like a Clinton, I didn't think she was electable until a little while ago

If any of you are serious about American politics you should think locally, seriously, go to a state session and see just how silly you are being represented.

Unfortunately that gets overlooked despite generally holding the most power.

 

[Danoff]

Consider this: you are (as usual) making totally false equivalents. Sanders is nothing at all like Trump. He isn't a self-obsessed, vulgar, arrogant billionaire, he doesn't have a trophy wife, he has the courage to be an openly bald man, has spent his life fighting for the underclasses rather than enhancing his own wealth & ego, he has actual policy positions, & he doesn't constantly throw personal insults at anyone who opposes him.

You either picked at things that don't matter, or things that support my point. The fact that sanders wants to trample the minority (rich) and trump wants to trample the minority (muslims) speaks to their similarities.

I understand that you can't step back from your own personal biases, but honestly trump and sanders are the same idiot, both advocating for trampling human rights, both claiming to be uninfluenced and anti-establishment, and both supported by people who are sick of the normal candidate.

Your continuing concern for the mega-rich minority is touching, but I've got news for you: they're doing OK, they really don't need any help from you.

Are you thinking that I'm a trump supporter or something? Whether you're advocating trampling the rights of one minority or another, I'm against it.

 

[squadops]

Boy do I get tired of those who like to trample the rich

 

[mustafur]

It's my Human Right to gamble with Tax payer money without any Responsibility or Punishment, whilst using those profits to pay the Law makers/Media to favour me, damn right it is.

 

[Danoff]

Boy do I get tired of those who like to trample the rich

Yea, nobody likes to stick up for the minority unless it's en vogue, but suspending the rights of the minority is always a human rights offense. At one point in time we thought it was ok to suspend the rights of black people in this country (it wasn't), and that doing so benefited everyone (it didn't). Today we think it's ok to suspend rights based on income (it isn't), and that doing so benefits everyone (it doesn't). Class warfare is about as productive as racial warfare.

The principle is the same, check my signature.

 

[mustafur]

Yea, nobody likes to stick up for the minority unless it's in vogue, but suspending the rights of the minority is always a human rights offense. At one point in time we thought it was ok to suspend the rights of black people in this country (it wasn't), and that doing so benefited everyone (it didn't). Today we think it's ok to suspend rights based on income (it isn't), and that doing so benefits everyone (it doesn't). Class warfare is about as productive as racial warfare.

The principle is the same, check my signature.

Your concept of rights is deeply floored, especially when that same minority are ahead in what rights they have.

Human rights for Corporations too, damn it's a violation of Human rights to take away rights from Corporations, I mean Humans.

 

[Danoff]

Your concept of rights is deeply floored, especially when that same minority are ahead in what rights they have.

What rights to rich people have in the US that poor people do not have?

 

[mustafur]

What rights to rich people have in the US that poor people do not have?

Well first of all identify the meaning of rich.

Rich person or Rich person(Corporation)

 

[squadops]

One problem is, the tax system, sure poor people do not pay income tax however, they do pay tax on everything they buy, and per dollar they spend every one of theirs each week where as a rich man only spends a portion. Not sure if that is the argument however.

 

[Danoff]

Well first of all identify the meaning of rich.

Rich person or Rich person(Corporation)

It's your statement, you define it. The concept of rights does not significantly change between one person and many people.

One problem is, the tax system, sure poor people do not pay income tax however, they do pay tax on everything they buy, and per dollar they spend every one of theirs each week where as a rich man only spends a portion. Not sure if that is the argument however.

Sales tax is not a federal tax. Oregon, for example, has no sales tax. The US government is funded by a minority of the US population, because only a minority of the US population pays their "fair share" or more, ie: the portion of the US budget that would be allocated to them based on population. The rest are subsidized to different degrees.

Also, what does how much someone spends have to do with rights?

 

[mustafur]

It's your statement, you define it. The concept of rights does not significantly change between one person and many people.



Sales tax is not a federal tax. Oregon, for example, has no sales tax. The US government is funded by a minority of the US population, because only a minority of the US population pays their "fair share" or more, ie: the portion of the US budget that would be allocated to them based on population. The rest are subsidized to different degrees.

Also, what does how much someone spends have to do with rights?

ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

Wouldn't we all love to have the ability for the Government to Bail us out when ever we do something stupid and get fired, so they can supply us with a new job and no loss of income.

 

[Danoff]

ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

Who did that benefit? Rich people or poor people? For whose benefit was it done?

Naturally I was against it.

 

[squadops]

I agree with you Danoff, but my point is valid to a point, they are taxed on every dollar, even though those dollars are most likely given to them by the state.

I make enough money to actually pay federal tax, I don't mind it so much, I like having things such as oil for my car

Like I said before, perhaps only property owners should have a right to vote, just to keep it on topic.

 

[mustafur]

Who did that benefit? Rich people or poor people? For whose benefit was it done?

Naturally I was against it.

It benefited those that run the companies most of all, oh and they kind of tend to be ''rich''.

Inability to prosecute is also a big Rights advantage as well.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with you Danoff, but my point is valid to a point, they are taxed on every dollar, even though those dollars are most likely given to them by the state.

No they're not. Roughly half of the US does not pay federal tax*. In oregon, for example, there is no sales tax either. Income tax, by contrast, IS a tax on every dollar coming in. And those people may also pay sales tax if they live in a state with sales tax.

I make enough money to actually pay federal tax, I don't mind it so much, I like having things such as oil for my car

If you make less than about $75k, you're still not paying for your portion of the federal budget.

It benefited those that run the companies most of all, oh and they kind of tend to be ''rich''.

Inability to prosecute is also a big Rights advantage as well.

Did it? Who benefits more from a company being bailed out? Multi-millionaire employees or employees who were living paycheck to paycheck?

*Social security is generally argued to not be a "tax" even though it is.

 

[squadops]

Trust me, I pay federal tax

 

[Danoff]

Trust me, I pay federal tax

Good. Do you pay your fair share?

 

[mustafur]

Did it? Who benefits more from a company being bailed out? Multi-millionaire employees or employees who were living paycheck to paycheck?

The one that gets Rewarded for criminal activity.

 

[squadops]

Most likely not. I do my best however.

 

[Tornado]

It benefited those that run the companies most of all, oh and they kind of tend to be ''rich''.

Tell that to the people who are currently working in GM or Chrysler factories. Or the people still living in homes financed by one of the investment banks. They didn't give that money out so the company owners could line their own pockets. Some of the bank owners did anyway, but it's a bit tenuous to claim that that was why it was done.

The one that gets Rewarded for criminal activity.

What criminal activity?

 

[Danoff]

The one that gets Rewarded for criminal activity.

Give me an example of someone who was guilty of a crime in the US and who was not prosecuted and was instead rewarded. I'm not suggesting you can't, I'm asking that you be concrete.

Most likely not. I do my best however.

So why does the conversation always seem to focus on getting people who already pay the share of dozens, or even hundreds of others to cough up and cover their "fair share" of the budget?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Consider this: you are (as usual) making totally false equivalents. Sanders is nothing at all like Trump. He isn't a self-obsessed, vulgar, arrogant billionaire, he doesn't have a trophy wife, he has the courage to be an openly bald man, has spent his life fighting for the underclasses rather than enhancing his own wealth & ego, he has actual policy positions, & he doesn't constantly throw personal insults at anyone who opposes him.

Your continuing concern for the mega-rich minority is touching, but I've got news for you: they're doing OK, they really don't need any help from you.

Sanders rhetoric against the rich reminds me of Hitler demonizing the Jews, pointing to a single small minority group and blaming them for all the ills of the country. Different group and MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES (Bernie speak) aren't defenseless like the Jews were, but the principle is the same.

I agree with you Danoff, but my point is valid to a point, they are taxed on every dollar, even though those dollars are most likely given to them by the state.

I make enough money to actually pay federal tax, I don't mind it so much, I like having things such as oil for my car

Like I said before, perhaps only property owners should have a right to vote, just to keep it on topic.

Change that to only taxpayers should vote and you'd have my support