Would Your Vote For Trump?

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog said:
I would urge all progressive and liberals to vote for the Green party candidate. :)
Click to expand...

Why not vote Republican? Their votes count the same. As long as the Dems lose, Conservatives dance.
 
I want a deaf person, with his/her terp close by, to run for present!
 
darkdog said:
Help me out here. I'm trying to understand this mentality because it's so upsetting that people would not care about such insanely irresponsible finances. It can't be "I don't care about the debt because we have a two party system." That doesn't make sense. So what's your reasoning here?
Click to expand...

I don't care about fiscal issues because both of liberals and conservatives aren't getting along with fiscal policies and two party system are screwed up for many years. I think that tax rate need increase to 1970's level, cut the military spending, take stimulus funds out of system, fix the Medicare fraud and cut on programs that are helpless and worthless, especially Obama's mortgage relieve assistance.

80% of my view is Democratic Party and GOP isn't fit that I need. GOP is too conservative for my taste and I do care about gay rights so more than fiscal policies.

Sorry if you are upsetting about my views because you and I are not in same agreement.
 
actually if i was pressed for in between trump or obama, id pick trump. Because he has business sense to combat shwerd up and coming middle-eastern/asian countries like he knows their negotiating game from experience and army generals will take care of the war/peace side as it is their expertise. Obama is just a political stunt, and a real fucking expensive one - alll just for the name of 'rights' while there is clearly no more right whatsoever...
 
Trump as opposed to what? It all depends. I sure hope he never runs for it!
 
Foxrac said:
I don't care about fiscal issues because both of liberals and conservatives aren't getting along with fiscal policies and two party system are screwed up for many years. I think that tax rate need increase to 1970's level, cut the military spending, take stimulus funds out of system, fix the Medicare fraud and cut on programs that are helpless and worthless, especially Obama's mortgage relieve assistance.

80% of my view is Democratic Party and GOP isn't fit that I need. GOP is too conservative for my taste and I do care about gay rights so more than fiscal policies.

Sorry if you are upsetting about my views because you and I are not in same agreement.
Click to expand...
I'm not upset that you, Foxrac, are non-chalant about it. I find it sad that a significant chunk of the country doesn't really care. Some of the suggestions you make are good ideas (although they don't address the core issues- entitlements), but I'm not sure if you've really thought through your priorities. You say you care more about gay rights more than fiscal issues, but gay rights is mostly a state and local issue. There's not a whole lot the federal government can do about that. If you want gay marriage, you'll have to go through the state government.

This federal budget problem, if not checked, will hurt everyone in big ways. I'm more worried about the stability of our system than anything because if that goes, then the ability to sit around and worry about issues like gay rights will seem like a luxury of the past.
 
saywhatkid said:
I was referring to the "I don't give a f**k" remark. Environmentalist feel that people wanting to drill everywhere are saying the same thing to them.

Opinions vary, sometimes greatly. We could do a lot to reduce our dependence on the Arab oil if people would become more efficient with oil use. As it is, they line up to buy gas guzzlers. They they turn around and tell everyone "freedom of choice" which takes us back to the initial phrase I quoted above.
Click to expand...
I was a "drill, baby, drill" type (still am), yet I want us to do it in the safest way possible. I'm all for cleaning up the MMS and requiring companies to use the best technology available without cutting corners (which BP did). But I am no environmentalist because while I recognize there's always going to be some risk, I feel it's worth the benefit of oil wealth.

So no, neither I nor people like me have a "f*** the environment" attitude.
 
darkdog said:
I was a "drill, baby, drill" type (still am), yet I want us to do it in the safest way possible. I'm all for cleaning up the MMS and requiring companies to use the best technology available without cutting corners (which BP did). But I am no environmentalist because while I recognize there's always going to be some risk, I feel it's worth the benefit of oil wealth.

So no, neither I nor people like me have a "f*** the environment" attitude.
Click to expand...

Well, there are some that do have that attitude, especially as we slide into a world where people rarely leave the house, sit online all day, play video games. Why would they care if there is an oil spill in Alaska?

I also recognize there are trust factors at play. A lot of us have a hard time trusting oil companies to "do the right thing" and keep our natural areas in good shape in lieu of the recent spills. Exxon is still selling petroleum products; in fact, they are the #1 money making company in the world. BP is still selling petroleum products. They are still making profits. The penalty for causing a spill seems to be dismissal of the top executives (with nice Golden Parachute severances) and a few PSAs.
 
I originally said no I wouldn't, but after thinking about it, I would have to wait and see who else is running. Technically, I am on the wrong team (chose what my parents were and never changed over the years), so We will see.
 
darkdog said:
I'm not upset that you, Foxrac, are non-chalant about it. I find it sad that a significant chunk of the country doesn't really care. Some of the suggestions you make are good ideas (although they don't address the core issues- entitlements), but I'm not sure if you've really thought through your priorities. You say you care more about gay rights more than fiscal issues, but gay rights is mostly a state and local issue. There's not a whole lot the federal government can do about that. If you want gay marriage, you'll have to go through the state government.

This federal budget problem, if not checked, will hurt everyone in big ways. I'm more worried about the stability of our system than anything because if that goes, then the ability to sit around and worry about issues like gay rights will seem like a luxury of the past.
Click to expand...

For entitlement issue, I'm favor in raise of retirement age for SS, remove the FICA payroll tax limit on income and find out to end the medicare fraud, that what I think so far and I think that workers should plan to contribute more on 401k or other pension because make retirement as SS only won't enough to fill money during retirement.

Well, in 2006, the republicans are try to pass the constitution ban on gay marriage at federal level but failed and they will probably do again if they win the supermajority in congress. I prefer federal to legalize of gay marriage nationwide, however I think it is very hard to do it and it can be done by court.

Republicans are losing my respect, especially social issue due to anti-gay rights but I'm glad that most of them are 2nd Amendment friendly. I had push so hard to got hate crime bill to cover sex orientation and repeal DADT to passed so successfully but only one more bill that I want to pass is ENDA. I just want gay people to have comfortable life in southern state with full protection if they want to stay as their lovely home.
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, there are some that do have that attitude, especially as we slide into a world where people rarely leave the house, sit online all day, play video games. Why would they care if there is an oil spill in Alaska?
Click to expand...
I tend to think the opposite is true. 100 or 200 years ago, it would have been easier to not really care about what was happening in Alaska, especially since people had to work so hard, they didn't have time to care about that stuff. Nowadays, if something awful happens, it gets beamed into our TVs and computers instantaneously so people thousands of miles away can feel a connection to it.

saywhatkid said:
I also recognize there are trust factors at play. A lot of us have a hard time trusting oil companies to "do the right thing" and keep our natural areas in good shape in lieu of the recent spills. Exxon is still selling petroleum products; in fact, they are the #1 money making company in the world. BP is still selling petroleum products. They are still making profits. The penalty for causing a spill seems to be dismissal of the top executives (with nice Golden Parachute severances) and a few PSAs.
Click to expand...
That's just wrong. Exxon and BP have paid billions of dollars for their accidents. You seem to think those companies should go out of business whenever something like this happens. But accidents do happen in this industry- whether it be from human error, plain bad luck, or both. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to force a company which employees hundreds of thousands of people and has very specialized skills and equipment out of business.

Also, the fact that Exxon is making the largest profit is neither surprising nor bad. It's not surprising because it's one of the largest, if not the largest, companies in the world. Given the amazingly complex tasks they perform on a daily basis, oil companies have to be large. The fact that they're making profits means they're doing their job in an efficient manner without creating costly disasters. It's good for the consumers, the employees, and the shareholders.
 
Banjo said:
At least Obama ran for office before becoming the president.
Click to expand...
So, he had experience in campaigning, not in leadership or even management.
 
Banjo said:
Well, they are out of money. They are living on credit. Hee.
Click to expand...
True. I guess I meant without even being able to get any more credit. A totally empty pot.

What if the lenders call in the notes? Pay them back with national park deeds or aircraft carrier titles?

It's a scary thought.
 
Reba said:
So, he had experience in campaigning, not in leadership or even management.
Click to expand...

He is used to be senator at federal level and state senate so he has a lot of experience, IMO.
 
Foxrac said:
He is used to be senator at federal level and state senate so he has a lot of experience, IMO.
Click to expand...
Not much. What important legislation did he sponsor during that time? What executive experience did he have? Did he even bother to vote each time?
 
Foxrac said:
For entitlement issue, I'm favor in raise of retirement age for SS, remove the FICA payroll tax limit on income and find out to end the medicare fraud, that what I think so far and I think that workers should plan to contribute more on 401k or other pension because make retirement as SS only won't enough to fill money during retirement.
Click to expand...
Now we're talking. What you propose would probably work for Social Security. However, in the long wrong, the growth of Medicare is what's really going to kill us and getting rid of Medicare fraud will not be nearly enough to solve that problem.

Foxrac said:
Well, in 2006, the republicans are try to pass the constitution ban on gay marriage at federal level but failed and they will probably do again if they win the supermajority in congress. I prefer federal to legalize of gay marriage nationwide, however I think it is very hard to do it and it can be done by court.
Click to expand...
It failed then when support among the public and the Republican party was less than it is now. I really don't think they'll even bother to try in the future unless trends sharply reverse.

The federal government can't just pass a law saying that states have to recognize gay marriage. It's outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. They would have to pass a constitutional amendment doing that.

As for the courts, I think it's really a stretch to say that state recognition of gay marriage is required by the constitution. As such, even if supporting gay marriage is the right position to take, the courts shouldn't mandate it as it's a matter for state legislatures. Besides, as a tactical matter, with public opinion steadily going your way, wouldn't it be wise to wait until support for your position is sufficient so state legislatures move to change the law? Why make it look like you're shoving something down people's throats through judicial activism when you'll probably have the public on your side soon enough? The latter will make gay marriage appear a lot more legit.

Foxrac said:
Republicans are losing my respect, especially social issue due to anti-gay rights but I'm glad that most of them are 2nd Amendment friendly. I had push so hard to got hate crime bill to cover sex orientation and repeal DADT to passed so successfully but only one more bill that I want to pass is ENDA. I just want gay people to have comfortable life in southern state with full protection if they want to stay as their lovely home.
Click to expand...
What's your view on President Obama's opposition to gay marriage? I mean, as president, it's safe to say he's the head of the Democrat party.
 
darkdog said:
Now we're talking. What you propose would probably work for Social Security. However, in the long wrong, the growth of Medicare is what's really going to kill us and getting rid of Medicare fraud will not be nearly enough to solve that problem.


It failed then when support among the public and the Republican party was less than it is now. I really don't think they'll even bother to try in the future unless trends sharply reverse.

The federal government can't just pass a law saying that states have to recognize gay marriage. It's outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. They would have to pass a constitutional amendment doing that.

As for the courts, I think it's really a stretch to say that state recognition of gay marriage is required by the constitution. As such, even if supporting gay marriage is the right position to take, the courts shouldn't mandate it as it's a matter for state legislatures. Besides, as a tactical matter, with public opinion steadily going your way, wouldn't it be wise to wait until support for your position is sufficient so state legislatures move to change the law? Why make it look like you're shoving something down people's throats through judicial activism when you'll probably have the public on your side soon enough? The latter will make gay marriage appear a lot more legit.


What's your view on President Obama's opposition to gay marriage? I mean, as president, it's safe to say he's the head of the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't support to cut SS and Medicare because I'm pro-welfare but I prefer to fix the system instead of cut like increase of retirement age, increase FICA rate, remove the income cap, configure the prescription drug plan like Medicare can pay for generic drugs at most cases but pay for brand drugs if alternative isn't available, not Viagra.

Well, I disagree with you but I'm going leave this matter to court and they are currently under challenge in federal court appeals and expected go all way to US Supreme Court for question about 14th Amendment. If US Supreme Court rule gay marriage ban as unconstitutional so it will legal in all states and my battle may be over, except for tell congress to not pass the constitution ban or something like that, though, I doubt they will due difficult to reach supermajorities in congress.

I talked to some gay people in here and they don't want move to gay friendly state like Massachusetts so they prefer to stay in Alabama as their sweet home. They support full gay rights at federal level because it is impossible to pass in Alabama, even rest of southern states.

Obama support hate crime bill to cover sex orientation, ENDA, repeal DADT and repeal DOMA but for gay marriage, not in his personality, however he support civil unions instead, that's fine with me. I labeled Obama as 80% gay friendly president. In difference to most republicans, they are against on all gay rights that I listed in above of this paragraph but there are some republicans support partial and full gay rights so they are in minority.
 
Reba said:
Not much. What important legislation did he sponsor during that time? What executive experience did he have? Did he even bother to vote each time?
Click to expand...

Who cares? Obama's more qualified than McCain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top