When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@farmerman,

I wouldn't mind if the US elected Trump, but the rest of the world needs to find a way to corral you all inside your own borders first.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote giujohn:

Quote:

1 her campaign said it was reflection and 2 its not a hearing aid it's too far down in the ear..

Maybe it was a reflection-the lights are pretty powerful on those stages. If you think anyone except Alex Jones fans are going to be convinced of cheating by some indistinct reflection off something, followed by your "expert analysis" of "the only thing it could be", lol, your nuts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmboy would rather have a society where everyone is afraid to speak their mind for fear of being accused of being a bigot a racist homophobe and islamophobe where the leftists will emasculate the Constitution install leftist judges who will legislate From the Bench... A society where the news media becomes a kingmaker installing people in office who will accept their narrative and regurgitate to the sheeple

3 Replies

@Blickers,

If it was a reflection it was reflecting off the biggest zit I ever seen coming out of a person's ear

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Ho'ya do'in Cyclo.

Several Points.

First, I am equally suspicious of candidates who articulate an apparently detailed, coherent plan and those who don't. In both cases I believe what I know of their values and character is a more reliable indicator of what they will do and how effective it will be. Obama articulated what appeared to be a fairly permissive health care insurance mandate, combined with a subsidized mimimalist plan for those without adequate resources to pay for it. By the time his progressive, academic "savants' got through with it they had creradted an unworkable monster riddled with legal, procedural and financial inconsistencies that led to the inexorable collapse we are now seeing. All its authors have left are their claimed good intentions. Worse they passsed it in a highly sectarian manner without any consultation or compromise with the political opposition lkeaving a legacy of bitter sectarianism which is still with us.

Second. There are always questions and doubts about the performance of weapons systems. However it is the will to deploy them that invigorates sensitive allies (such as the former Soviet, now NATO/EU nations of Eastern Europe.) The syystem in question is still one of the best out there and our reversal on this matter clearly was one of several factors that induced our pal Valdimir to believe he could get away with his illusory attempt to restore the Russian Empire.

Third. It's pretty clear that Obama intended to take the U.S. down a notch in its role of world leader, and that he intended to reduce our military with or without the added national debt he inherited. Here it is also noteworthty that our debt (relative to GDP) has increased at an even faster rate during the term of his administration due to the combined effects of a very slow recovery from a recession; continued slow economic growth, arguable due to the mountain of regulations he has imposed on the economy; and his prodigious spending in non defense areas. In short your argument is a self-serving rationalization.

By the way, I'n not a Hawk. I've been in two wars and know what it's like.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

emasculate the Constitution install leftist judges who will legislate From the Bench...

what did you call it when the court decided on Citizens United?
The only ones "lwgislating from the bench " are the conservative who let thweir puppetmasters control their minds.
Money=Speech??? cmon

2 Replies

@farmerman,

That's nonsense Farmer. The issue was one of constitutional rights of free expression. At it's worst the ruling gave corporations almost equal ability to spend money to influence policy and elections as Labor unions have enjoyed for decades.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

One of Obama's first acts with regard to NATO was to cancel the positioniong of previously committed air and missile defense systems in Poland and other areas of (now NATO) Eastern Europe.

To be replaced with the SM-3 missile defense as part of the Aegis system. Hardly an abandonment. By the way, Romania just got a missile defense system, Poland is next, and boy is Russia bitching about it. T.S., Vladdy.

Quote:

How well has our current administration protected Western interests ?

About 100 times better than Trump has stated he will. From the time NATO was formed to the present, all US presidents made clear that North America's and Europe's defense was the primary goal of our NATO involvement. Now Trump has made the financial arrangements primary with the actual defense of NATO countries secondary-and entirely dependent on the financial arrangements. Under Trump, we're going from having a fire department that has the firefighters hit the truck at the first call for fire, to having the men hang around while the clerk checks to see if the caller has paid his property tax and his water and sewer bill is taken care of before the firemen can go over there.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I called it up holding the First Amendment... Political speech in any form I repeat any form is protected speech
It's no different then making bullets illegal and then saying well we didn't get rid of the Second Amendment... that's called infringement

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I wouldn't mind if the US elected Trump, but the rest of the world needs to find a way to corral you all inside your own borders first.

Easy to say from your protected perch on the north side. You even get to amuse yourself in discussions of our politics and we don't object.

We're far from perfect but we're a good deal better than the late British Empire - and still dealing with the legacy of its misadventures from The Middle East, to Africa and, the Indian subcontinent.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Doing fine, thanks.

Quote:

First, I am equally suspicious of candidates who articulate an apparently detailed, coherent plan and those who don't. In both cases I believe what I know of their values and character is a more reliable indicator of what they will do and how effectiove it will be.

I can't agree with this at all. One (those who have a plan) shows evidence that they have put thought into the problem and have attempted to formulate a solution to said problem. The solution they present to you can then be judged by the individual voter and weighed against their life experience. The other (those who have no plan but offer vague assurances) relies on the individual to make complete guesses about the values and character of the person involved, as you have no objective way whatsoever to know those values or their character. This seems far more foolish to me. I can't support the idea that a vague assurance of 'oh, we'll kill 'em' is something that's more supportable than an actual plan to do so.

Quote:

Second. There are always questions and doubts about the paerformance of weapons systems. However it is the will to deploy them that invigorates sensitive allies (such as the former Soviet, now NATO/EU nations of Eastern Europe.

You wrote 'invigorates sensitive allies,' but what you should have written was 'enriches reliably Republican defense contractors.' Because that's far closer to the truth. I really don't give a **** if our allies are 'invigorated.' What difference does it make? They spend no more on their defense. They don't seem to realize the danger at all, whether we have forward positions there or not. OTOH anti-missile systems that don't work (and the majority of them do not and never did, as I'm sure you know) cost a ton of real-world money. I'd rather have the money, and our allies can invigorate themselves, thanks.

Quote:

Third. It's pretty clear that Obamaintended to take the U.S. down a notch in its role of world leader

Oh, c'mon. I don't think you actually believe this. Instead, I think there is a disagreement between our two parties over what it means to BE a world leader in the first place.

Quote:

Here it is also noteworthty that our debt (relative to GDP) has increased at an even faster rate during the term of his administration due to the combined effects of a very slow recovery from a recession; continued slow economic growth, arguable due to the mountain of regulations he has imposed on the economy

I could just as easily say that Republican intransigence and refusal to work with Obama and the Dems is responsible for the prolonged recession and continued slow economic growth. It's certainly a stronger argument than your rather nebulous and somewhat shop-worn 'regulations!' argument, which has been claimed by the same WSJ-type Republican in every single year of my life, despite the economic conditions at the time. I mean, sheesh. It's the exact same argument that I heard in the 80's and 90's and I see very little relationship between regulations and actual measurable metrics of the economy or job growth.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

Farmboy would rather have a society where everyone is afraid to speak their mind

quite the contrary. i get a lot of pleasure listening to all sides and often agree with the conservatives on such things as gun ownership ( just not unlimited chaotic ownership by total nutheads), fiscal policy,
I DONT agree with the conservatives rather racist views , or the totally unarmed logic of statements like "build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it" or "Ill bring prayer back to schools when you knwo damned well thats a constitutional issue that goes beyond the presidents pygrade.
But that doesnt seem to stop the sycophants of the Donald.

How many of the real conservatives are n asshole buddy of Putin's worldview. ?

One of our esteemed members once said that we are ALL conservative about some things and liberal on others. The ultra conservatives seem to be the only ones who demand that you drink the entire pitcher of Kool Aid.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

When you're right you're right. Most people are more complicated than the way zealots on both sides describe their perceived opponents. I think it's safe to say we love our children, our families, we want to live in peace time, and both sides have more in common than they like to think. It's a goat rope.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm an Independent just because I'm conservative on fiscal policies and liberal on social services. We need to have free education and health care paid for by taxes. We can reduce defense spending; we're already spending more than the top five countries on defense. Wars are not going to be against other countries. They're going to be limited to terrorist organizations like ISIS. With the help of our allies, we can defeat ISIS.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You say "shopworn" but just what are your credentials for assessing the effects of regulation on economic investment, enterprise creation and job growth?

The fact is we have seen a steady increase in the reach of Federal regulations throughout most of your life span - even under Republican administrations, though at a much slower rate. I can tell you, from a very substantial base of business experience, that the growing complexity and reach of Federal financial, tax, labor management and environmental regulations is indeed inhibiting the investment of liquid assets in creating new enterprises in this countrey. I know from direct experience that it is increasingly hard to calculate a successful investment strategy and as a direct consequence businesses are sitting on hordes of cash and sustaining their market valuations by paying dividends rather than investing in the growth of their operation or in new enterprises. This is a boon to investors but does nothing for job growth.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

In Silicon Valley, the big names in high tech all have offices here, and it's still growing. Cost of housing has gone through the roof, and many workers must travel several hours to work here. One third of all investments still come here. We still see huge office developments here, and Apple is building their Campus 2 at a cost of $5 billion dollars, and will house 12,000 workers. In the north side of town, there are many office buildings and apartments under construction. The cost of living is very high here, but we bought our home in the mid 70s, so we don't have a mortgage - which I paid off when I retired in 1998. Not many homes go on the market, but when they do sell, they sell for more than their asking price, and many pay cash. It's crazy, and I wonder how much longer this is going to last.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You say "shopworn" but just what are your credentials for assessing the effects of regulation on economic investment, enterprise creation and job growth?

I simply look at the actual economic figures for each year of my life and note that while regulations keep increasung, GDP growth, debt-to-GDP ratio, average wages, and job growth move up and down according to a variety of factors. One does not need to be a Harvard-trained economist to see that the rise in regulations is not connected to our economic situation in anything approaching a linear fashion. This puts the lie to the, yes, shopworn argument that the rise in regulations is a 'job killer.' There's simply little evidence that this is true.

I don't envy your end of the argument, because you're left pushing a hypothetical: 'well, with less regulations, there WOULD be more jobs!' That's very hard to prove.

Quote:

The fact is we have seen a steady increase in the reach of Federal regulations throughout most of your life span - even under Republican administrations, though at a much slower rate. I can tell you, from a very substantial base of business experience, that the growing complexity and reach of Federal financial, tax, labor management and environmental regulations is indeed inhibiting the investment of liquid assets in creating new enterprises in this countrey. I know from direct experience that it is increasingly hard to calculate a successful investment strategy and as a direct consequence businesses are sitting on hordes of cash and sustaining their market valuations by paying dividends rather than investing in the growth of their operation or in new enterprises. This is a boon to investors but does nothing for job growth.

I believe there are some alternate and equally valid explanations for the situation you describe here, explanations that rely upon more base motivation. Once again, this is a recitation of the very same WSJ-type Republican line that I've been hearing literally my entire life. It is very difficult for me to accept the account you're providing here when faced with the reality of job and business growth in this country during that time span, because the effects you describe are either far less pronounced than you are making them out to be, or they are not nearly the drag upon our economy as you posit.

I'll also point out that there are quite a few environmental-based regulations out there that are considered onerous by Business, primarily because those regulations cost them money to comply with. I don't care about that at all, because growth of the economy and growth of business profits is secondary to maintaining a clean environment - and this should be agreed upon by all. I think we both know that this isn't the case, though, and that those regulations exist for very good reasons.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think it can be answered with just one sentence.
"Countries that had better political and economic institutions in the past are richer today."
Even with the many regulations imposed on industry, the US is still the biggest economy in the world. Most of the regulations are to protect the environment, workers safety, and labor laws.
I believe any economy that has a broad mix of products and services are key to a successful economy.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

"She can't even lie without help." - James Woods

People can come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories. She said she lost a Halls cough drop when she popped one in her mouth. Now we all know where it landed.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The growth rate of our economy since the last recession has indeed been significantly less than what prevailed in the preceeding two decades - more like the relatively sclerotic growth that has long prevailed in Europe, and very likely related to the centrally managed regulatory regimes that have long prevailed there. While it may not be easily visible to you I can attest to very specific regulations that inhibit economic investment and risk taking: the connection between cause and effect is very visible if you know what to look for: not hypothetical at all. Don't make the solipsistic assumption that things you are unable to discern don't exist. There is a reason our economic growth has slowed down and it is directly influencing the growing economic divide that gets so much notoriety today. That and our rising debt are very directly and immediately exacerbated by slow economic growth, and, as the Japanese have demonstrated over the past two decades, a cure of directed government infrastructure spending yields only palliatives and the development of a zombe-like economy - it works in Japan because nearly all their public debt is held by the Japanese people - a closed system. That is far from the case here.

As long as there is an economic surplus we have the luxury of maintaining a clean environment, and, relative to the rest of the world we have done very well in that area. However, without the economic growth required to pay for it, that will soon disappear. While you may be willing to put environmental issues first, many others won't if things get tough, and change will occur, even if you don't agree.

Self-interest and, frankly, greed play a large role in many environental programs and that introduces all the complexities of human nature into the matter. We now know beyond doubt that the use of corn-based ethanol in vehicle fuel involves a net addition of atmospheric carbon, while shortening the useful life of the engines it feeds and raisiing the demand for corn and hence the price of food. Despite that the subsidy persists because those who benefit from it have become very well organized in their efforts to "safeguard the environment" through its mandated use. There are many other like examples out there. The devils here are truly in the details and vague generalities and idealism generally lead to disappointing results.

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know