12-24-2013 03:44 PM
183 123 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    The next presidential election in the US will be in 2016. Term limits will prevent Obama from running again. What advice would you offer to either party to help them win the election?
    10-29-2013 09:16 PM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    It'll never happen, but how about just an ounce of honesty from these people, from all sides.


    Signatures, shmignatures...
    Aquila and phonejunky like this.
    10-30-2013 11:54 AM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    It'll never happen, but how about just an ounce of honesty from these people, from all sides.
    I can see what you're saying. For example, Romney made comments during a fund-raising dinner that was secretly videotaped. The comments made him seem out of touch with the American people. The video was leaked onto the internet, and a lot of people got upset. I suspect that was a factor in his election loss. If he were more upfront with his beliefs, Romney might be president today.
    10-30-2013 01:41 PM
  4. alexlam24's Avatar
    Morgan Freeman for president.

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    10-30-2013 01:47 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    Morgan Freeman for president.
    I'd vote for anyone who has worked with Batman.
    10-30-2013 02:00 PM
  6. alexlam24's Avatar
    Morgan Freeman for president. Chuck Norris for vice president. Michael Bay for secretary of state.

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    strawhatnito0890 likes this.
    10-30-2013 06:31 PM
  7. llamabreath's Avatar
    Morgan Freeman for president.

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    Deep Impact. :thumbup:

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-31-2013 05:41 AM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Should parties still employ litmus tests on single issues? For example, one unofficial requirement to be a Republican candidate is that you must be pro-life. Does this hurt candidates during the general election? (You can also discuss other litmus tests, like immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, etc.)
    10-31-2013 12:57 PM
  9. llamabreath's Avatar
    Should parties still employ litmus tests on single issues? For example, one unofficial requirement to be a Republican candidate is that you must be pro-life. Does this hurt candidates during the general election? (You can also discuss other litmus tests, like immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, etc.)
    Yes, I think "litmus tests", so-called "requirements" in order to be a part of a Party can CERTAINLY be detrimental toward various possible candidates' election chances, in any Party.

    For instance;
    Why should every Republican candidate feel immensely pressured to be Pro-life, ultra religious (but only Christian-religious), gun totin', bible thumpin', rich, white, old-fashioned, just plain ol' old, etc etc...

    and Democratic candidates the opposite?

    Why can't we have candidates with their own thoughts, their own plan?

    Wouldn't that be refreshing?



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    11-02-2013 08:56 PM
  10. llamabreath's Avatar
    WARNING :
    I'm falling in and out of sleep....
    Any of my next bunch of posts may suffer from lack of complete



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    11-02-2013 09:07 PM
  11. benhmadison's Avatar
    The next presidential election in the US will be in 2016. Term limits will prevent Obama from running again. What advice would you offer to either party to help them win the election?
    The only prayer the Republicans have of winning the white house in 2016 is if they find a way to relate to women and minorities. This isn't our great grandfather's "white America" anymore. I don't say this to inject race but just to point out the obvious. Obama won the 2012 election thanks to an amazing turn out on behalf of women, Hispanics and African Americans. Just because Obama won't be running in 2016 doesn't mean these voters who combined are now the electorate majority are going to magically decide to vote Republican. If the Republicans continue to be the party of "no", no to women's rights, no to immigration reform, no to helping the poor then they can send whoever they want as the republican nominee and he/she won't have a shot. Also if Texas ends up going blue, (which is the the way it's heading) the democrats will be guaranteed the white house from here on out.

    Sent from my XT1058 using AC Forums mobile app
    strawhatnito0890 likes this.
    11-02-2013 09:18 PM
  12. A895's Avatar
    The next presidential election in the US will be in 2016. Term limits will prevent Obama from running again. What advice would you offer to either party to help them win the election?
    Stop making promises. Every time a promise cones out of a politicians mouth it does not happen right so instead of saying you'll do something, do it and then say you did it. Don't say before you do in other words, if you do that when it does not happen people (read: media) will use your own words against you.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-02-2013 09:29 PM
  13. alexlam24's Avatar
    Until we can get a new Congress and Senate in, we'll be stuck with the same people from the Bush era

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    11-04-2013 07:02 AM
  14. llamabreath's Avatar
    Until we can get a new Congress and Senate in, we'll be stuck with the same people from the Bush era

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    And the Clinton and Obama eras, right?

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    11-04-2013 10:39 PM
  15. alexlam24's Avatar
    And the Clinton and Obama eras, right?

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    I miss the days when people didn't worry about their jobs or gas prices. Good old days....

    Sent from my HTC Xperia S4
    11-05-2013 12:05 AM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    The only prayer the Republicans have of winning the white house in 2016 is if they find a way to relate to women and minorities.
    The Republicans used to be able to do that. That's how George Bush got elected to 2 terms in office. They can certainly do that again, especially if Obama's poll numbers slide down. The future Democratic candidate will be forced to defend Obama's policies, and that can be a tough sell if America is worse off in 2016 than when Obama started office.
    11-05-2013 03:44 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    The Republicans used to be able to do that. That's how George Bush got elected to 2 terms in office. They can certainly do that again, especially if Obama's poll numbers slide down. The future Democratic candidate will be forced to defend Obama's policies, and that can be a tough sell if America is worse off in 2016 than when Obama started office.
    Agree with most of that except that the future dem having to defend Obama. If I were going to run for office as a democrat I'd simply call him a clown of the corporate party and moved towards a hybrid progressive/libertarian approach that appeases liberty minded middle ground conservatives, live and let live liberals and then hammer an efficiency based budget with a surplus built into it. If I were going to run as a republican I'd call Obama a corporate party clown and move towards a hybrid libertarian centrist approach with some emphasis on respecting personal choice in social policies, then hammer an efficiency based budget with a surplus built into it. Either way, if things end up worse in 2016 than in 2009, they'll cut him loose.

    The problem is, we're trending to be in a much better spot and so the decision to defend or push away from his policies is much more nuanced and it might be better just to be honest about a candidate's own principles and strategies, rather than relying on the reputation of a President who has a lot of really strong support from one side and a lot of really strong opposition from the other. Jumping on the polarization bandwagon may not be as effective as speaking to the giant middle zone about moving on.
    11-05-2013 12:39 PM
  18. pappy53's Avatar
    we're trending to be in a much better spot
    I would say that 11% unemployment, socialized healthcare, and 20 trillion debt in not a better spot.
    11-05-2013 12:49 PM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    I would say that 11% unemployment, socialized healthcare, and 20 trillion debt in not a better spot.
    Than 2009. We don't have socialized medicine, we have mandatory insurance purchasing. Huge difference, don't like either. The debt is a result of the giant deficit that has been going down, by a lot, since 2009. Yes, any deficit adds to the debt. But in 2009 we were in a really bad place. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit with unemployment much higher and industries crashing. Its not as good as it could or ought to be, but our situation is more tenable.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    11-05-2013 12:53 PM
  20. gamefreak715's Avatar
    Walk the middle. Americans political views are pretty much a bell curve; more emphasis on the middle of the extremes. Yes, both left and right extremes can be loud and angry but trying to appease them will alienate more middle ground Americans. Also, listen to professionals. No one knows the issues more than the experts of their field. Politicians know next to nothing about everything but act like they know it all. Very dangerous.

    Posted via Android Central App
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    11-05-2013 10:42 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    No one knows the issues more than the experts of their field. Politicians know next to nothing about everything but act like they know it all. Very dangerous.
    I think politicians can consult experts to help them out if there is a particular issue that is complicated.
    11-11-2013 06:44 PM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    Walk the middle. Americans political views are pretty much a bell curve; more emphasis on the middle of the extremes.
    That sounds interesting. What would be in a platform that focused on the middle? For example, the left believes in raising taxes. The right believes in lowering taxes. Would the middle just keep taxes at the same rate?
    11-11-2013 06:50 PM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    That sounds interesting. What would be in a platform that focused on the middle? For example, the left believes in raising taxes. The right believes in lowering taxes. Would the middle just keep taxes at the same rate?
    Saying, "...the left believes in raising taxes..." isn't correct. Politician don't runs on a platform of raising taxes.
    11-11-2013 07:14 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    That sounds interesting. What would be in a platform that focused on the middle? For example, the left believes in raising taxes. The right believes in lowering taxes. Would the middle just keep taxes at the same rate?
    Not sure that the left wants to raise taxes or the right wants to lower taxes generically, though on some specific taxes, that's true. Both seem pretty interested in lowering it for certain groups and raising it for certain groups and the make up of those groups changes depending on if you want a progressive or regressive tax and whether it should be progressive or regressive in principle, in practice or both.

    For example, while having everyone pay the exact same tax rate (as a % of income) sounds fair, in practice it hits the poor and working classes far harder than it hits the middle and upper classes. Obviously not in total dollars, but in relative impact on quality of living. If taxes were a straight 5%, a person making $150,000 per year would owe $7,500. However, that $7,500 would come out of their savings and/or budget for things not necessary for survival, like 2nd+ homes, 2nd+cars, investments, extra vacations, etc, or out of the relative value of things they are able to purchase. A person making $15,000 per year would owe $750, but that's coming out of food, heat, rent or they're giving something up to manage that.

    All that being said, the middle class person is still paying 10x more real cash and can easily resent that and feel that anything that gives a break to the poor person or adds a tax burden to themselves is punitive because they're thinking about dollars, not relative spending power. The reality is that a tiny percentage of people receive that vast majority of income in the US and pay a directly proportionate amount of the total tax burden, while nearly half of the country does not make enough money to even end up owing a federal income tax. They still obviously pay into medicare, social security and their state taxes, where applicable, + a ton of sales taxes, gas taxes, etc so they're clearly contributing at a much higher rate as a % of income, however in total dollars it's amounting to next to nothing relative to the total revenue stream aggregate.

    A progressive tax theoretically aims to balance the relative spending power burden across the population, however that ends with a very complicated and ultimately still unfair distribution of burden. As a conservative I can see the value of attempting to level the actual impact felt by each citizen rather than focusing on dollars, but I think we should totally rethink the concept of government revenue and move away from a system that taxes citizens directly, whether via income or through sales.


    As it is, given that currency circulates, each dollar received by a working class person (spends the majority of their income with very little investment or savings) is being taxed so many times it's outright ridiculous. A dollar is printed, sold to the government (at interest), loaned to a bank, paid to a person or company, spent (taxed), received (taxed), and then respent by the new recipient (taxed again), received obviously (taxed taxed taxed), and so on, and so forth until that dollar has been taxed for far more than the value that it ever had to begin with... and interest is still owed (and the money for that interest was never created). Inflation is the highest tax (obvious) against the people, and these cycles are a big part of why. It is somewhat a blessing that upwards of 96% of the "currency" that exists has never been printed or existed as anything other than an electronically traded debt. There are far fewer taxes on the 96% than on the 4 that people are actually trading constantly.


    This is how a Democratic government behaves with tax revenue:


    This is how a Republican government behaves with tax revenue:


    It's just a matter of who they say they want to screw over the least (while on camera).
    11-11-2013 07:28 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    Saying, "...the left believes in raising taxes..." isn't correct. No politician runs on a platform on raising taxes.
    I see your point. No American politician would ever run on a platform of higher taxes because that would make them appear socialist or communist. Would it be better to say the left believes in raising taxes for the wealthy?
    11-11-2013 07:30 PM
183 123 ...

Similar Threads

  1. On the umi x2 how do you determine what bloatware to remove
    By hoben02 in forum Misc. Android Phones
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 05:09 PM
  2. Anyone choosing the G2 over the Note 3?
    By SCD23x in forum Sprint LG G2
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2013, 11:15 PM
  3. HTC One - Question about the TV app (Cable Box brand)
    By Grant Rosen in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 02:15 PM
  4. Finally Made the Move
    By TomK1965 in forum LG G2
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 09:37 AM
  5. When will the Note 10.1 2014 edition be in Canada
    By n3xtgen in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 05:55 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD