• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cook Political Report shifts a dozen states more blue

MrT said:
Jobs created are more important because those are the limiting factor in the equation of determining full employment. The labor force participation rate is limited by factors (in addition to a lack of jobs or desirable jobs) like sickness, injury, lack of desire, attending college, and retirement.

Do you want your retired parents to get jobs or your college age kid to be employed? If so, good for you. But I respect the personal decisions of those individuals and would rather worry about making sure that they have jobs available to them once, or if, they decide to seek employment.
Click to expand...
In almost 8-years Obama economy has create 9 million jobs at a cost of 8.6 trillion dollars. In contrast Reagan created 17 million jobs at a cost of 1.7 trillion dollars. There were 300000 fewer tax payers last month and you want to tbelieve a hundred and sixty thousand jobs created is better? Why is it that liberals like you have such low standards and expectations

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
I totally agree. However, there is an enormous contingent of hatred and contempt within the Democrat party for Hillary, too. Turnout could be an issue for both sides.
Click to expand...

More like wishful thinking by desperate Conservatives trying to project the turd fest of their party into the Dem one. If you see 'an enormous contingent' in the Dem party then there is a JIMORMOUS contingent of hatred and contempt in the PUB party for the apparent nominee and each other.... :doh

Turnout will not be an issue for Dems, they see the jugular and will pull together to make DAMN SURE a maniac like Trump won't win the White House. If nothing else a classic case of fear making alliances that a less contemptuous Pub candidate would not have triggered.

Kasich could have exploited a Hillary/ Bernie rift in their supporters- Trump is the glue to cement those fractures tightly together...

Welcome to the freak show... :peace
 
Conservative said:
In almost 8-years Obama economy has create 9 million jobs at a cost of 8.6 trillion dollars. In contrast Reagan created 17 million jobs at a cost of 1.7 trillion dollars. There were 300000 fewer tax payers last month and you want to tbelieve a hundred and sixty thousand jobs created is better? Why is it that liberals like you have such low standards and expectations.
Click to expand...

PUB/Con BS. Reagan started the mess Obama had to clean-up. Reagan didn't face a huge crap pile after the 'invisible hand' drove our economy off the cliff. Reagan didn't face a huge meltdown as CEOs crushed their industry for short term- but highly profitable self serving gain. Reagan inherited the largest CREDITOR nation and gave us the largest DEBTOR nation.

Pub/Cons like you don't like the past so you re-invent it to suit the lie... :peace
 
MrT said:
The pressure on Bernie Sanders to unequivocally and enthusiastically endorse Hillary will mount as we get closer to the convention. Once that occurs, the threat of a Trump presidency will solidify the Democratic turnout to levels roughly akin to 2008.
Click to expand...

Bernie now has a powerhouse of voters loyal to him. He is now a heavyweight with a base of donors that HRC would love to have access to.
I do not think he will do this.
 
notquiteright said:
PUB/Con BS. Reagan started the mess Obama had to clean-up. Reagan didn't face a huge crap pile after the 'invisible hand' drove our economy off the cliff. Reagan didn't face a huge meltdown as CEOs crushed their industry for short term- but highly profitable self serving gain. Reagan inherited the largest CREDITOR nation and gave us the largest DEBTOR nation.

Pub/Cons like you don't like the past so you re-invent it to suit the lie... :peace
Click to expand...

Please take a civics and history class so you stop making a fool of yourself. You have no idea as to the foundation upon which this country was built and it certainly wasn't Obamanomics. Civics would tell you that Congress makes the laws and Congress controls the purse strings and Congress was under Democrat control from 2007 when the economy went off the cliff as you say. Problem is marketing has indoctrinated you and you buy the rhetoric ignoring the results.

If someone came to you and said I had a program that would create 17 million jobs, double the GDP, restore public confidence, and create a peace dividend plus grow FIT revenue 60+% but it would cost 1.7 trillion dollars and take Debt to 52% of GDP would you do it??? Answer the question?

Now we have a President that inherited what he helped create, sold you on a Great Recession marketing term, inherited a 12 Misery index vs. over 20 by Reagan, took employment from 142 million to 139 million with an 842 billion stimulus in February 2009 for shovel ready jobs and still you spout the rhetoric. Please do some research instead of believing what you are told
 
notquiteright said:
PUB/Con BS. Reagan started the mess Obama had to clean-up. Reagan didn't face a huge crap pile after the 'invisible hand' drove our economy off the cliff. Reagan didn't face a huge meltdown as CEOs crushed their industry for short term- but highly profitable self serving gain. Reagan inherited the largest CREDITOR nation and gave us the largest DEBTOR nation.

Pub/Cons like you don't like the past so you re-invent it to suit the lie... :peace
Click to expand...

Dude, read a book or something. Wow.
 
MrT said:
Yea, what do you think is on his wish list? I've heard that he would try to push for the elimination of Super Delegates or perhaps some modification to how they operate. I could also see him pushing for a campaign finance reform in the first 100 days.

I don't see a request for a cabinet position or to be on the ticket though.
Click to expand...

I don't think the super delegate thing etc. is up to her or even a president. That would have to be a congressional operation.
 
MrT said:
Given Obama's approval ratings, the bolded accusation would only help Trump with those who already support Trump.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed Obama's latest approval ratings?

My bad. I misinterpreted you post.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Ive always said you people were cold hearted assholes

You could give a **** about the tens of millions of Americans that have and continue to struggle under Obama's " recovery "


No what matters to you is propaganda, making Obama look good.

If Obama's not the Albatross you claim he is then lets sre if Hillary runs on his accomplishments.

The economy, his recovery, his Foreign policy gaffes.
Click to expand...

O.K. we get it. You hate the SOB with all your heart. Nothing he could do would change you mind. Good grief.
 
Howler63 said:
Sorry but that glass ceiling was busted LONG before Hillary.

Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher...there's a LONG line that Clinton is trailing.
Click to expand...

Not in this country.
 
Chomsky said:
I agree.

Of all the candidates, Bernie strikes me as perhaps the most principled. He's been at this nearly 50 years - a half century, and his message has be shockingly consistent. He's getting older, and sadly the reality is his years are likely getting numbered. I believe he sees this as his last opportunity to effect significant change. I believe he's doing this from his heart, and "damn the consequences". I admire that. I wish I had the opportunity to vote for him above that in the primary!

So, "Carry-on, good footsoldier - apply the Bern as far and as long as you see fit"! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

he was the better choice for progressives and those who lean left. as for Democrats, who knows. i mostly believe that conservatives also got shafted with Trump, though i doubt that either side will do anything to address the fundamental problem : a gerrymandered duopoly will produce ****ty choices far more often than it produces good ones. humans are too easily divided into tribes, and for the wrong reasons; especially when the tribal options are artificially limited to two.
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't think he would want a cabinet position or to be her VP. Campaign finance reform would probably be the big one. The best way for him to influence that, if the Republicans keep stonewalling until after the election, is for him to have input into the SCOTUS nomination. I'm not sure Hillary will consider it worth it, though.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why politics has gone to **** in America. Can't get the people to pass the legislation you want just pack the court with corrupt judges that will craft legislation from the bench.
 
Helix said:
he was the better choice for progressives and those who lean left.
Click to expand...

This is 100 % not true. Sanders and Clinton both propose liberal ideas. Sanders foes further, and with incremental steps. Clinton does not go quite as far, and has more of those incremental steps. What this means is that Clinton will be able to actually deliver on more than Sanders will, and will have to give up less to get that. Republicans and moderate democrats will not vote for 100 % free tuition at public schools, but they might be convinced to go along with free community college and rewarding schools that keep the cost to attend down. Which gets us more, nothing, or something? I love the idea of free college, I think it would benefit the country if we can figure out a way to make it happen. However, in the real world, such a plan has to get through congress, and republicans will need something to convince them to go along with it.
 
Helix said:
he was the better choice for progressives and those who lean left. as for Democrats, who knows. i mostly believe that conservatives also got shafted with Trump, though i doubt that either side will do anything to address the fundamental problem : a gerrymandered duopoly will produce ****ty choices far more often than it produces good ones. humans are too easily divided into tribes, and for the wrong reasons; especially when the tribal options are artificially limited to two.
Click to expand...

Just so. And I'd add this: "... gerrymandered duopoly with elections driven by ever-increasing amounts of non-transparent large donations"

And I'd also not that history has shown us that the current concentration of wealth and power is seldom a good idea --

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>
 
Helix said:
he was the better choice for progressives and those who lean left. as for Democrats, who knows. i mostly believe that conservatives also got shafted with Trump, though i doubt that either side will do anything to address the fundamental problem : a gerrymandered duopoly will produce ****ty choices far more often than it produces good ones. humans are too easily divided into tribes, and for the wrong reasons; especially when the tribal options are artificially limited to two.
Click to expand...
Well said.

When I was hustling for votes in precincts in the city, there was an old adage I heard:

"Is he one of us"?

"Is he O.K."?

Satisfy those two qualifiers, and you've got a vote! :thumbs:
 
Crovax said:
This is exactly why politics has gone to **** in America. Can't get the people to pass the legislation you want just pack the court with corrupt judges that will craft legislation from the bench.
Click to expand...

Like Citizen's United?
 
BrewerBob said:
Like Citizen's United?
Click to expand...

Citizens United just made a ruling consistent with the SCOTUS standing opinion on the 1st amendment.

Have you read the dissent on it? They offer 2 reasons why the law should stand. One is that unlimited money in politics is bad. Agreed, but bad and constitutional rights aren't mutually exclusive especially when it comes to the 1st amendment. Two that corporations don't have the rights of people. Which is a horrible argument on two fronts. It has been the longstanding position of the SCOTUS that they do enjoy some of the same rights, including when the liberal justices agreed that the NY Times was a corporation with 1st amendment rights when it published classified documents. Secondly from just a logical perspective that when a bunch of like minded people join together to support a cause they somehow would lose thier 1st amendment rights. That really takes the power away from the small people and puts it solely in the hands on the rich.
 
Redress said:
This is 100 % not true. Sanders and Clinton both propose liberal ideas. Sanders foes further, and with incremental steps. Clinton does not go quite as far, and has more of those incremental steps. What this means is that Clinton will be able to actually deliver on more than Sanders will, and will have to give up less to get that. Republicans and moderate democrats will not vote for 100 % free tuition at public schools, but they might be convinced to go along with free community college and rewarding schools that keep the cost to attend down. Which gets us more, nothing, or something? I love the idea of free college, I think it would benefit the country if we can figure out a way to make it happen. However, in the real world, such a plan has to get through congress, and republicans will need something to convince them to go along with it.
Click to expand...

Not true. Sanders proposes socialist ideas. Hillary used to propose centrist ideas, then liberal ideas and now she is flirting with socialist ideas.
 
Redress said:
This is 100 % not true. Sanders and Clinton both propose liberal ideas. Sanders foes further, and with incremental steps. Clinton does not go quite as far, and has more of those incremental steps. What this means is that Clinton will be able to actually deliver on more than Sanders will, and will have to give up less to get that. Republicans and moderate democrats will not vote for 100 % free tuition at public schools, but they might be convinced to go along with free community college and rewarding schools that keep the cost to attend down. Which gets us more, nothing, or something? I love the idea of free college, I think it would benefit the country if we can figure out a way to make it happen. However, in the real world, such a plan has to get through congress, and republicans will need something to convince them to go along with it.
Click to expand...

If Obama cannot garner their cooperation to pass things that are far less ambitious than what Hillary proposes, someone whose politics are about identical to her own, how on earth do you figure she has any chance of succeeding where he failed as someone who is both far less charismatic and far more loathed and reviled by the GOP than him?

The simple fact is that no democratic president will get anything of note done in light of such a recalcitrant republican congress.
 
Redress said:
This is 100 % not true. Sanders and Clinton both propose liberal ideas. Sanders foes further, and with incremental steps. Clinton does not go quite as far, and has more of those incremental steps. What this means is that Clinton will be able to actually deliver on more than Sanders will, and will have to give up less to get that. Republicans and moderate democrats will not vote for 100 % free tuition at public schools, but they might be convinced to go along with free community college and rewarding schools that keep the cost to attend down. Which gets us more, nothing, or something? I love the idea of free college, I think it would benefit the country if we can figure out a way to make it happen. However, in the real world, such a plan has to get through congress, and republicans will need something to convince them to go along with it.
Click to expand...

Clinton says whatever she thinks she needs to at any given moment. when she's president, her primary goal will probably be herself and her legacy. i'm concerned that very early on in her presidency, she'll feel the need to step even deeper into the quicksand of the Middle East to show that she can do it. that's exactly the opposite of what i support. basically, she offers me NotTrump and SCOTUS NotTrump. **** the two party system for limiting my choices like this.

as for Sanders, he wouldn't have been able to get anything through congress. however, he would have been able to use the bully pulpit to remind Americans that he is just trying to catch our country up to what large swaths of the first world are already doing. maybe then America will wake up and elect a congress that won't obstruct everything. one can hope, at least.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I don't think the super delegate thing etc. is up to her or even a president. That would have to be a congressional operation.
Click to expand...

No, it would be a DNC rules committee operation. Congress would have no role to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom