• 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!

If I were running for the POTUS, i would.... [W:22]

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

Actually, that is a very good idea. I'll have to store that away in my brain in case one day--however unlikely--I need to utilize it or suggest it to someone above me.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

I expect it's SOP.

The team becomes worried that Stanton’s past indiscretions may be used against him by the press and his political opponents. They hire Jack and Susan's old friend, tough but unbalanced Libby Holden (Kathy Bates), to investigate allegations that could be used by Stanton's political opponents to undermine his candidacy such as Stanton's notorious womanizing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(film)
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?
I think in principle there is nothing wrong with opposition research as long as it's ethical. It's part of the vetting process. How politicians use it isn't really ethical and that's the problem.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

Maggie, if they can't find anything they'll just make something up.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Maggie, if they can't find anything they'll just make something up.

Knowing the shady grounds on which that might be done is useful. And let's face it, politicians are dirty. There's not an innocent one. Clinton did this and I expect every other president has.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

I am pretty sure I know my past well enough to not need to pay for opposition research. And yes I, like every human on Earth, have instances in my life history that I'm not proud of. I suppose though that it would be good to find out how much a good researcher would be able to find out about me.

But there is a lot of innocent stuff that could be made to look pretty bad with a little exaggeration and creative spin. For instance when I was in college majoring in journalism, I was maybe the most eager reporter for the campus newspaper as well as a regular columnist for the small town newspaper in our university town coming up with little known facts and stories around campus. And for research purposes, I joined just about everything in order to have access to whatever was going on. As a result at one time I was a member of the Young Communists of America and a fairly poorly organized chapter of the John Birch Society.

Can't you just see what a political opponent would do to me with that kind of ammunition? :)
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

Were the procedure "normal", it is up to Congress to conduct exploratory interviews with interested/involved parties, and - if evidence is shown demonstrable - bring about a vote for impeachment.

The Replicants OWN Congress, and even the Supreme Court. So, it aint gonna happin. It will destroy their Prime Objective or maintaining control of either of the two chambers of Congress in order to preserve the present taxation schedule of upper-incomes.

(Watch closely the Supremes' decision on gerrymandering, the prime mechanism for over two centuries to manipulate the popular vote up and down the political ladder - as this last presidential election has proven for the 6th time in the country's history!)

The plutocrat billionaires care about only one thing - Upper Income Taxation, it is their Prime Objective to keep it is as low as humanly possible.

What can change the game is Donald Dork killing someone in front of TV cameras. And we all know that he's a dumb sumbeech but not that dumb!

Which is why this happens to National Share of Wealth by Population Percentage:
20141108_FNC156.png


Do you get it? Only 0.1% of the upper-crust population obtain as much of the National Wealth (around 20%) as 90% of the rest of us!

Should the Wealth be equally distributed amongst all of us? Of course not. That would ruin our sense of incentive that makes people want to do better. We need nonetheless to make sure more of us benefit from our work-incentive. (Any country that has 14% of its population living continually below the Poverty Threshold is doing something very, very wrong.)

So, bringing upper-income taxation back up to where it was before LBJ and Reckless Ronnie hacked it down to today's level would be "great". And what was that level? Once upon a time it was at 90% or thereabouts. See this historical infographic here of Upper Income Taxation ...
 
Last edited:
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Can't you just see what a political opponent would do to me with that kind of ammunition?

Pity the country of beings who would believe whatever BS was said against you!

And that is EXACTLY what happened in Hillary's last election and why she lost it. Because, a supposedly "believable" head of the FBI indicated (in the last week before the election) that she was being "reinvestigated" once again.

Of course, that did not have a serious enough impact upon the final-vote. Donald Dork lost that by more of the most important margins in presidential-voting history.

And yet, he's still President Donald Dork. In a deeply warped system of electoral counting, he STILL became the winner. AbraCadabra ... !

Now, let us watch how a prevalently Replicant Supreme Court of wise-people can justify that the electoral manipulation of gerrymandering (that destroys the principle of "one voter, one vote and winner takes all") is acceptable!

And if this nation of ours is in deep, deep sneakers regarding its political situation, then I say "we, the sheeple" deserve it. We should have had cooler heads and voted definitively for the defeat of a Replicant Candidate, after all, it was one of them that CREATED the SubPrime Mess, which spiked the Great Recession.

But no, we thought that Donald Dork was going to "create jobs" at a time when the US was ALREADY at one of its historically lowest unemployment rates. See that here:
1200px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png


Moreover, under Obama the US had begun to "create jobs" since the beginning of his term in office (2009), as the unemployment rate downturn shows clearly.
 
Last edited:
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Pity the country of beings who would believe whatever BS was said against you!

And that is EXACTLY what happened in Hillary's last election and why she lost it. Because, a supposedly "believable" head of the FBI indicated (in the last week before the election) that she was being "reinvestigated" once again.

Of course, that did not have a serious enough impact upon the final-vote. Donald Dork lost that by more of the most important margins in presidential-voting history.

And yet, he's still President Donald Dork. In a deeply warped system of electoral counting, he STILL became the winner. AbraCadabra ... !

Now, let us watch how a prevalently Replicant Supreme Court of wise-people can justify that the electoral manipulation of gerrymandering (that destroys the principle of "one voter, one vote and winner takes all") is acceptable!

And if this nation of ours is in deep, deep sneakers regarding its political situation, then I say "we, the sheeple" deserve it. We should have had cooler heads and voted definitively for the defeat of a Replicant Candidate, after all, it was one of them that CREATED the SubPrime Mess, which spiked the Great Recession.

Please stop derailing the thread
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Maggie, if they can't find anything they'll just make something up.

They do it all the time. On the right too.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

I might do that. Of course I might also just have a Twitter meltdown when it came out. Apparently, that works just as well.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Maggie, if they can't find anything they'll just make something up.

Mueller will not need to make things up, he will put the O in obstruction.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

if I were running for POTUS, I would run on my own merits & concentrate on my own campaign

that would be the mature, adult thing to do which I guess is in short supply now days; obviously ...........
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

pay for “opposition research” on me making sure that the work product were confidential on penalty of $10,000,000.

Wouldnt it be better to know what you would be facing so you could minimize damage?

what do you think?

While that is a good idea, that doesn't stop your opponent from inventing and creating information to smear you with.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Pity the country of beings who would believe whatever BS was said against you!

And that is EXACTLY what happened in Hillary's last election and why she lost it. Because, a supposedly "believable" head of the FBI indicated (in the last week before the election) that she was being "reinvestigated" once again.

Of course, that did not have a serious enough impact upon the final-vote. Donald Dork lost that by more of the most important margins in presidential-voting history.

And yet, he's still President Donald Dork. In a deeply warped system of electoral counting, he STILL became the winner. AbraCadabra ... !

Now, let us watch how a prevalently Replicant Supreme Court of wise-people can justify that the electoral manipulation of gerrymandering (that destroys the principle of "one voter, one vote and winner takes all") is acceptable!

And if this nation of ours is in deep, deep sneakers regarding its political situation, then I say "we, the sheeple" deserve it. We should have had cooler heads and voted definitively for the defeat of a Replicant Candidate, after all, it was one of them that CREATED the SubPrime Mess, which spiked the Great Recession.

But no, we thought that Donald Dork was going to "create jobs" at a time when the US was ALREADY at one of its historically lowest unemployment rates. See that here:
1200px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png


Moreover, under Obama the US had begun to "create jobs" since the beginning of his term in office (2009), as the unemployment rate downturn shows clearly.

Obama's unemployment rate was created by people dropping out of the available work force to the lowest participation rate we had seen for decades.

Trump's even lower unemployment rate has been achieved despite people coming back into the available work force with much stronger business and consumer confidence under his policies If Congress manages to get its act together and come up with a well thought out and business friendly tax reform, the participation rate should soar maybe getting back to the levels of the Clinton and Bush 43 Administrations.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

While that is a good idea, that doesn't stop your opponent from inventing and creating information to smear you with.

The courts are there for defamation of character ...
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Obama's unemployment rate was created by people dropping out of the available work force to the lowest participation rate we had seen for decades.

Trump's even lower unemployment rate has been achieved despite people coming back into the available work force with much stronger business and consumer confidence under his policies If Congress manages to get its act together and come up with a well thought out and business friendly tax reform, the participation rate should soar maybe getting back to the levels of the Clinton and Bush 43 Administrations.

Get your history right. People did not drop out of the workforce of their own will. They were yanked out by a super-recession in the final year of the Dubya administration.

Obama was gifted an unemployment rate of 11% by Dubya's colossal mismanagement of the SubPrime Mess. Obama reacted immediately in 2009 upon entering office by passing (along with a Dem-Congress) the ARRA-bill, which was $787B of stimulus-spending. The massive expenditure stopped-dead the unemployment rate explosion at 10%. (See that fact demonstrated here.) The US unemployment rate had exploded from 5-to-10% in just a year.

When it became obvious a year later that further stimulus-spending became necessary, in 2010, Obama found himself facing a hostile Replicant-controlled HofR; the political purpose of which became unseating him in 2012. So, higher unemployment - they thought - would help them accomplish that fact. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)

The Replicants nonetheless refused any further stimulus-spending offering - we, the sheeple, instead got a mountain-of-BS from them about the inequity of "massive debt". For four longggg years (from 2010 to 2014 the economy created no further jobs. See that fact visibly in this Employment-to-population Ratio infographic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (taken from here):
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2007_2017_all_period_M09_data.gif


Finally, somewhat miraculously, Americans got fed-up of pulling the belt in on spending, and (all by ourselves) in 2014 we kick-started the economy's ability to create jobs by spending. Upon Trump's assumption of office, the economy had been creating jobs for two-years already.

It is not yet back up to its fullest employment-to-population ratio of 63% (pre-2008). Still, the unemployment rate is descending to near historic levels of around 4%.

Trump's employment rate recovery was "inherited" from Obama in January of this year. Donald Duck instead of Donald Dork could have been elected in 2016, and that still would be the truth of our recent economic recovery.

Dork-head had nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing ... !
 
Last edited:
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Get your history right. People did not drop out of the workforce of their own will. They were yanked out by a super-recession in the final year of the Dubya administration.

Obama was gifted an unemployment rate of 11% by Dubya's colossal mismanagement of the SubPrime Mess. Obama reacted immediately in 2009 upon entering office by passing (along with a Dem-Congress) the ARRA-bill, which was $787B of stimulus-spending. The massive expenditure stopped-dead the unemployment rate explosion at 10%. (See that fact demonstrated here.) The US unemployment rate had exploded from 5-to-10% in just a year.

When it became obvious a year later that further stimulus-spending became necessary, in 2010, Obama found himself facing a hostile Replicant-controlled HofR; the political purpose of which became unseating him in 2012. So, higher unemployment - they thought - would help them accomplish that fact. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)

The Replicants nonetheless refused any further stimulus-spending offering - we, the sheeple, instead got a mountain-of-BS from them about the inequity of "massive debt". For four longggg years (from 2010 to 2014 the economy created no further jobs. See that fact visibly in this Employment-to-population Ratio infographic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (taken from here):
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2007_2017_all_period_M09_data.gif


Finally, somewhat miraculously, Americans got fed-up of pulling the belt in on spending, and (all by ourselves) in 2014 we kick-started the economy's ability to create jobs by spending. Upon Trump's assumption of office, the economy had been creating jobs for two-years already.

It is not yet back up to its fullest employment-to-population ratio of 63% (pre-2008). Still, the unemployment rate is descending to near historic levels of around 4%.

Trump's employment rate recovery was "inherited" from Obama in January of this year. Donald Duck instead of Donald Dork could have been elected in 2016, and that still would be the truth of our recent economic recovery.

Dork-head had nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing ... !

I have my history right.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Moderator's Warning:
There's a SPECIFIC topic here. I suggest those desperately attempting to derail it onto all sorts of other topics, and those who are falling for the bait, need to stop or else further action will be taken.

If your post isn't pretty clearly relevant to the topic you may find yourself with a one way ticket out of this thread.

Stop derailing
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

Let's face it, running for POTUS is for the wealthy now. You need an industry to support you. You can run on your own merits but if you don't play the game you're not going to have a chance in hell of winning. People may smear you just because you don't accept their political donation on ethical grounds. What they say about you doesn't even have to be true anymore, it just has to have gravity and impact.

Maggie, in essence I think your approach would work, if we still lived in an honest political climate... but we don't. It has frankly risen to sociopathic levels. People can say or do anything with the media only partially fact checking, if they do at all. There is so much noise and buzz now that a lie that's 15 minutes old is already ancient history. You and I could sit here debating the truth of what so-and-so said yesterday but everyone else has already moved on; and you and I are already special because we take time to go to a debate forum to hash it out. The average American is hooked into the ticker tape of the news feed with very little attention span. Even if they have healthy skepticism, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, even subliminally.
 
Re: If I were running for the POTUS, i would....

I just saw it on "Designated Survivor" as well.

While I don't believe it turned out the sexual misconduct was fake in real life, and his investigator didn't hold a gun on someone to get a confession, most of what Klein wrote, the general plot, was true and first hand. It's extremely unlikely the internal investigation was fiction.
 
Back
Top Bottom