It should have been Kasich/Sanders

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
Click to expand...

At a time when people are claiming that the party elites have been exposed, and that the deep state might be at risk of being exposed, all I see is an exposed segment of GOP constituents whose character and principles were exposed during the primaries.
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
Click to expand...

the 2016 election did offer a clear contrast. You dont want to admit it but the country was asked whether it wanted to continue on its current trend of globalization or not with a more nationalistic approach under Trump. The differences between the vision of Trump and Clinton for america may have been more clear than the difference between romney and obama.
 
tsuke said:
the 2016 election did offer a clear contrast. You dont want to admit it but the country was asked whether it wanted to continue on its current trend of globalization or not with a more nationalistic approach under Trump. The differences between the vision of Trump and Clinton for america may have been more clear than the difference between romney and obama.
Click to expand...

There was a clear contrast between Trump & Hillary, but they were the same in that they were both TERRIBLE candidates.

This is who Trump is, tsuke. It is not good. You got duped.
 
Thing1 said:
There was a clear contrast between Trump & Hillary, but they were the same in that they were both TERRIBLE candidates.

This is who Trump is, tsuke. It is not good. You got duped.
Click to expand...

the contrast between where they both wanted to take the country was clearer than obama and romney.

Media is making Trump worst than he seems. He has released the best tax plan so far out of any person. Trumpcare sux but im not really goign to be satisfied until there are price control on drugs.
 
tsuke said:
the contrast between where they both wanted to take the country was clearer than obama and romney.

Media is making Trump worst than he seems. He has released the best tax plan so far out of any person. Trumpcare sux but im not really goign to be satisfied until there are price control on drugs.
Click to expand...

Unless you make close to or above 7 figures, or are a billionaire, I'm not sure how you can say that about his tax plan.

Trump is unfit for office. This isn't Joe "Trump hater" talking. He simply is. He is a real estate guy, who clearly doesn't have the right temperament or experience for this job, and he's showing no ability to learn or adapt. He just said a bunch of stuff in the campaign that people wanted to believe, but that wasn't real.
 
Thing1 said:
Unless you make close to or above 7 figures, or are a billionaire, I'm not sure how you can say that about his tax plan.

Trump is unfit for office. This isn't Joe "Trump hater" talking. He simply is. He is a real estate guy, who clearly doesn't have the right temperament or experience for this job, and he's showing no ability to learn or adapt. He just said a bunch of stuff in the campaign that people wanted to believe, but that wasn't real.
Click to expand...

how much would someone earning 30000 or 45000 (joint) under his plan? How about unde Obama?
 
Thing1 said:
Unless you make close to or above 7 figures, or are a billionaire, I'm not sure how you can say that about his tax plan.

Trump is unfit for office. This isn't Joe "Trump hater" talking. He simply is. He is a real estate guy, who clearly doesn't have the right temperament or experience for this job, and he's showing no ability to learn or adapt. He just said a bunch of stuff in the campaign that people wanted to believe, but that wasn't real.
Click to expand...

aside from estate tax i dont think you can come up with one valid concern about his tax plan. Even estate tax is sketchy as the ultra rich like steve jobs pay 0.
 
tsuke said:
how much would someone earning 30000 or 45000 (joint) under his plan? How about unde Obama?
Click to expand...

Everyone's taxes go down (at the expense of the debt), but the wealthy will see close to a 15% increase in after-tax income, and the average for lower income households would be a paltry 1-2%. You keep bringing up Steve Jobs, but the estate tax still generates close to $20 billion in revenue.

He ran a populist agenda, but the biggest beneficiaries will be heirs. This will just perpetuate the growing gap between the rich and middle class, and it's the children of the middle class who will have to pay off the increased debt. To say it benefit those households because of the small short-term break they get is pure smoke & mirrors.
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
Click to expand...

Just yesterday I saw those two on stage answering questions, one of which was if the would run together, but sadly, Kasich scoffed at the idea. Too bad. I was thinking how both of them were guys worth voting for and the interview suddenly asked the question. I think everyone was thinking the same thing. LOL
 
tsuke said:
the 2016 election did offer a clear contrast. You dont want to admit it but the country was asked whether it wanted to continue on its current trend of globalization or not with a more nationalistic approach under Trump. The differences between the vision of Trump and Clinton for america may have been more clear than the difference between romney and obama.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believed some stuff that Douchebag Donald said, says more about you than it does the so-called choices available.
 
Thing1 said:
Everyone's taxes go down (at the expense of the debt), but the wealthy will see close to a 15% increase in after-tax income, and the average for lower income households would be a paltry 1-2%. You keep bringing up Steve Jobs, but the estate tax still generates close to $20 billion in revenue.

He ran a populist agenda, but the biggest beneficiaries will be heirs. This will just perpetuate the growing gap between the rich and middle class, and it's the children of the middle class who will have to pay off the increased debt. To say it benefit those households because of the small short-term break they get is pure smoke & mirrors.
Click to expand...

Are you saying steve jobs is unique in paying 0? Or is there maybe an entire industry devoted to make sure people his wealth level pay 0 in estate taxes? There may be 20 billion but its not coming from the rich. In fact he removed the capital gains tax loophole for transferring.

The wealthy were already not paying the rates they are now. Why? Deductions. Trumps plan puts a cap of 100k or 200k on deductions. Coproations are paying 15% already not 39.1% so changing it to 15% just makes sure people without lawyers can benefit from the tax rate as well.

All the analysis from accountants and tax lawyers about the massive decrease in revenue assumes people are paying the paper tax rate which is ironic given their profession.
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
Click to expand...

The democrat party decided to cheat Sanders
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.
Click to expand...
don't you really mean we should rethink how we think and absorb bullshit information and offered koolaid by our major political parties in how and who they present to us for nomination and election???
 
A young Bernie supporter working for the DNC was so appalled at his employer's corrupt and slimy ways, he snitched on them to Wikileaks and was murdered for his pains.

His name was Seth Rich.
 
fuck Sanders. that guy is a clown.

he hides his assets in his wife's name just to pretend to me part of the great unwashed masses.

fucking phony if I ever saw one.
 
Thing1 said:
I know - spilled milk at this point. But it really troubles me that it came to this. It feels like a clear sign that we need to rethink and re-formulate how we nominate candidates and elect Presidents.

At minimum, they should mix it up when it comes to the order of the primary states. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.

But man, I can't help but look back on a missed opportunity. Kasich & Sanders are both men with integrity, intelligence & principles, and would have given voters a real contrast & choice. For the life of me, I don't know how Kasich got boxed in as some sort of "insider." We have to stop looking at government experience as some sort of negative, and judge the inside/outside thing more on how beholden they have shown themselves to be to special interests and their overall record. Sanders has been in gov't for years, but he didn't get tagged as an "insider."

What a difference either guy would have been.
Click to expand...

Iowa and New Hampshire have 6 and 4 electoral votes respectively....
Iowa supported Democrats in pres. elections 6 out of the last 9 presidential elections.....
New Hampshire supported Democrats Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
California 55, New York 29 electoral votes....both liberal Democratic strongholds....
Thats 10 to 84 in just 4 states....

Yet you say, "Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence in deciding the future of our country.".....Inordinate influence ???? How so >
Not that I disagree because they vote for more Democrats than for Republicans....and Calif. and NY are totally on the political left....

or do you see something I don't.....

Sanders had quite a following in the Dem. party.....when did Dems and Socialists become blood brothers and political allies ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top