*2016 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

[sean miguel]

..........

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies
To see them driven before you
To hear the lamentations of their women

as recited by Ahnuld.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Ahnuld thinks Hillary is a girly-man

 

[mongo18]

I am sure I missed essential pearls of wisdom from the Aussie Einstein.

Ooh, does everyone see how hard he's ignoring me?

Everyone? See?

How hard he's ignoring me?

Everyone?

 

[sean miguel]

^ what's he going on about now??

 

[mongo18]

Seal up that bubble, teatards. It's the only way you can convince yourselves that you and the rest of your crazy fringe know what's best for the country, and you represent the majority. Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule.

 

[sean miguel]

lol. Not that you should give a ****, but I don't have you on ignore, mongo. I just couldn't resist.

The only ones on my ignore list are The Walking Dead comic book readers who like to give out spoilers.

But I digress.

 

[Jack Davenport]

lol. Not that you should give a ****, but I don't have you on ignore, mongo. I just couldn't resist.

The only ones on my ignore list are The Walking Dead comic book readers who like to give out spoilers.

But I digress.

I highly recommend it. He is FreeOnes own version of The Walking Dead. From the neck up.

 

[Johan]

Bernie is obviously a decoy to insure Hillary wins the nom. Sanders supporters are going to be pissed when they realize his campaign was a farce. He has never been elected to any office as a Democrat. Hillary gets applause for refusing to address her ethics. Bernie looks like Larry David with bad dandruff.

Spot on analysis BC. Hillary is gonna be the nominee unless she's in jail.

You guys are just walking into the establishment's trap. Wall Street and corporate medias want Hillary to be the nominee because they know her policies are extremely favorable to them. They fear Bernie 'cause he's not on their side, he's on the side of the American people, on the side of the 99%, not on the side of the 1%. Ariana Huffington, Steve Burke (ComCast's CEO) Summer Restone (Chairman of CBS Corporation), Bill Gates, Larry Elisson, Bob Iger, etc. They are all routing for Hillary 'cause they know she won't pass any bill or any executive action that could hurt them, that could lower their fortune or even slower it's growth.
This is why Hillary 'got much more media coverage than Bernie.

But when people hear about Bernie, about his policy, about his tax plan, his ideas about healthcare, minimum wage, education, etc. many of them realise that, if those policies would become bills and laws, it would improve their lives and the lives of their ****. This is why Bernie is currently gaining on Hillary, why he's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire

On the night of the democrat debates when he wasn't even on the stage, Trump gained the most Twitter followers among all the candidates.[/QUOTE]

 

[blakey]

You guys are just walking into the establishment's trap. Wall Street and corporate medias want Hillary to be the nominee because they know her policies are extremely favorable to them. They fear Bernie 'cause he's not on their side, he's on the side of the American people, on the side of the 99%, not on the side of the 1%. Ariana Huffington, Steve Burke (ComCast's CEO) Summer Restone (Chairman of CBS Corporation), Bill Gates, Larry Elisson, Bob Iger, etc. They are all routing for Hillary 'cause they know she won't pass any bill or any executive action that could hurt them, that could lower their fortune or even slower it's growth.
This is why Hillary 'got much more media coverage than Bernie.

But when people hear about Bernie, about his policy, about his tax plan, his ideas about healthcare, minimum wage, education, etc. many of them realise that, if those policies would become bills and laws, it would improve their lives and the lives of their ****. This is why Bernie is currently gaining on Hillary, why he's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire.

bingo

keep speaking truth *******


the rebellious tea party types on freeones who are so against the washington elite and mainstream media are buying the bullshit that hilary did great in debate, is leading race and that bernie couldn't ever get elected


basically every big us media outlet said hilary won the debate, even when every one of their audience polls said bernie won
(some of them even going so far as to take the poll that didn't agree with their narrative down from their website)

 

[Johan]

basically every big us media outlet said hilary won the debate, even when every one of their audience polls said bernie won
(some of them even going so far as to take the poll that didn't agree with their narrative down from their website)

 

[Jack Davenport]

You guys are just walking into the establishment's trap. Wall Street and corporate medias want Hillary to be the nominee because they know her policies are extremely favorable to them. They fear Bernie 'cause he's not on their side, he's on the side of the American people, on the side of the 99%, not on the side of the 1%. Ariana Huffington, Steve Burke (ComCast's CEO) Summer Restone (Chairman of CBS Corporation), Bill Gates, Larry Elisson, Bob Iger, etc. They are all routing for Hillary 'cause they know she won't pass any bill or any executive action that could hurt them, that could lower their fortune or even slower it's growth.
This is why Hillary 'got much more media coverage than Bernie.

But when people hear about Bernie, about his policy, about his tax plan, his ideas about healthcare, minimum wage, education, etc. many of them realise that, if those policies would become bills and laws, it would improve their lives and the lives of their ****. This is why Bernie is currently gaining on Hillary, why he's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire

On the night of the democrat debates when he wasn't even on the stage, Trump gained the most Twitter followers among all the candidates.

[/QUOTE] Animus nor myself proclaimed Hillary or anyone else the winner nor did we echo any MSM opinions that she won. I take great pleasure in reminding you that you are French and I am American, and that innately makes me better than you except for the handful of freedom loving French that haven't been brainwashed by old Europe socialism.I know it is your wet ***** to see Bernie win the election but he's not. 20 years from now Americans will still be proudly owning guns and Bernie will be pushing up daisies.

bingo

keep speaking truth *******


the rebellious tea party types on freeones who are so against the washington elite and mainstream media are buying the bullshit that hilary did great in debate, is leading race and that bernie couldn't ever get elected


basically every big us media outlet said hilary won the debate, even when every one of their audience polls said bernie won
(some of them even going so far as to take the poll that didn't agree with their narrative down from their website)

I should not be surprised that on a forum that is dedicated to porn that there would be fringe left-wing nutjobs like you and Johan. Sanders will never be elected president and no one in their right mind will vote to double our already 19 trillion debt. 60 percent of Americans do not attend college so they could care less if tuition is free. I am so certain of this that by some remote chance that all other candidates suddenly drop out leaving Bernie standing ( which is the only way he could win) I will divide my ********'s remaining college fund with you two clowns and send you both a handsome check. President Bernie ha-ha..President Bernie Sanders hahaha Today the Sanders administration....hahahahahahaha

Man I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

 

[blakey]

60 percent of Americans do not attend college so they could care less if tuition is free.

maybe more would go to college if they didn't have to pay for it, so poorer people would have better access to higher education - did you think of that one smart guy?

:rofl2:

 

[mongo18]

Maybe if college were more affordable we wouldn't be constantly assaulted by illiterates using phrases like "could care less".

 

[Jack Davenport]

maybe more would go to college if they didn't have to pay for it, so poorer people would have better access to higher education - did you think of that one smart guy?

:rofl2:

In Bernie's utopia of free college and golden unicorns there would be a need for manual labor and careers that do not require a college degree. In fact, in Bernieland social ownership would result in less skilled labor. The con man genius is his proposal is that 40 percent would fall to 10-15 percent seeking higher education. Which in a sense would actually make it possible to fund college education on the backs of workers. I take it that you aren't an economist.

 

[mongo18]

I take it that you aren't an economist.

Anyone who has voted republican in the last 20 years should not be allowed to talk about economics. Especially aging male legal secretaries.

 

[blakey]

I take it that you aren't an economist.

well i've dabbled in the past, took a few courses at university (college)


i take it you're going to tell me you are an economist?


by your use of language you certainly don't seem to be an english, history or law etc graduate


:2 cents:

 

[Jack Davenport]

well i've dabbled in the past, took a few courses at university (college)


i take it you're going to tell me you are an economist?


by your use of language you certainly don't seem to be an english, history or law etc graduate


:2 cents:

Oh my! Did I make a typo of some sort? I do post a lot from my phone and it is certainly in the realm of possibilities that a word here or there could have been exchanged for something that I would have otherwise corrected. Yes I am an uneducated yokel that hasn't cracked open a book in my life, except for the good book on Sundays when the preacher breaks out his bag of rattlesnakes and we all stand up and praise the lawd!!!
So oh intelligent sir, how many economists that just don't "dabble" in economics have come out in support of Bernie's proposed path to prosperity?

 

[Jack Davenport]

I guess I have to do the work myself
These are ones that support his 15 dollar an hour proposal.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democr...ers-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

I am sure the majority have a particularly liberal odor to them. What about his 19 trillion in new spending? Can't wait to see the ones that crawl out from under a rock to endorse that.

 

[blakey]

What about his 19 trillion in new spending?

well i'm not here to school you
(and i'm sure it's practically impossible to convince you that anything you already believe is incorrect)


but on this 19 trillion

even with my very basic knowledge of economics , and being interested in reality rather than what fox news says,


this $19 trillion being quoted is a total figure i.e. it is what the current spending plan would be, plus what extra bernie wants to spend



so its like if you were planning to spend $200 buying your girl a present, then you decided to spend $220 this would not be a $220 increase

it would be a $20 increase

 

[Johan]

1) The WSJ spoke about 18 trillions, not 19
2) the WSJ either lied or did not do they researches properly

No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion


The big policy headline today comes from the Wall Street Journal, which delivers this alarming message:

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’ Proposals: $18 Trillion

Holy cow! He must be advocating for some crazy stuff that will bankrupt America! But is that really an accurate picture of what Sanders is proposing? And is this the kind of number we should be frightened of?

The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.

But the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we’re already paying for in other ways. Depending on your perspective on government, you may think that’s a bad idea. But we shouldn’t treat his proposals as though they’re going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we’re already paying.

And there’s another problem with that scary $18 trillion figure, which is what the Journal says is the 10-year cost of Sanders’ ideas: fully $15 trillion of it comes not from an analysis of anything Sanders has proposed, but from the fact that Sanders has said he’d like to see a single-payer health insurance system, and there’s a single-payer plan in Congress that has been estimated to cost $15 trillion. Sanders hasn’t actually released any health care plan, so we have no idea what his might cost.

But health care is nevertheless a good place to examine why these big numbers can be so misleading. At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care. This is money that you and I and everyone else spends. We spend it in a variety of ways: through our health-insurance premiums, through the reduced salaries we get if our employers pick up part or all of the cost of those premiums, through our co-pays and deductibles, and through our taxes that fund Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and the VA health care system. We’re already paying about $10,000 a year per capita for health care.

So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and ****** a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

By the logic of the scary $18 trillion number, you could take a candidate who has proposed nothing on health care, and say, “So-and-so proposes spending $42 trillion on health care!” It would be accurate, but not particularly informative.

There’s something else to keep in mind: every single-payer system in the world, and there are many of them of varying flavors, is cheaper than the American health care system. Every single one. So whatever you might say about Sanders’ advocacy for a single-payer system, you can’t say it represents some kind of profligate, free-spending idea that would cost us all terrible amounts of money.

Since Sanders hasn’t released a health care plan yet, we can’t make any assessment of the true cost of his plan, because there is no plan. Maybe what he wants to do would cost more than $15 trillion, or maybe it would cost less. But given the experience of the rest of the world, there’s a strong likelihood that over the long run, a single-payer plan would save America money. Again, you may think single-payer is a bad idea for any number of reasons, but “It’ll be too expensive!” is probably the least valid objection you could make.

There are some proposals that involve spending new money that we never would have spent otherwise, like starting a war that ends up costing $2 trillion. But in every case, whether we’re doing something new or doing something we’re already doing but in a new way, the question isn’t what the price tag is, the question is whether we think what we’d get for that money makes spending it worthwhile.

For instance, Sanders wants to spend $1 trillion over 10 years on infrastructure. That’s a lot of money, but it’s significantly less than experts say we need to repair all of our crumbling roads, bridges, water systems, and so on. And infrastructure spending creates immediate jobs and has economic benefits that persist over time, which we’d also have to take into account in deciding whether it’s a good idea. But just saying, “$1 trillion is a lot of money!” doesn’t tell you whether or not we should do it.

The conservatives who are acting appalled at the number the Journal came up with are also the same people who never seem to care what a tax cut costs, because they think cutting taxes is a moral and practical good, in the same way that liberals think providing people with health coverage is a moral and practical good. For instance, Jeb Bush recently proposed a tax cut plan whose 10-year cost could be as high as $3.4 trillion. That’s a lot of money that the government wouldn’t be able to spend on the things it’s doing right now, although the campaign argues that we’d get much of that money back in increased revenues because of the spectacular growth the tax cuts would create. If you remember the claims that George W. Bush’s tax cuts would create stunning growth and prosperity for all, you might be just a bit skeptical of the Jeb campaign’s similar assertions. But in any case, we can’t evaluate the value of Jeb’s plan just by saying that $3.4 trillion is a big number. If you knew that the average ****** in the middle of the income distribution would get less than $1,000 from Jeb’s plan, while the average ****** in the top one percent would get a tax cut of over $80,000, then you’d have a better sense of whether it’s a good or bad idea.

As a general matter, when you see a headline with an unimaginably large number, chances are it’s going to confuse you more than it will enlighten you. The question when it comes to government should always be not what we’re spending, but what we’re getting for what we spend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/