Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 10:00:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Let's be 100% serious here for a moment:  (Read 6567 times)
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,460
United States


« on: December 16, 2015, 02:25:41 AM »

OMG ... I'm about to throw up ...
but, OK .... I will say it ............
I agree with Lief.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that hurt !!!

PS: But I will still not vote for Trump. No way, no day.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,460
United States


« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2015, 04:01:28 PM »
« Edited: December 16, 2015, 04:03:28 PM by ProudModerate2 »

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

Simfan,
Your line of thinking, is exactly why Washington politics does not work, and why the politicians are hated by the super-vast majority of all Americans.
If a plan or idea is "good" for our nation, who cares if it's "touting the Democratic Party line."

Listen to yourself. You said : "Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position."
Really ?!?!?
 This sounds just like what the wacky hard-right tea-bagging Republicans would say. And they are exactly why government is so hated by us. Nothing can or will get done in Washington with this type of attitude.

I'm convinced that if Obama said that "taking a sh*t is good policy," that wacky Pubs (like you) would try to convince Americans that we should not use the bathroom, simply because Obama said it, and it is a "Democratic position."
This is the extreme view of who the Tea-Baggers have become, and their extreme position to take and stand for .... "regardless of whether or not it's right," but because "it's just not a Republican position."
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,460
United States


« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2015, 07:28:01 PM »
« Edited: December 16, 2015, 07:35:49 PM by ProudModerate2 »

I'm hardly one of the "wackos", but if you think that the logical position on nearly every issue happens to be that of the Democratic Party... you might just do better in the Democratic Party.

It seems I prematurely lumped you in with the wackos. My apologies.
But by the way, I do not "think the logical position on nearly every issue happens to be that of the Democratic Party."

I essentially despise what the modern Republican Party has become ...

I completely understand and agree with you ; I'm in the same shoes.


PS: I despise Trump, and will not vote for him.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,460
United States


« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2015, 03:36:03 PM »

US GDP is about 17 trillion. 4 trillion over 15 years comes out to something like 1.5% of GDP. Yeah, that would totally have dramatically changed the US economy.

I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't seen any attempted fact-checking of this figure from the usual fact-checking outlets. Odd.

First off, the figure should not be compared to GDP. It can be understood better, if compared to the federal government outlays per year.
The federal government does not spend 17 trillion per year.

The numbers in this discussion, were described in a way as to explain how the fed gov could have spent the money (outlays), to help rebuild the decaying infrastructure throughout the nation.
And not necessarily as a comparison as to how the money could have been spent to help boost the economy in general (GDP).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.