Magox

There is a treasure trove of material to hammer away at Hillary, and it's not things that turn off voters from the right like Benghazi, which the left and moderate voters tbh really don't care about, but these sort of secrecy and pay for play details depress left leaning voters. All they have to do is fit all these things into a narrative and by the time the elections come around, her favorability ratings will be in the low 40's.

He certainly is thin-skinned, and this playing a victim vs the media may work with some in the primaries but certainly wouldn't play well in the general elections. He better get used to it, his positions have morphed and if he can't answer simple and fair questions without getting so easily and outwardly agitated, he better just call it a day because the press is gonna eat him up for lunch. Oh, and I predict that the rest of the field is going to look to take him out early on, there are too many candidates vying for a piece of his pie and considering that many of his positions are perceived to go against typical GOP orthodoxy, specially in the foreign affairs department, I wouldn't be surprised if Rand threatens to take his ball home and pout by threatening to run as a third party candidate. I was talking to my father about this possibility over a year ago, I've seen how testy and thin-skinned he can get and that at some point he's going to realize that the GOP isn't quite ready with some of his views and that he could go on his own out of disillusionment.

In sum, the op-ed eloquently observes the Iran deal is a complete and total cluster. At a press conference held earlier today, Marie Harf was in no mood to discuss the WSJ lashing. Flustered, Harf attempted to avoid questions on the WSJ op-ed, but Associated Press reporter Matt Lee persisted. “I read it and it’s far from nuanced. It’s pretty damning,” Lee says. “You just reject it outright? They say this is a recipe for disaster basically, but you say, no, clearly, you wouldn’t be pursuing something you thought was a recipe for disaster. Is that correct?” Lee reads a few lines of the piece, and lobs them back to Harf. More at the link: . Dumbass

B-man, not sure I'd classify this as incompetence, but more so worrisome. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that this wouldn't have happened under virtually any other administration. There are plenty of things to cry incompetence over, but this in my view wouldn't be one of them.

How about debating the merits of "wealth distribution economics" and how if implemented would increase overall economic output rather than just accepting it as is? Whenever I pose an argument I inject my reasoning in laymen's terms. Can you do the same?

You don't understand politics, do you? And why am I responding to you?

Because my father perceives him to be an isolationist, much like Rand's father. Foreign policy matters to my father and he believes interventionism is a key role for the U.S He's also a very traditional GOP voter, he's not a hard line right winger, doesn't like the thought of what he perceives to be extreme ideas such as abolishing the IRS or VA. He doesn't like the idea of legalizing marijuana. In his view, Rand is too far out there for his taste.

Mika is known to hugely be a women's rights activist, many times irrationally so. Having said that, Mika has been a persistent critic of Hillary and DEFINITELY is no fan of hers. At all!!

Rand could possibly be able to get a lot of new voters that wouldn't normally vote GOP. But, and it's a big but, many of the hawkish traditional GOP voters would sit it out. My father who was in the military wouldn't even consider voting for him, even if that means not voting at all. And I know there are many others that feel the same way. But it would be entertaining seeing him run against Hillary, he'd be to the left of her on all sorts of issues, such as drug legalization, the relationship between banks and politicians and foreign policy. He'd have her tied up in all sorts of knotts, Hillary would basically have to brandish her hawkish bonafides, which of course could alienate many younger voters.

Can you provide a link to that? Even though I've already provided you links stating the contrary. Here is what Stephen Goss says. More from Stephen Goss: And no, it's not by two years. I already provided you the links from the actuaries of S.S stating otherwise. Unless you provide something credible and non partisan, then it's all pure speculation from your point of view. Here is what S.S actuaries say:

That goes against the analysis performed by the Social Security actuaries. The problem is and was that all those births that occurred after WW II, well those chickens are coming home to roost. A stagnating population coupled with a booming aging population is a problem with the way our S.S system works. S.S has always relied on future generations to pay for those that are collecting benefits. Am I advocating that the status quo is sustainable over the long haul? No, but that wasn't what we were talking about. What we are talking about is adding more people to the pot to add revenues to the system. Hence, immigration being a positive for S.S (and no, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term) Also, the point that you made that the overwhelming majority of people are going to be receiving more in benefits than what they pay in, also misses the mark. First off, S.S was designed to pay out more than it received. The reason why it was created was to serve as a safety net, not as a means for the government to profit. In any case, check it Again, the proposed legislation is a net positive for S.S and it's solvency. It's not the panacea but it is part of the solution. Couple that with mean's testing on the most wealthy and extending the age by a couple years to 67, and voilaaaa, problem solved.

Increased immigration as the proposals that have been laid out would help. The average age of the immigrants that would fall under the proposed legislation is around 40. Which means they would be paying into the pot for a number of years before they could draw into it. Also, and not withstanding is that the proposal laid out would compel these individuals to pay into S.S for a minimum of 10 years before they could draw funds from retirement funds. You can read about it here That is a bit lengthy, you can also read a more brief synopsis right here. Gator may be wrong about a lot of things, but not on this issue, not if he's talking about the proposed immigration legislation that was passed by the Senate.

I always did like the white meat.

You heard it on the radio? Well, that settles that.

Anyone can spin numbers and pontificate about the wrongs of capitalism from the perches of their comfy offices. He just seems to have a more dark fatalistic view of things and he's able to channel the inner anti capitalistic sentiment amongst some liberals. So what are his solutions? Global wealth tax? Could you just imagine a global and unaccountable IRS run by some socialistic French nitwit? His solutions are nothing more than the same old tired wealth distribution schemes that many others have suggested just that it's a different variation on a more global scale. The idea of taking away from some to lift others as a means to solve the widening wealth disparity gap is laughable. Would it decrease the gap? Probably, but it would also undoubtedly come at the expense of an even slower over all economy with less economic output. Globalization and technology are the main culprits of this villainous tale. The solution is more a matter of adaptation to this reality. And to be honest, the greatest transfer of wealth hasn't so much been coming from the middle class to the uber rich but more so of the developed nations to the emerging markets. Globalization may very well have had a negative impact on the US/European industry worker, but it has played a positive force not only for the US consumer but to the factory worker overseas (china, india, etc). Globalization and technology aren't going to recede, it's just a matter of reforms and adapting to the inevitable.

I have my ideas, but the point I'm making is that however you deal with this issue, that US policy on Iran should be based off of that premise.

The crux of it all is simple, the Iranians want to build a nuclear weapon. U.S policy towards Iran should be based on that assumption. Period!

Success!!

Most of the jobs that are created are lower-skilled jobs and that there is still slack in the economy.

So Muslim fundamentalists share some of the same values as Christian fundamentalists?

What a load of crap.

Yes

I'm personally against anyone who discriminates anyone on matters of religion, race and sexual orientation. Having said that, if a company chooses to discriminate, that's on them. And as a result of their actions there will be counter reactions from the public, and with the way social media works the word will get out and the free market will flush out anything that particular region doesn't tolerate. This puts the power in the people's hands, as it should be in many instances. This would be a perfect example of why more libertarian principles should be adopted into our society. Not saying that we should be the wild wild west, but there are areas where we can implement some of these philosophies to our economy.