Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bleh....2016

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 3:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This will be less of a rant than a request for advice on whom I ought to support. In other words, I'm hoping someone can convince me to vote one way or the other.

Now, obviously we don't have the full 2016 batch of candidates yet. But I envision that it will look something like this when all is said and done:

Democrats

Hillary Clinton

(Yup, I'm not stopping there.)

Alan Grayson
Bernie Sanders (He may run as an independent.)
Joe Biden
Martin O'Malley
Julian Castro (This guy is a rising star from what I've seen, though I'm not sure whether he'll run.)

I can't think of any other viable Democratic candidate, though I'm sure there are others. Even though I don't self-identify any longer as a Democrat, I want to believe that there are other viable options than Hillary -- and I think the party is doing a disservice to itself if it actually nominates her *without* a vigorous primary. It need not be as drawn out and bloody as the 2012 GOP Primary to move her far enough to the left, where I presume most Democrats want her to be; now, Wall Street executives think she's on their side, for better or for worse, and I take it that's not what you like to hear.

Republicans

So far we have:

Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio

When all is said and done, I predict that we'll also have:

Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Rick Santorum
Peter King
Chris Christie
Lindsey Graham
Bobby Jindal

I hope I'm not missing anyone.

My Thinking Thus Far

I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of Congress, not only from an operational standpoint, but as a matter of policy. Save for supply-side reforms, I think the Fed does a much better, cleaner, and more efficient job at managing the economy.

First, I don't tend to vote on social issues. I'm fairly liberal on gay marriage, abortion, et al., though they don't tend to sway my position, with the rare exception of an extremity. For instance, you won't catch me voting for Rick Santorum, Alan Keyes, or Todd Akin.

Second, I toggle back and forth on foreign policy. I've become significantly more hawkish over the years, though I'm inclined to think that future presidents will merely repeat the policy of their predecessors. By default, that *is* relatively hawkish, so I don't tend to vote on this either.

I do vote almost entirely on economics, but my problem is that politicians are not, and will never be, economists -- though I am, in the least self-aggrandizing way possible -- so we hear unsubstantiated falsehoods to the effect of:

"Immigration reform will suppress wages" -- wrong, it's much more complex than that.

"If the Fed keeps printing money, we're going to see hyperinflation" -- so wrong, the inflation numbers are more 150 basis points *below target*, and long-run expectations are anchored anyway -- AND the Fed has already unveiled and is presently testing a myriad of liquidity drainage operations to soak up excess reserves.

"Without the stimulus, we'd be in a Depression" -- I should clarify on this one that this remark is only true in a ceteris-paribus world, sans an independent monetary regime, though for the U.S., it's obviously totally and completely wrong.

"Because of differentials in capital taxation versus income taxation, the affluent are rigging the game." -- wrong, and adding wage and capital income is a *terrible* gauge of inequality, when in reality we should be looking at the present value of lifetime consumption.

"The minimum wage boosts consumption, which is great unto itself" -- I accept that it will boost consumption, but the trade-offs are infinitely more complex than that.

"Raising the debt ceiling increases the debt" -- wrong, the money has already been spent.

And there are, of course, more -- but let's leave it at that for now.

Basically, I don't quite identify as a "fiscal conservative," even though I think fiscal policy -- and when I say that, I'm referring to demand-side policy entirely -- is useless, and offset by monetary policy. For instance, I'm a strong proponent of immigration reform, and would probably go much further than many in supporting nearly open borders, but my argument has less to do with morality and more to do with an arcane economic theory known as secular stagnation -- but let's roll with it nevertheless, though no one actually knows what that is or why it is single-handedly and irrefutably the best argument for a pathway to citizenship.

But I can't simply vote Republican. Why? Most of them -- and when I say this, I'm referring to Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Mike Lee and probably a few others -- are batsh1t insane; whether it's their willingness to shut down the government for something so utterly asinine and impractical as "defunding the ACA" -- which requires an unmitigated amount of stupidity, because obviously the president would have vetoed such a proposal -- or their proposals to destroy the Fed's independence as late, the GOP has progressed in such a direction that I cannot possibly support.

On the other side, there are Democrats I also cannot stand. Their naivety, for instance, on the MW, stimulus spending, taxes, Dodd-Frank or even on monetary policy -- yes, Elizabeth Warren, I am looking directly at you -- shows that, while they may not be insane, they're nevertheless grossly uninformed on the issues I think are most important. In particular, I think the Dodd-Frank Act is a catastrophe, and should another recession hit us sometime in the near future, a Fed without a proper emergency-lending facility will have an extremely difficult time mollifying the impact. Their support of that, of course, is based not on facts, but on a knee-jerk reaction -- break the banks up, and this won't even be an issue.

So, I'm at a place where I really don't know what I ought to do. I may even vote Democrat, in spite of finding many of their economic policies grotesque and presumptuous, in lieu of allowing a sh1t-for-brains Republican "audit the Fed" -- the ramifications for which they are wholly ignorant of, and could not even begin to understand.

Thoughts?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Aside from the typical "I find both parties abysmal" sentiment you show here, I find your post a bit confusing-- you posit Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders as major Dem players, but you reserve your antipathy for Warren? I just don't get where you're coming from.

Warren always makes total sense to me when she speaks. Are you willing to attempt a "deconversion" here?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You forgot to list John Kaisch.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:21:01 PM, Fly wrote:
Aside from the typical "I find both parties abysmal" sentiment you show here, I find your post a bit confusing-- you posit Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders as major Dem players, but you reserve your antipathy for Warren? I just don't get where you're coming from.

Well, it would likely apply more broadly to all three of them; for instance, I indirectly referenced an argument that Bernie Sanders makes: that because taxes were 90 percent in the 1950s, we can and should raise them now. I think that argument is utterly ludicrous, and ignores structural changes in the economy that have occurred not only over the past half century, but over the past, say, 20 years (e.g., globalization). There's a way to make that argument and literature he can cite, but he's doing a terrible job -- and the same goes for a major, behind-the-scenes player for the Dems, Robert Reich.

But, sure, I could probably find plenty of things I detest about all three. But Warren comes to mind in this case. Why? Because monetary policy is my biggest issue, and Warren has made the most ludicrous remarks on monetary policy so far, including wanted to neuter the Fed's emergency lending facility further, so ardently supporting and wanting to expand Dodd-Frank, and espousing support for Paul Volcker for Fed Chair. It's clear, in these cases as well as in many others, that she is grossly uninformed on these very serious issues. If Sanders or Grayson or anyone else said something similar, I'll condemn them as well.

Warren always makes total sense to me when she speaks. Are you willing to attempt a "deconversion" here?

Sure, I'm open to it. I think it will be extremely hard, since my views aren't exactly based on blind faith. But if you want to try to sway me, I'm open to it.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:38:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:36:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
You forgot to list John Kaisch.

Yup, him too.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 3:38:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
This will be less of a rant than a request for advice on whom I ought to support. In other words, I'm hoping someone can convince me to vote one way or the other.

Now, obviously we don't have the full 2016 batch of candidates yet. But I envision that it will look something like this when all is said and done:

Democrats

Hillary Clinton

(Yup, I'm not stopping there.)

Alan Grayson
Bernie Sanders (He may run as an independent.)
Joe Biden
Martin O'Malley
Julian Castro (This guy is a rising star from what I've seen, though I'm not sure whether he'll run.)

I can't think of any other viable Democratic candidate, though I'm sure there are others. Even though I don't self-identify any longer as a Democrat, I want to believe that there are other viable options than Hillary -- and I think the party is doing a disservice to itself if it actually nominates her *without* a vigorous primary. It need not be as drawn out and bloody as the 2012 GOP Primary to move her far enough to the left, where I presume most Democrats want her to be; now, Wall Street executives think she's on their side, for better or for worse, and I take it that's not what you like to hear.

Republicans

So far we have:

Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio

When all is said and done, I predict that we'll also have:

Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Rick Santorum
Peter King
Chris Christie
Lindsey Graham
Bobby Jindal

I hope I'm not missing anyone.

My Thinking Thus Far

I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of Congress, not only from an operational standpoint, but as a matter of policy. Save for supply-side reforms, I think the Fed does a much better, cleaner, and more efficient job at managing the economy.

First, I don't tend to vote on social issues. I'm fairly liberal on gay marriage, abortion, et al., though they don't tend to sway my position, with the rare exception of an extremity. For instance, you won't catch me voting for Rick Santorum, Alan Keyes, or Todd Akin.

Second, I toggle back and forth on foreign policy. I've become significantly more hawkish over the years, though I'm inclined to think that future presidents will merely repeat the policy of their predecessors. By default, that *is* relatively hawkish, so I don't tend to vote on this either.

I do vote almost entirely on economics, but my problem is that politicians are not, and will never be, economists -- though I am, in the least self-aggrandizing way possible -- so we hear unsubstantiated falsehoods to the effect of:

"Immigration reform will suppress wages" -- wrong, it's much more complex than that.

"If the Fed keeps printing money, we're going to see hyperinflation" -- so wrong, the inflation numbers are more 150 basis points *below target*, and long-run expectations are anchored anyway -- AND the Fed has already unveiled and is presently testing a myriad of liquidity drainage operations to soak up excess reserves.

"Without the stimulus, we'd be in a Depression" -- I should clarify on this one that this remark is only true in a ceteris-paribus world, sans an independent monetary regime, though for the U.S., it's obviously totally and completely wrong.

"Because of differentials in capital taxation versus income taxation, the affluent are rigging the game." -- wrong, and adding wage and capital income is a *terrible* gauge of inequality, when in reality we should be looking at the present value of lifetime consumption.

"The minimum wage boosts consumption, which is great unto itself" -- I accept that it will boost consumption, but the trade-offs are infinitely more complex than that.

"Raising the debt ceiling increases the debt" -- wrong, the money has already been spent.

And there are, of course, more -- but let's leave it at that for now.

Basically, I don't quite identify as a "fiscal conservative," even though I think fiscal policy -- and when I say that, I'm referring to demand-side policy entirely -- is useless, and offset by monetary policy. For instance, I'm a strong proponent of immigration reform, and would probably go much further than many in supporting nearly open borders, but my argument has less to do with morality and more to do with an arcane economic theory known as secular stagnation -- but let's roll with it nevertheless, though no one actually knows what that is or why it is single-handedly and irrefutably the best argument for a pathway to citizenship.

But I can't simply vote Republican. Why? Most of them -- and when I say this, I'm referring to Ted Cruz/Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Mike Lee and probably a few others -- are batsh1t insane; whether it's their willingness to shut down the government for something so utterly asinine and impractical as "defunding the ACA" -- which requires an unmitigated amount of stupidity, because obviously the president would have vetoed such a proposal -- or their proposals to destroy the Fed's independence as late, the GOP has progressed in such a direction that I cannot possibly support.

On the other side, there are Democrats I also cannot stand. Their naivety, for instance, on the MW, stimulus spending, taxes, Dodd-Frank or even on monetary policy -- yes, Elizabeth Warren, I am looking directly at you -- shows that, while they may not be insane, they're nevertheless grossly uninformed on the issues I think are most important. In particular, I think the Dodd-Frank Act is a catastrophe, and should another recession hit us sometime in the near future, a Fed without a proper emergency-lending facility will have an extremely difficult time mollifying the impact. Their support of that, of course, is based not on facts, but on a knee-jerk reaction -- break the banks up, and this won't even be an issue.

So, I'm at a place where I really don't know what I ought to do. I may even vote Democrat, in spite of finding many of their economic policies grotesque and presumptuous, in lieu of allowing a sh1t-for-brains Republican "audit the Fed" -- the ramifications for which they are wholly ignorant of, and could not even begin to understand.

Thoughts?

Rand Paul will restore America.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

But then she deletes everything off of her server so authorities cant access it? She's a liar.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:06:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

You know we fired ambassadors who did that, right? It is illegal. The fact she gets away with it is a result of a super biased media and her last name. It is disgusting. It was a liberal publication that found it first, too, which is hilarious. That alone should disqualify her.

http://www.ijreview.com...

Biased?
http://thefederalist.com...

Oh sh!t, 16k, you got worse. That sh!t is even more biased than the first.

http://www.cnn.com...

Well fvck
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:07:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:03:03 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

But then she deletes everything off of her server so authorities cant access it? She's a liar.

I didn't hear about her deleting anything; but what exactly is she lying about? In other words, what's the bombshell?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:09:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:06:59 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

You know we fired ambassadors who did that, right? It is illegal. The fact she gets away with it is a result of a super biased media and her last name. It is disgusting. It was a liberal publication that found it first, too, which is hilarious. That alone should disqualify her.

http://www.ijreview.com...

Biased?
http://thefederalist.com...

Oh sh!t, 16k, you got worse. That sh!t is even more biased than the first.

http://www.cnn.com...

Well fvck

Okay, but even if it was illegal -- and I will readily admit that I didn't know that it was -- wasn't it revealed *after* she had already stepped down as SoS? What more could have happened to her that did not? Was this worthy of a prosecution?

This isn't really something that gets me going, to be honest, because I'm not a Hillary apologist.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:13:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:07:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:03:03 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

But then she deletes everything off of her server so authorities cant access it? She's a liar.

I didn't hear about her deleting anything; but what exactly is she lying about? In other words, what's the bombshell?

BAM http://www.cnn.com...
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:09:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:06:59 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

You know we fired ambassadors who did that, right? It is illegal. The fact she gets away with it is a result of a super biased media and her last name. It is disgusting. It was a liberal publication that found it first, too, which is hilarious. That alone should disqualify her.

http://www.ijreview.com...

Biased?
http://thefederalist.com...

Oh sh!t, 16k, you got worse. That sh!t is even more biased than the first.

http://www.cnn.com...

Well fvck

Okay, but even if it was illegal -- and I will readily admit that I didn't know that it was -- wasn't it revealed *after* she had already stepped down as SoS? What more could have happened to her that did not? Was this worthy of a prosecution?

This isn't really something that gets me going, to be honest, because I'm not a Hillary apologist.

I am not saying throw her in jail and let the other chicks have fun in the shower, I am just saying that this alone should really knock her out. I guarantee if any of the republicans were SoS, and they did this, their ratings would go to sh!t.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:16:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:13:00 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:07:09 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:03:03 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:57:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:54:46 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:50:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:48:18 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:44:15 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 4:43:31 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Rand Paul will restore America.

How so?

This is exactly how I feel---http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post; either way, I don't tend to vote on foreign policy, though I'm not too familiar with a lot of his recent remarks.

What I do know, though, is that his views on economics -- particularly the Fed -- are positively loony.

Why on earth should Hillary even be running? I mean she committed Fraud...and America still want's her to run?

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but fraud? That I didn't hear about. What kind of fraud?

Sorry, shouldn't have used fraud. Scandal I meant :http://www.cbsnews.com...

Wasn't this "scandal" that she used a personal e-mail while Secretary of State? I think that was honestly way overblown. Whether she should have or shouldn't have used her own e-mail address, I can't see how this incriminates her.

But then she deletes everything off of her server so authorities cant access it? She's a liar.

I didn't hear about her deleting anything; but what exactly is she lying about? In other words, what's the bombshell?

BAM http://www.cnn.com...

Okay, so that article seems to be saying that she deleted personal e-mails, but kept -- and subsequently turned over to the State department -- work-related e-mails. Her attorney is suggesting that federal law stipulates that record retention is at her discretion -- which I suppose is what is really the dividing line here, though I don't know enough about federal law to know whether this is actually the case.

I still don't know what exactly she was "hiding," if anything. It's one thing to say that she shouldn't have used a private e-mail account, or even that she shouldn't have deleted certain e-mails; but what exactly is she hiding?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:13:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am not saying throw her in jail and let the other chicks have fun in the shower, I am just saying that this alone should really knock her out. I guarantee if any of the republicans were SoS, and they did this, their ratings would go to sh!t.

You know I don't care much for political theater, lol, and that's really all I see this as. Elections are, after all, a free market -- whether her rating *should have* gone to sh1t, to me, is really a non-issue, because I think they were inflated to begin with, and a function only of her name recognition. Most Americans have almost know idea of what she stands for -- heck, I don't think Hillary Clinton right now knows what she stands for, and that will probably change as she moves to the general, anyway (sort of a reverse-Romney).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:19:00 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:13:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am not saying throw her in jail and let the other chicks have fun in the shower, I am just saying that this alone should really knock her out. I guarantee if any of the republicans were SoS, and they did this, their ratings would go to sh!t.

You know I don't care much for political theater, lol, and that's really all I see this as. Elections are, after all, a free market -- whether her rating *should have* gone to sh1t, to me, is really a non-issue, because I think they were inflated to begin with, and a function only of her name recognition. Most Americans have almost know idea of what she stands for -- heck, I don't think Hillary Clinton right now knows what she stands for, and that will probably change as she moves to the general, anyway (sort of a reverse-Romney).

^
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:26:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:22:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:19:00 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:13:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am not saying throw her in jail and let the other chicks have fun in the shower, I am just saying that this alone should really knock her out. I guarantee if any of the republicans were SoS, and they did this, their ratings would go to sh!t.

You know I don't care much for political theater, lol, and that's really all I see this as. Elections are, after all, a free market -- whether her rating *should have* gone to sh1t, to me, is really a non-issue, because I think they were inflated to begin with, and a function only of her name recognition. Most Americans have almost know idea of what she stands for -- heck, I don't think Hillary Clinton right now knows what she stands for, and that will probably change as she moves to the general, anyway (sort of a reverse-Romney).

^

Wasn't there a recent news stories that said she sounded "agreeable" on the campaign trail?

Then, apparently, she was parroting Warren-esque talking points.

She's a mess, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:26:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:22:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:19:00 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:13:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I am not saying throw her in jail and let the other chicks have fun in the shower, I am just saying that this alone should really knock her out. I guarantee if any of the republicans were SoS, and they did this, their ratings would go to sh!t.

You know I don't care much for political theater, lol, and that's really all I see this as. Elections are, after all, a free market -- whether her rating *should have* gone to sh1t, to me, is really a non-issue, because I think they were inflated to begin with, and a function only of her name recognition. Most Americans have almost know idea of what she stands for -- heck, I don't think Hillary Clinton right now knows what she stands for, and that will probably change as she moves to the general, anyway (sort of a reverse-Romney).

^

Wasn't there a recent news stories that said she sounded "agreeable" on the campaign trail?

Then, apparently, she was parroting Warren-esque talking points.

She's a mess, lol.

LOL
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:32:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:19:52 PM, RevNge wrote:
Am I the only one that keeps thinking of Ayn Rand when I see Rand Paul's name?

Yup. Only you, Rev, would think of something so fundamentally irrational.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:34:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:19:52 PM, RevNge wrote:
Am I the only one that keeps thinking of Ayn Rand when I see Rand Paul's name?

That's the point and purpose of his referring to himself as "Rand."
Tsar of DDO
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2015 5:19:52 PM, RevNge wrote:
Am I the only one that keeps thinking of Ayn Rand when I see Rand Paul's name?

That's the point and purpose of his referring to himself as "Rand."

Rand has said otherwise.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 5:39:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:
http://cdn.meme.am...

That's actually not a bad point at all. Find me a good third-party candidate, and I'm open to supporting -- or, hell, even campaign for -- that person.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah