British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Trailer Park (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/)
-   -   2016 Election (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/2016-election-855107/)

RoadWarriorFromLP Jan 24th 2016 4:01 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846697)
I was reading the other day that a lot of the GOP prefer Trump to Cruz, as they think his desire to be liked means they can work with him to achieve something. Whereas with Cruz, he won't compromise on anything, as was shown in that grandstanding shutdown he orchestrated.

It still amounts to a choice between piles or the clap though.

I'm willing to bet that Trump is putting on an act -- he's trolling everyone. He's the first reality TV star to seek the presidency and he knows his audience.

Cruz seems to mean it, which makes him that much worse. But at least he can't be president, thanks to the whole natural born thing. (Trump does have a point about that.)

Leslie Jan 24th 2016 4:07 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846697)
I was reading the other day that a lot of the GOP prefer Trump to Cruz, as they think his desire to be liked means they can work with him to achieve something. Whereas with Cruz, he won't compromise on anything, as was shown in that grandstanding shutdown he orchestrated.

It still amounts to a choice between piles or the clap though.

That's the old guard, the more moderate Republicans, that are saying that. I don't know if they're the majority anymore --- this whole thing is off the rails. However, IMO it's all academic because Ted Cruz is so incredibly unlikeable there is no way he'll win ... of course, that's what I used to say about Trump. Did you see Cruz doing the most sickening impersonation of JFK that any human has ever done. And he ****ing misquoted him. Bill Maher said that he always thought that Ted Cruz had the world's most punchable face until he saw Paul Ryan sitting behind Obama at the SOTU. I disagree, Ted Cruz has the world's most punchable face EVER.

Leslie Jan 24th 2016 4:09 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

JFK didn't say that. :rolleyes:

zargof Jan 24th 2016 4:23 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11846708)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj5KczUOAvA

JFK didn't say that. :rolleyes:

I don't understand this idea that JFK wouldn't be a part of the Dems these days. I assume it's because he's was closer to to Bernie Sanders than what the establishment is.

That's probably accurate, but doesn't play with the idea that the Dems are a bunch of socialists.

Leslie Jan 24th 2016 4:29 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846712)
I don't understand this idea that JFK wouldn't be a part of the Dems these days. I assume it's because he's was closer to to Bernie Sanders than what the establishment is.

That's probably accurate, but doesn't play with the idea that the Dems are a bunch of socialists.

Nobody says that except Republicans. Because Kennedy is so iconic, they're trying to claim him for themselves. Nobody believes it.

sir_eccles Jan 24th 2016 6:08 am

Re: 2016 Election
 
To an extent the old guard still control the delegates at the conference.

FlaviusAetius Jan 24th 2016 6:11 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846697)
I was reading the other day that a lot of the GOP prefer Trump to Cruz, as they think his desire to be liked means they can work with him to achieve something. Whereas with Cruz, he won't compromise on anything, as was shown in that grandstanding shutdown he orchestrated.

It still amounts to a choice between piles or the clap though.

Don't worry, there is always a choice. You could, and undoubtedly will, vote for a yeast infection.




Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846712)
I don't understand this idea that JFK wouldn't be a part of the Dems these days. I assume it's because he's was closer to to Bernie Sanders than what the establishment is.

That's probably accurate, but doesn't play with the idea that the Dems are a bunch of socialists.

Well, JFK recognized that the level of taxation, then in effect and now urged by Sanders, was strangling the nation's economy, so he advocated and signed a significant tax cut (remember the recession of 1960 that cost Nixon the election?) He also believed in and pushed for a robust military and a muscular foreign policy. By the way, the tax cut led to an amazing level of growth and prosperity.

Those positions are anathema to the linguini- spines who run the Democratic Party now. He would either have been a Republican or - being from Massachusetts - would have pushed the Party more toward the centre, which would be healthy today.

RoadWarriorFromLP Jan 24th 2016 6:49 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11846783)
Well, JFK recognized that the level of taxation, then in effect and now urged by Sanders, was strangling the nation's economy, so he advocated and signed a significant tax cut

JFK/LBJ cut the top bracket from 91% to 70%, with the top bracket beginning at $200,000, which would be the equivalent of about $1.5 million today.

Currently, the top bracket is 39.6%. Sanders wants a 50.2% bracket above $2 million and a 54.2% bracket above $10 million.

So in effect, Sanders wants to have lower tax rates than JFK-LBJ era that you like so much. During much of Reagan's time in office, the top bracket was 50%.

zargof Jan 24th 2016 6:53 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11846783)
Don't worry, there is always a choice. You could, and undoubtedly will, vote for a yeast infection.

No-one is voting for Rand Paul.



Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11846783)
Well, JFK recognized that the level of taxation, then in effect and now urged by Sanders, was strangling the nation's economy, so he advocated and signed a significant tax cut (remember the recession of 1960 that cost Nixon the election?) He also believed in and pushed for a robust military and a muscular foreign policy. By the way, the tax cut led to an amazing level of growth and prosperity.

Those positions are anathema to the linguini- spines who run the Democratic Party now. He would either have been a Republican or - being from Massachusetts - would have pushed the Party more toward the centre, which would be healthy today.

JFK cut the top tax rate from 91% to 65%. Sanders is proposing a top tax rate of 54.2%. If you're going to try and make a point it's normally a good idea to base it on reality, otherwise, you'll look like one of those [economic] illiterates you claim to despise. Also, it wasn't just the tax cut which brought the country out of recession, it was running up a massive (at the time) deficit.

JFK was also for birth/population control, affirmative action, tried to create socialist healthcare (Medicare), believed in separation of church and state and supported a pathway to citizenship for illegals. So there's no way there would be a place for JFK in today's GOP.

username.exe Jan 24th 2016 7:19 am

Re: 2016 Election
 
Former (iconic) presidents are often invoked in exalted tones, but more often than not only to suit one or two policies.

The GOP debates are full of reverential nods to Reagan (hallowed be thy name), but of course when it comes to *cough* immigration reform *cough*, let's all ignore who enacted an amnesty last time.

So I wonder, if Reagan were alive now would he be a member of the GOP?

FlaviusAetius Jan 24th 2016 7:19 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846807)
No-one is voting for Rand Paul.




JFK cut the top tax rate from 91% to 65%. Sanders is proposing a top tax rate of 54.2%. If you're going to try and make a point it's normally a good idea to base it on reality, otherwise, you'll look like one of those [economic] illiterates you claim to despise. Also, it wasn't just the tax cut which brought the country out of recession, it was running up a massive (at the time) deficit.

JFK was also for birth/population control, affirmative action, tried to create socialist healthcare (Medicare), believed in separation of church and state and supported a pathway to citizenship for illegals. So there's no way there would be a place for JFK in today's GOP.

Bernie first stated he thought a 90% tax rate wasn't too high, then backed off, so he's presented a moving target and has flipped on his initial proposal like any other politician. But what would he really do if he had his druthers?
"In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, he said that he didn’t think a top rate of 90 percent would be too high, also citing the fact that it was around that level under Eisenhower." Bernie Sanders Backs Off From Support For A 90 Percent Tax Rate | ThinkProgress

The important points about JFK was his military and foreign policy stance. Would Obama have stood tall in Berlin or stood up to the Russians in Cuba? And it was LBJ who pushed through the Civil Rights Act with Republican support - for which they get zero credit.

Don't play cute with your 'yeast infection' vote, which is inevitable. Everyone here knows that the only reason you won't be voting for Sanders is because your only choice is going to be Hillary, unless she's indicted. That won't happen because, much as Obama doesn't like her, he wants someone who will continue his legacy.

RoadWarriorFromLP Jan 24th 2016 7:27 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11846832)
Would Obama have stood tall in Berlin or stood up to the Russians in Cuba?

It's amusing for you to suggest that the president who is associated with drone strikes, thousands of sorties against ISIS and ordering the killing of Bin Laden is timid.


Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11846832)
And it was LBJ who pushed through the Civil Rights Act with Republican support - for which they get zero credit.

The Republican party of today does not resemble the Republican party of 1964. Today, those supporters of civil rights would be labeled as RINOs.

dc koop Jan 24th 2016 8:20 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11846807)
No-one is voting for Rand Paul.




JFK cut the top tax rate from 91% to 65%. Sanders is proposing a top tax rate of 54.2%. If you're going to try and make a point it's normally a good idea to base it on reality, otherwise, you'll look like one of those [economic] illiterates you claim to despise. Also, it wasn't just the tax cut which brought the country out of recession, it was running up a massive (at the time) deficit.

JFK was also for birth/population control, affirmative action, tried to create socialist healthcare (Medicare), believed in separation of church and state and supported a pathway to citizenship for illegals. So there's no way there would be a place for JFK in today's GOP.

Had Kennedy lived he would have been destroyed by the war in Vietnam just as Johnson was. There was no indication before his death that he would have seen Vietnam as a quagmire to be avoided. He was a staunch believer in the "domino theory" and a supporter of the rotten and corrupt South Vietnam Diem regime which had alienated so many of the Vietnamese peasantry that it made it that much easier for the Viet Cong to gain the necessary support it needed in the countryside.

Many believe that Vietnam was a war between Capitalism and Communism. It's only half true. Ho chi Minh was a communist but he was essentially a Vietnamese nationalist who had banished the foreign French from the country and then saw the Americans as other invaders. Any country that finds itself fighting against a force of determined nationalists had better accept the possible reality that the war could well be lost in the long run.

Kennedys philandering and sexual exploits would not be something he could get away with today. His brother Bobby managed to cover up a lot of it and in exchange for J Edgar Hoover's agreement to co-operate in the cover up dropped his support for Martin Luther King Jr who Hoover loathed and believed was a member of the Communist party

FlaviusAetius Jan 24th 2016 8:35 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11846837)
It's amusing for you to suggest that the president who is associated with drone strikes, thousands of sorties against ISIS and ordering the killing of Bin Laden is timid.



The Republican party of today does not resemble the Republican party of 1964. Today, those supporters of civil rights would be labeled as RINOs.

Alright, alright, Obama is a super-strong foreign policy hawk leading a mighty coalition, has smashed ISIS, which no longer exists and achieved ultimate victory against Iran, that is now a neutered helpless puppy licking its wounds. I stand corrected.

dc koop Jan 24th 2016 8:36 am

Re: 2016 Election
 

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11846837)
It's amusing for you to suggest that the president who is associated with drone strikes, thousands of sorties against ISIS and ordering the killing of Bin Laden is timid.



The Republican party of today does not resemble the Republican party of 1964. Today, those supporters of civil rights would be labeled as RINOs.

The GOP today is a party split between the ultra right and the conservative middle to moderates.

Reagan if he was alive today wouldn't recognize it,


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:08 am.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.