![]() |
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. 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.) |
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. |
Re: 2016 Election
JFK didn't say that. :rolleyes: |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11846708)
That's probably accurate, but doesn't play with the idea that the Dems are a bunch of socialists. |
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. |
Re: 2016 Election
To an extent the old guard still control the delegates at the conference.
|
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.
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. 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. |
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
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%. |
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.
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 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. |
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? |
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. "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. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11846832)
Would Obama have stood tall in Berlin or stood up to the Russians in Cuba?
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.
|
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. 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 |
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. |
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. 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.