The Democratic Primaries

DwnWthVwls · 09-27-2015, 09:25 PM

I thought you were bored of politics or something?

William_the_Bloody · 09-28-2015, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I thought you were bored of politics or something?

Oh I didn't think anyone actually read that comment lol.

I'm involved in politics to some extent outside of MB so it's kind of hard, and now that JWB is no more (did he get banned?) I can rule the roost here lol.

There are some political issues I try to stay away from because they're so divisive, but I do think the next US election is very important.

Anyways the Bern got bumped off the page.

William_the_Bloody · 10-02-2015, 12:36 AM

So I believe in Americans right to bear arms, it's in your culture & it's not my business to lecture another country on how to run theirs, but... and here's the big but.

You really, really, really need to start doing some serious background checks on people who have a history of depression and mental illness, and deny them the right to a firearm. I'm not saying they'll get a gun by other means, but it may make it a mass slaughter a little less accessible for them.

**Frownland** · 10-02-2015, 10:38 AM

We're trying but the NRA paints any type of restriction at all as a forceful removal of arms from the good workin folk of America who need it for hunting and to execute the alarmingly high number of people that try to break into their homes.

William_the_Bloody · 10-02-2015, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

We're trying but the NRA paints any type of restriction at all as a forceful removal of arms from the good workin folk of America who need it for hunting and to execute the alarmingly high number of people that try to break into their homes.

Yep it's a pretty powerful lobby, that will be a tough nut to crack.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 10-02-2015, 09:12 PM

i'm honestly confused... cause it seems like if anything these are the types of gun crimes where the criminal is going to be willing to do whatever it takes to get a gun

currently they get them legally, which is atrocious

and obviously i'd agree with background checks

but i'm very skeptical that even if you could prevent every nutjob from getting a gun legally, that they wouldn't be willing to score them illegally to go on their spree. i mean we are talking about suicidal/homicidal mental cases... right?

don't get me wrong i'd love if we put background checks into place and it did prevent these shootings. but logistically it just sounds absurd to me. like the guy is dedicated enough to kill himself but not dedicated to wander into the wrong side of town looking for a gun with the numbers scratched off, just like drug dealers do every single day.

like i said i'd support the background checks, even so. i just doubt that would really stop it. i mean the examples he gave of countries which have eliminated this problem... england, australia..? lol, they go a bit beyond "background checks," don't they?

William_the_Bloody · 10-02-2015, 10:05 PM

Although I'm not a socialist, I sadly agree with this, the media is already pumping up Biden as Hillary's alternative.

It's looking a bit rough for the democrats: (In a writing mood)

Hillary Clinton: To have the Clinton economic team back in the white house (though they had influence under Obama) would be great for the economy, if history tells us anything.

Bill Clinton had one of the highest GDP growth rates (averaged 3.8) since the Great Depression, those old enough to remember the 90's remember that they were good times; the western world has pretty much been in a funk since 2001.

On the flip side, Clinton was a "wall street" democrat and a liberal idealist who signed the trade agreement with China that has cost the US close to 3 million manufacturing jobs, while doing dick all to putting China on the road to democracy. Not to mention he signed NAFTA into exsistance, and implemented neo friendly policies like loosening restrictions for the big banks.

Expect the same from Hillary, she'll sign the TPP & other free trade deals into existence. Hillary Clinton is shrewd & ruthless, she's corporate America personified, but she's also damaged goods do to the email scandal. If by some miracle Trump wins the GOP nomination, watch for corporate America to start funding Hillary's campaign big time.

Joe Biden: Joe is one of the most likable politicians out there, but he is also damaged goods. As much as I like Obama, he has the worst GDP growth rate of any President since the Great Depression (averaged 1.2), only being bested by Herbert Hoover. That's a hard sell for an American public that wants pay raises and extra spending cash in their pocket. So if Al Gore couldn't do it with 3.8 GDP, its hard to imagine Joe winning with 1.2

BTW: Next to Hoover, Obama & Truman, Bush 1 & 2 have the worst GDP records so you don't want another one of those in office again either.

Bernie Sanders: Like Trump Sanders is riding a populous wave, but the DNC doesn't want him to win the nomination, liberal elites have already invested their dollars in Hillary, and many feel he is unelectable because he's an unabashed socialist.

Theoretically he would be the best thing for the working class, unlike Obama he wouldn't hesitate to implement a massive Paul krugman like stimulus.

The problem with Bernie Sanders is that in order for his economic plan to be successful, democrats would have to win both the house and senate like FDR did, and that scenario is unlikely.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 10-02-2015, 10:33 PM

no offense dude but you seem to be under the false impression that the economy has a lot to do with who is president

clinton was lucky to be prez in the 90's. if bush was prez in the 90's you'd see similar results. same with obama.

the economy is mostly a matter of circumstance... not saying a prez can't help or hurt the situation. but the reason obama has bad numbers is cause he became president when he did. overall, his economic policies are hardly even that different from bush, or clinton for that matter.

ironically enough a lot of the growth in the 90's was a part of the same boom that eventually went bust in 2007, leading to obama's abysmal numbers. a lot of that was due to downright poor/dishonest business practices... which extend all the way back to the 90s economy from which they sprang.

The Batlord · 10-02-2015, 10:36 PM

well said.

William_the_Bloody · 10-02-2015, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

no offense dude but you seem to be under the false impression that the economy has a lot to do with who is president

clinton was lucky to be prez in the 90's. if bush was prez in the 90's you'd see similar results. same with obama.

the economy is mostly a matter of circumstance... not saying a prez can't help or hurt the situation. but the reason obama has bad numbers is cause he became president when he did. overall, his economic policies are hardly even that different from bush, or clinton for that matter.

ironically enough a lot of the growth in the 90's was a part of the same boom that eventually went bust in 2007, leading to obama's abysmal numbers. a lot of that was due to downright poor/dishonest business practices... which extend all the way back to the 90s economy from which they sprang.

The boom in the 90's went bust in 2000 when the Nasdaq bubble burst, but anyways your right to an extent, the federal reserve largely determines the economic direction of the country, but Presidents can steer the direction through various polices, economic stimulus, monetary contraction, tax cuts, hikes, industrial policy, trade agreements, & social programs ect.

I feel that if Obama had passed a much larger stimulus as advocated by prominent economists we would be in a lot better shape than we are now.

It's the perception that matters though, if the people feel that a President or his chosen successor isn't handling the economy well, than they're usually not re-elected. Otherwise I would be all for Biden.

Anyways I'm just writing for my own therapy, pondering politics helps me relax, take everything with a grain of salt.

10-02-2015, 10:38 AM	#24 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	We're trying but the NRA paints any type of restriction at all as a forceful removal of arms from the good workin folk of America who need it for hunting and to execute the alarmingly high number of people that try to break into their homes. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

10-02-2015, 10:33 PM	#28 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	no offense dude but you seem to be under the false impression that the economy has a lot to do with who is president clinton was lucky to be prez in the 90's. if bush was prez in the 90's you'd see similar results. same with obama. the economy is mostly a matter of circumstance... not saying a prez can't help or hurt the situation. but the reason obama has bad numbers is cause he became president when he did. overall, his economic policies are hardly even that different from bush, or clinton for that matter. ironically enough a lot of the growth in the 90's was a part of the same boom that eventually went bust in 2007, leading to obama's abysmal numbers. a lot of that was due to downright poor/dishonest business practices... which extend all the way back to the 90s economy from which they sprang. Last edited by John Wilkes Booth; 10-02-2015 at 10:43 PM.

10-02-2015, 12:36 AM	#23 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	So I believe in Americans right to bear arms, it's in your culture & it's not my business to lecture another country on how to run theirs, but... and here's the big but. You really, really, really need to start doing some serious background checks on people who have a history of depression and mental illness, and deny them the right to a firearm. I'm not saying they'll get a gun by other means, but it may make it a mass slaughter a little less accessible for them.

10-02-2015, 09:12 PM	#26 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i'm honestly confused... cause it seems like if anything these are the types of gun crimes where the criminal is going to be willing to do whatever it takes to get a gun currently they get them legally, which is atrocious and obviously i'd agree with background checks but i'm very skeptical that even if you could prevent every nutjob from getting a gun legally, that they wouldn't be willing to score them illegally to go on their spree. i mean we are talking about suicidal/homicidal mental cases... right? don't get me wrong i'd love if we put background checks into place and it did prevent these shootings. but logistically it just sounds absurd to me. like the guy is dedicated enough to kill himself but not dedicated to wander into the wrong side of town looking for a gun with the numbers scratched off, just like drug dealers do every single day. like i said i'd support the background checks, even so. i just doubt that would really stop it. i mean the examples he gave of countries which have eliminated this problem... england, australia..? lol, they go a bit beyond "background checks," don't they?

10-02-2015, 10:05 PM	#27 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Although I'm not a socialist, I sadly agree with this, the media is already pumping up Biden as Hillary's alternative. It's looking a bit rough for the democrats: (In a writing mood) Hillary Clinton: To have the Clinton economic team back in the white house (though they had influence under Obama) would be great for the economy, if history tells us anything. Bill Clinton had one of the highest GDP growth rates (averaged 3.8) since the Great Depression, those old enough to remember the 90's remember that they were good times; the western world has pretty much been in a funk since 2001. On the flip side, Clinton was a "wall street" democrat and a liberal idealist who signed the trade agreement with China that has cost the US close to 3 million manufacturing jobs, while doing dick all to putting China on the road to democracy. Not to mention he signed NAFTA into exsistance, and implemented neo friendly policies like loosening restrictions for the big banks. Expect the same from Hillary, she'll sign the TPP & other free trade deals into existence. Hillary Clinton is shrewd & ruthless, she's corporate America personified, but she's also damaged goods do to the email scandal. If by some miracle Trump wins the GOP nomination, watch for corporate America to start funding Hillary's campaign big time. Joe Biden: Joe is one of the most likable politicians out there, but he is also damaged goods. As much as I like Obama, he has the worst GDP growth rate of any President since the Great Depression (averaged 1.2), only being bested by Herbert Hoover. That's a hard sell for an American public that wants pay raises and extra spending cash in their pocket. So if Al Gore couldn't do it with 3.8 GDP, its hard to imagine Joe winning with 1.2 BTW: Next to Hoover, Obama & Truman, Bush 1 & 2 have the worst GDP records so you don't want another one of those in office again either. Bernie Sanders: Like Trump Sanders is riding a populous wave, but the DNC doesn't want him to win the nomination, liberal elites have already invested their dollars in Hillary, and many feel he is unelectable because he's an unabashed socialist. Theoretically he would be the best thing for the working class, unlike Obama he wouldn't hesitate to implement a massive Paul krugman like stimulus. The problem with Bernie Sanders is that in order for his economic plan to be successful, democrats would have to win both the house and senate like FDR did, and that scenario is unlikely.