American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[amusingduck]

Thought this was interesting

[Jimbeaux]

amusingduck said:

Thought this was interesting

The only mystery here is whether it was a Sanders or Clinton supporter that did this.

[rscott]

Jimbeaux said:

The only mystery here is whether it was a Sanders or Clinton supporter that did this.

Could it not simply have been someone who really doesn't like Trump?

[amusingduck]

rscott said:

Jimbeaux said:

The only mystery here is whether it was a Sanders or Clinton supporter that did this.

Could it not simply have been someone who really doesn't like Trump?

Maybe someone just wanted to 'Correct the record'

[Jimbeaux]

rscott said:

Jimbeaux said:

The only mystery here is whether it was a Sanders or Clinton supporter that did this.

Could it not simply have been someone who really doesn't like Trump?

Yes, which would very likely fall into one of those categories I mentioned.

[unrepentant]

rscott said:

Could it not simply have been someone who really doesn't like Trump?

That's 70% of the country, so pick one of 225 million!

[Sam All]

unrepentant said:

rscott said:

Could it not simply have been someone who really doesn't like Trump?

That's 70% of the country, so pick one of 225 million!

So it could be Hilary - she is accustomed to shenanigans

[scherzkeks]

Jimbeaux said:

FDR made one work for their government assistance. The (mostly) youngsters who support Sanders want free everything

Oh, come on now, Jim. It is difficult to have a discussion when one professes to believe this sort of thing. It is on par with those calling Trump "the next Hitler."

[Jimbeaux]

scherzkeks said:

Jimbeaux said:

FDR made one work for their government assistance. The (mostly) youngsters who support Sanders want free everything

Oh, come on now, Jim. It is difficult to have a discussion when one professes to believe this sort of thing. It is on par with those calling Trump "the next Hitler."

1) Make all public unis 100% free: By taxing the "wealthy" and some Wall Street transactions. Punish the wealthy for success. This can in no way pay the 70 Billion he says it would cost, not to mention many businesses will go "off shore".

2) Wants to Break up large banks: Those are private corporations, who/what is next?

3) Wants to raise taxes for those making over $250,000 a year, progressively up to 52%. Why not a flat tax and all income brackets would pay the same percentage based upon their wealth?

I will say that Mrs. Clinton's take on these issues are far more centric.

(Source PBS News hour)

[Halb]

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

What if you began a small business that, over the years, decades, etc was built up to be mega-large. Should you or your children, etc have it taken away because you "managed to do a bit too well" for yourselves? Just another point of view.

[unrepentant]

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

What if you began a small business that, over the years, decades, etc was built up to be mega-large. Should you or your children, etc have it taken away because you "managed to do a bit too well" for yourselves? Just another point of view.

Yeah, because JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Bank of America are all family businesses.

Nobody has suggested breaking up family companies, typical right wing BS. Although maybe an exception should be made in the case of Walmart which has done incalculable damage to thousands of other smaller businesses and continues to leech off the state by paying its workers poverty wages that mean they often have to claim benefits to reach subsistence levels. All this while making $14 billion in profits. One family still own a majority of shares and have full control.

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

What if you began a small business that, over the years, decades, etc was built up to be mega-large. Should you or your children, etc have it taken away because you "managed to do a bit too well" for yourselves? Just another point of view.

Yeah, because JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Bank of America are all family businesses.

Nobody has suggested breaking up family companies, typical right wing BS. Although maybe an exception should be made in the case of Walmart which has done incalculable damage to thousands of other smaller businesses and continues to leech of the state by paying its workers poverty wages that mean they often have to claim benefits from the state to reach subsistence levels. All this while making $14 billion in profits. One family still own a majority of shares and have full control.

Either way, how does one justify punishing a business for being too successful? Does not matter either way. Sanders is out. Clinton, contrary to what she says, is owned by big banks and will do nothing more than lip service to breaking them up. Since her base's main source of information is limited by choice to a smart phone, social media, and a 30 second attention span, they'll never know she lied.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 23 June 17:11

[unrepentant]

Jimbeaux said:

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

What if you began a small business that, over the years, decades, etc was built up to be mega-large. Should you or your children, etc have it taken away because you "managed to do a bit too well" for yourselves? Just another point of view.

Yeah, because JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Bank of America are all family businesses.

Nobody has suggested breaking up family companies, typical right wing BS. Although maybe an exception should be made in the case of Walmart which has done incalculable damage to thousands of other smaller businesses and continues to leech of the state by paying its workers poverty wages that mean they often have to claim benefits from the state to reach subsistence levels. All this while making $14 billion in profits. One family still own a majority of shares and have full control.

Either way, how does one justify punishing a business for being too successful? Does not matter either way. Sanders is out. Clinton, contrary to what she says, is owned by big banks and will do nothing more than lip service to breaking them up. Since her base's main source of information is limited by choice to a smart phone, social media, and a 30 second attention span, they'll never know she lied.

Err.... JP Morgan Chase - bailed out to the tune of $25 billion by the US taxpayer in 2008.

BOA - Also $25 billion.

UB - Just the $6.6 billion.

Too successful? Really.

You forgot to mention that HRC used to be a director of Walmart. Slipping.

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

The banks things sounds like something I could be on board with. Individuals and corporations shouldn't have such huge financial power over millions/billions.

What if you began a small business that, over the years, decades, etc was built up to be mega-large. Should you or your children, etc have it taken away because you "managed to do a bit too well" for yourselves? Just another point of view.

Yeah, because JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Bank of America are all family businesses.

Nobody has suggested breaking up family companies, typical right wing BS. Although maybe an exception should be made in the case of Walmart which has done incalculable damage to thousands of other smaller businesses and continues to leech of the state by paying its workers poverty wages that mean they often have to claim benefits from the state to reach subsistence levels. All this while making $14 billion in profits. One family still own a majority of shares and have full control.

Either way, how does one justify punishing a business for being too successful? Does not matter either way. Sanders is out. Clinton, contrary to what she says, is owned by big banks and will do nothing more than lip service to breaking them up. Since her base's main source of information is limited by choice to a smart phone, social media, and a 30 second attention span, they'll never know she lied.

Err.... JP Morgan Chase - bailed out to the tune of $25 billion by the US taxpayer in 2008.

BOA - Also $25 billion.

UB - Just the $6.6 billion.

Too successful? Really.

You forgot to mention that HRC used to be a director of Walmart. Slipping.

They should have been allowed to fail. My point is, let business alone, if it fails, let it fail, if it is successful, don't punish it.

[unrepentant]

Jimbeaux said:

They should have been allowed to fail. My point is, let business alone, if it fails, let it fail, if it is successful, don't punish it.

That's the whole point. You can't let a big bank fail. The collateral damage is too great. If Chase or BOA went bust the economy would suffer colossal damage. Therefore you have to ensure that no bank is "too big to fail".

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

They should have been allowed to fail. My point is, let business alone, if it fails, let it fail, if it is successful, don't punish it.

That's the whole point. You can't let a big bank fail. The collateral damage is too great. If Chase or BOA went bust the economy would suffer colossal damage. Therefore you have to ensure that no bank is "too big to fail".

Fine, now what is the advantage to breaking it up? Prevent what happened before maybe? OK, that still is punishing success. What about big banks in Germany, the UK, etc. Will breaking US banks apart not limit their ability to compete worldwide on large scale lending/investment abilities? Genuine question.

[longblackcoat]

Jimbeaux said:

Fine, now what is the advantage to breaking it up? Prevent what happened before maybe? OK, that still is punishing success. What about big banks in Germany, the UK, etc. Will breaking US banks apart not limit their ability to compete worldwide on large scale lending/investment abilities? Genuine question.

Breaking them up might limit them, yes. So there's a real choice - either leave them "too big to fail" and able to dominate the world banking landscape but accept you'll have to rescue them in extremis, or break them up and let them fail as needed. Not an easy decision - both have disadvantages.

[Jimbeaux]

longblackcoat said:

Jimbeaux said:

Fine, now what is the advantage to breaking it up? Prevent what happened before maybe? OK, that still is punishing success. What about big banks in Germany, the UK, etc. Will breaking US banks apart not limit their ability to compete worldwide on large scale lending/investment abilities? Genuine question.

Breaking them up might limit them, yes. So there's a real choice - either leave them "too big to fail" and able to dominate the world banking landscape but accept you'll have to rescue them in extremis, or break them up and let them fail as needed. Not an easy decision - both have disadvantages.

Valid points, thanks. I believe leaning to the side of free market would tip the scales for me. Leave them alone and able to compete worldwide and hope they learned enough not to need rescuing again.

[London424]

So come on nostradamus (unrepentent) how much did you lose on the vote?