Who will be the next election Presidents of the USA?

Don't know who will run but I hope its a real American. One that can create jobs, restore confidence, cut entitlements, make the nation energy dependent, start exporting oil, allow businesses and the nation to grow, actually cut the debt and not double it, cap inflation that is in the near future and be a leader. Don't care if its a Dem or Rep as long as those goals are accomplished. I work to hard for another 6 years like we've had. Near half our nation receives some type of entitlement. That's a problem both economically and socially. When you can sit at home and watch Springer and receive a check every month why work? When you're health care is subsidized by your neighbor.. why work? This nation has become lazy and too busy looking for someone else's back to jump on... We need a president with experience in the private sector and a lot of luck to turn this a round.

"Nearly half the country receives some type of entitlement ?"

Of course they do, silly. This is American and though you may have some romantic image of a hard working people only interested in fair treatment from their government , you are wrong. All Americans have their hand out for some sort of entitlement if only because another person, another type of institution, another company, the neighbor next door etc. gets one. I certainly get one ! I've got several and I am entitled to them. The school system that I work for gets them. Every company that I've worked for gets them. ( Despite whining about the corporate tax rate but paying little or none of it.)

Don't you ? Don't you get your little piece of someone else's tax money ? You see, Americans are absolutely brilliant at gaming the system. We are EXPECTED to game the system. Get with the program, fella ! Forget your image of the welfare slacker and instead look in the mirror. And then talk to your accountant about what you have to do to advance to the status of real entitlements.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

Don't know who will run but I hope its a real American.

Unlike me. I hope it's a fake american. I want a fake american as president. Preferably a cardboard cutout.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

One that can create jobs, restore confidence, cut entitlements, make the nation energy dependent, start exporting oil, allow businesses and the nation to grow, actually cut the debt and not double it, cap inflation that is in the near future and be a leader.

I one a leader who will eliminate jobs, skyrocket the unemployment rate, decimate confidence--if everyone isn't despondent after his first year he's a failure--, make the US dependent on the rest of the world for everything, shrink businesses and the nation (we do have a lot of shitty states we could jettison after all), increase the debt, and preside over runaway hyperinflation!

Talk about an exciting administration!

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

Don't care if its a Dem or Rep as long as those goals are accomplished. I work to hard for another 6 years like we've had.

I care. I hope it's the one I like who does it, because then I'll feel special and I'll overlook all the things he or she has done that I would hate if it were done by the other party, because I'm a tribal fool willing to whitewash my principles so long as my team wins.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

Near half our nation receives some type of entitlement.

No, it's near 100%, as it should be. We're all entitled to police "protection," no? National "defense?" A "fair" and "impartial" judiciary?

Haha, just kidding, we have few of those things, though we do certainly have the promise of them.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

That's a problem both economically and socially

Wait, what? The problem is that the government gives people things they request?

Um...what is the purpose of a government, if not to give people goods and services that they demand/require?

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

When you can sit at home and watch Springer and receive a check every month why work?

Ah, I see you're completely unfamiliar with the unemployment system. (You can't do nothing and collect for an extended period of time. Your lifetime benefits are capped and you must be actively looking for work to receive benefits, and those benefits are based upon the amount of work you have performed in the last handful of years.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

When you're health care is subsidized by your neighbor.. why work?

Because you need things in life other than healthcare.

Like, you know, food. And shelter. And transportation. And clothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

This nation has become lazy and too busy looking for someone else's back to jump on... We need a president with experience in the private sector and a lot of luck to turn this a round.

Well, you're sort of right. There are a lot of lazy people, and we shouldn't tolerate this bullshit. For example, this nation is full of people too lazy to learn the language. Some grown people, for example, butcher the proper usages of "too," "to," and "two." They were too lazy to learn the differences between "your" and "you're." Why should people who have shown an inability to even grasp the one tool we use to communicate our thoughts be afforded an opportunity to judge others?

Or something.

I'm not sure where I'm going here.

The biggest problem with the US political state I think is that you only have two political parties that try to destroy each other with tax payers and on and off political projects.

I say we need to go a different direction than the usual same shit here in the USA ....... so I nominate Lindsay Lohan to run for President ....... and Justin Bieber can run for Grand Poohbah or whatever you called it in Canada !!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

...has to be JEB BUSH, former Gov of Florida...!

Quote:

Originally posted by Lia

... I would like to see Condalezza Rice run for President, she is knowledgeable and would be a good candidate for the office.

She was done when she was:

A) Born female - Republicans don't vote for women.
B) Black - Are you kidding me? She's an exception that the GOP tolerates. They're not fans. Ask Colin Powell.
C) Shot herself in the foot by becoming Dumbyass's only go-to person left, and not calling him on his bullshit.

She's not going to be President. Not now, not ever. Her name doesn't even come up in conversations about it.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

actually cut the debt and not double it, cap inflation that is in the near future

Uh... The debt is something that really only matters to the mega-wealthy that make money by trading commodities in foreign currencies. Beyond that, our debt is actually not out of control, despite the rampant complaints otherwise. We're on par with historic debts, and especially debts of other modern economic powers. It's amazing to me how many people that are completely unaffected by and uneducated about what the debt actually is are so terrified of it, and don't understand it.

It's really not a mom and pop problem. That's something that mom and pop drop-out have been spoon fed by the mega-rich to try to scare them so that the Koch brothers can make another dishonest billion or two off of fear and disinformation to the educationally impoverished.

The debt might, a little bit, affect currency rates and thus might cause a bit of inflation if not kept in check, but that tide ebbs and flows over time regardless.

To that point, you mentioned that we need to cap inflation... Um... Dude, what home-school teacher taught you math? Inflation averages somewhere around 4% per year over time for even the most efficient nations in the world. Currently the US is experiencing 1.5% inflation which is lower than almost any other modern nation on Earth, which then works such that the value of our currency actually rises.

We have 1.5% inflation, but most other modern countries have inflation rates that are higher. We're actually gaining on the rest of the world right now.

PS: Never, ever, under any circumstance, is 1.5% inflation considered "rampant."

Shut off the Stupidity Channel, otherwise known as Faux News.

Think for yourself - don't just regurgitate the shit that Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers tell you. Bad news: They're NOT your friend.

Stop being afraid of the boogey man, and learn something about him. You just might find out that he's not real.

Quote:

Originally posted by pitch19

cut entitlements... Near half our nation receives some type of entitlement. That's a problem both economically and socially. When you can sit at home and watch Springer and receive a check every month why work? When you're health care is subsidized by your neighbor.. why work? This nation has become lazy and too busy looking for someone else's back to jump on... We need a president with experience in the private sector and a lot of luck to turn this a round.

This deserved a reply all unto itself, because it is ironic to me that the sheep is bleeting about not being slaughtered fast enough.

"Half the country" I presume is a reference to all the "takers" and the "47%" that was brought up during the last election.

Again, stop regurgitating propaganda laid by the very people who want to exploit you.

Let's take a quick look at who the 47% actually are. Ask yourself these questions:

Are you over 65? If so, you're a taker. Your tax reduction for being elderly makes you a taker. Note that this isn't a very large reduction, it's a slightly lower percentage on tax rates that is given to folks of retirement age so that they can afford to buy food and keep their homes - maybe. As though that tax break compensates for the exploitative costs of medical care in the United States (pills that cost $100 per month alone outweigh this tax benefit).

Do you make less than $50,000 per year, have a job, and a child? If so, you're a taker. You get a tax break (not elimination of tax, but again a slightly lower percentage of tax) to help offset the cost of medicine, clothing, and daycare.

Are you an employed person with three or more family members who makes less than $27,000 per year? If so, you get a slightly lower tax rate so that your whole family doesn't starve and turn into a bunch of criminals. If you're an EMPLOYED member of a household and make less than 27k a year because Wal-Mart knows they can fuck you out of the last 8 hours of work each week to keep you at part time, you're a taker.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the armed forces? If so, you receive benefits in the form of "if you're about to die, I suppose we'll cover your pain medication." It's really not much more than that. If you're a current or former member of the armed forces, you're a taker.

If you retired from the armed forces after 20 or more years of service in the military, you're a taker.

Were you ever deployed in a combat zone? If so, your pay was tax exempt. Clearly you're a lazy-ass taker.

Are you a retired policeman? If so, you get a government subsidized pension. You're a taker.

A retired fireman? Bend over, bitch. Stop taking my money, start taking my cock.

A retired teacher? Same thing. Taker.

A retired government worker that invested money their entire life into the government retirement plan so that you could continue to pay your bills when you retired after 35 years of loyal, dedicated, thankless work serving the people?

Taker.

I have a friend that was 19 when his father died. Social Security gave him a $500 check from his father's money paid into social security. He'd paid much more into it than $500 of course, but the kid was 19 - over the age of dependency. He used the $500 to help pay for his father's funeral. Guess what he is. He's a taker.

Have you ever, for any reason, even just once, filed for unemployment? If so - you're a taker.

Have you ever received government assistance to pay for food? Even just once? You're a taker.

Are you disabled in any way, and if so do you receive some sort of government care or assistance for your disability? If so, go pick my cotton you fucking taker.

My cousin served in the Marines. He got injured during a training exercise and blew out his knee. He now receives about $160 monthly for not being able to walk, jump, run, or lift objects over 35 pounds. He was also discharged from the military. He's a taker.

Are you a minor whose parent died, and you subsequently receive some pittance of their former income to help pay the bills, keep you in school, feed you, and hopefully one day pay enough to cover 10% of the tuition at your local community college provided you make good grades? I hate these people. They're such fucking takers.

Do you now, or will you EVER, receive social security benefits?

This is one more case where ignorance is frightening.

If you have EVER fallen into any one of the above categories (and many others I did not list), you're not complaining about the problem; you ARE the problem.

Bad news: Mitt Romney wasn't talking TO you. Mitt Romney was talking ABOUT you.

If you want to know who actually doesn't pay any taxes, despite having the capacity to do so (being one of the ten wealthiest entities on the planet), perhaps you should prey on it a little bit.

That's not a typ-o, that's an intentional play on words. One of the largest tax breaks in the history of human-kind does indeed exist in the United States, and it goes to a group of people that have, literally, more money than God. Or at least about the same amount.

Taraquin
I receive no entitlements, I work everyday as a teacher at a college, I own my own studio where I teach Tae Kwon Do, Judo, and Kendo, I have both Law and Deviate Psychology degrees. I have minors in both Political Science, and Constitutional Law, and if you want to discuss political possibilities and how to achieve them I am more than willing to have the discussion with you.
Condalezza Rice would be good choice for the office if you were not prejudiced against the idea of a black women running for the office.

Lia

Quote:

Originally posted by Lia

Taraquin
I receive no entitlements, I work everyday as a teacher at a college, I own my own studio where I teach Tae Kwon Do, Judo, and Kendo, I have both Law and Deviate Psychology degrees. I have minors in both Political Science, and Constitutional Law, and if you want to discuss political possibilities and how to achieve them I am more than willing to have the discussion with you.
Condalezza Rice would be good choice for the office if you were not prejudiced against the idea of a black women running for the office.

Lia

Since we're exchanging credentials, I too am a teacher. I received my master's at one of the top 50 universities where I received a 4.98 GPA and earned my masters in one academic year.

I'm certified as highly qualified in the state with the toughest teaching standards in the US. I'm also certified to teach gifted and talented as well as special ed.

My undergrads are in Political Science and History.

About a year ago I gave up on being a teacher, and you'd shit yourself if you knew what I did for a living now.

There, now we can both look pompous. I didn't want you to feel all alone.



Perhaps you should revisit some of your basic education however, as it seems that literacy was not your strong suit.

I never discussed my personal voting preferences or voting habits.

I said that "Republicans don't vote for women. Republicans don't vote for blacks."

That's not my opinion, that's demonstrable reality. That's especially true when the two are combined.

Whether or not she would be a good President is another discussion altogether, Lia. Whether or not she'd be a good candidate is an easy conversation to have - she wouldn't be a good candidate.

She's not extreme enough to bring the tea baggers in. She's not moderate enough (at least in most people's perceptions - largely thanks to her association with Bush Jr.) to appeal to moderates within her own party - she'd never make it past a primary, which is probably why she hasn't ran. For that matter, she hasn't even been discussed.

There's a reason for that.

Even if she somehow miracled herself through a primary and got her party's nomination, those same issues would plague her in a General election, except that she'd be further divided by the fact that Republicans currently have an all-time low approval rating (even among undecideds and indeed, registered Republicans) and are out-numbered by Democrats by a significant amount.

Would she be a good President? That's a good conversation to have. If you'd like to have that conversation, feel free to initiate it. That's not the discussion in this thread, however. The question asked - and the answer I gave - was that she wouldn't be able to become President.

And she won't.

Not now.

Not ever.

Cope.

PS: You said you're a teacher. If you ever plan to draw on that retirement you've been paying into, you are indeed a "taker." According to Mitt and the folks that thought he was right, at least.

I love how opinions masquerade as fact in these threads.

It's not worth arguing about with an immature extremist, you have no idea of that which you speak. Your profile says that you are an eighteen year old male, I am convinced that is correct if you are eighteen at all, You are nothing but a miserable little troll, and I refuse to have an exchange with you. I have been here for years and refuse to put up with someone like you......

Lia

There's too many big words for my brain here All I know everybody take and nobody wants to give.

PS. Dat ass is plenty distracting. I like it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Lia

It's not worth arguing about with an extremist, you have no idea of that which you speak.......
Lia

Well said Lia!
She is one that want's to argue everything & type paragraphs of crap. One of my personal favorites is "if you are collecting your retirement, then you are receiving entitlements"
Last I checked I pay into my retirement & invest for MY future.
These type of people just want to group everyone together to try and justify or make a stronger point....FAIL

Quote:

Originally posted by Lia

Taraquin
Condalezza Rice would be good choice for the office if you were not prejudiced against the idea of a black women running for the office.
Lia

That's a pretty bold statement that implies that if you aren't a fan of Condoleeza Rice, it must be because you are prejudiced against a black woman being president.

I don't think she would be a good choice because I don't agree with her political viewpoints. And I don't think she's really a good candidate because she was fully entrenched with the George W administration that was divisive and is still off-putting to a lot of potential voters. I don't think that moderates will go along with her, and I think the GOP is learning now that trying to appeal to the far right isn't going to work going forward.

I think Tarquin goes a bit far in his statement that republicans don't vote for black people or women, but I think you have to admit that there's a little bit of truth to that. It's an over-generalization, but you have to admit that that makes it an uphill battle to win the nomination in the GOP. Probably as a democrat as well.

Careful, Kyle.

Talking sense like that around these parts means you're an immature, racist, extremist according to people who apparently don't know what those words mean.

And yes, certainly some Republicans will vote for blacks or women, but there's a significant disparity within the party. I never meant to assert that no Republican ever on the planet voted for a black, a woman or both. I meant that by-and-large, blacks and women are not generally chosen by large swaths of the GOP ranks. There are in fact, a large number of Republicans that will not vote for a black or a female.

This simply adds to the other reasons that Rice isn't a viable candidate, and probably never will be.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

This simply adds to the other reasons that Rice isn't a viable candidate, and probably never will be.

Honestly, I'm generally pretty spent on threads like this that just devolve into what this thread is devolving into, so I haven't read most of these posts all that carefully. But the post from Lia that I saw said that Rice would be a good choice for office, rather than her viability as a candidate.

Those are two different things.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

Honestly, I'm generally pretty spent on threads like this that just devolve into what this thread is devolving into, so I haven't read most of these posts all that carefully. But the post from Lia that I saw said that Rice would be a good choice for office, rather than her viability as a candidate.

Those are two different things.

Fair enough. I suppose there are two ways to interpret what she wrote. One way would be, "I would like to see CR be a good candidate."

The confusion comes in because - and this is pedantic but this is also why grammar matters - it's a grammatically incorrect sentence, if indeed that's what she was trying to say.

" ... I would like to see Condalezza Rice run for President, she is knowledgeable and would be a good candidate for the office."

Punctuation matters. In this case, this is two thoughts in one sentence. "I would like to see CR run because she is knowledgeable. I would like to see CR run because she would be a good candidate."

I agree with the first assertion. The second assertion just isn't true.

It's entirely possible that Lia meant she wanted Rice to be a good candidate. Truth be told, I want Rice to be a good candidate too. We went to the same school and we share a lot of the same beliefs.

But the question of the thread is "Who WILL be the next President?"

Not, "Who do you WANT as the next President?"

Couple the sentence construction with the topic that's actually being discussed and I think it's pretty easy to see why I read what was written instead of what she may (or may not) have intended to write.

I certainly can see how Lia may have meant to write that she wants CR to be a good candidate. I want that too. Rice is in fact, not a good candidate, but I'd like it if she were a good candidate too.

I still never said anything racist. I also never said anything extremist. I certainly am not immature. By the way, "Deviate Psychology" isn't a real degree. Deviant Psychology is a real degree. Spelling counts. Grammar counts. Especially in Deviant Psychology or Political Science, among other fields of study.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

This deserved a reply all unto itself, because it is ironic to me that the sheep is bleeting about not being slaughtered fast enough.

"Half the country" I presume is a reference to all the "takers" and the "47%" that was brought up during the last election.

Again, stop regurgitating propaganda laid by the very people who want to exploit you.

Let's take a quick look at who the 47% actually are. Ask yourself these questions:

Are you over 65? If so, you're a taker. Your tax reduction for being elderly makes you a taker. Note that this isn't a very large reduction, it's a slightly lower percentage on tax rates that is given to folks of retirement age so that they can afford to buy food and keep their homes - maybe. As though that tax break compensates for the exploitative costs of medical care in the United States (pills that cost $100 per month alone outweigh this tax benefit).

Do you make less than $50,000 per year, have a job, and a child? If so, you're a taker. You get a tax break (not elimination of tax, but again a slightly lower percentage of tax) to help offset the cost of medicine, clothing, and daycare.

Are you an employed person with three or more family members who makes less than $27,000 per year? If so, you get a slightly lower tax rate so that your whole family doesn't starve and turn into a bunch of criminals. If you're an EMPLOYED member of a household and make less than 27k a year because Wal-Mart knows they can fuck you out of the last 8 hours of work each week to keep you at part time, you're a taker.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the armed forces? If so, you receive benefits in the form of "if you're about to die, I suppose we'll cover your pain medication." It's really not much more than that. If you're a current or former member of the armed forces, you're a taker.

If you retired from the armed forces after 20 or more years of service in the military, you're a taker.

Were you ever deployed in a combat zone? If so, your pay was tax exempt. Clearly you're a lazy-ass taker.

Are you a retired policeman? If so, you get a government subsidized pension. You're a taker.

A retired fireman? Bend over, bitch. Stop taking my money, start taking my cock.

A retired teacher? Same thing. Taker.

A retired government worker that invested money their entire life into the government retirement plan so that you could continue to pay your bills when you retired after 35 years of loyal, dedicated, thankless work serving the people?

Taker.

I have a friend that was 19 when his father died. Social Security gave him a $500 check from his father's money paid into social security. He'd paid much more into it than $500 of course, but the kid was 19 - over the age of dependency. He used the $500 to help pay for his father's funeral. Guess what he is. He's a taker.

Have you ever, for any reason, even just once, filed for unemployment? If so - you're a taker.

Have you ever received government assistance to pay for food? Even just once? You're a taker.

Are you disabled in any way, and if so do you receive some sort of government care or assistance for your disability? If so, go pick my cotton you fucking taker.

My cousin served in the Marines. He got injured during a training exercise and blew out his knee. He now receives about $160 monthly for not being able to walk, jump, run, or lift objects over 35 pounds. He was also discharged from the military. He's a taker.

Are you a minor whose parent died, and you subsequently receive some pittance of their former income to help pay the bills, keep you in school, feed you, and hopefully one day pay enough to cover 10% of the tuition at your local community college provided you make good grades? I hate these people. They're such fucking takers.

Do you now, or will you EVER, receive social security benefits?

This is one more case where ignorance is frightening.

If you have EVER fallen into any one of the above categories (and many others I did not list), you're not complaining about the problem; you ARE the problem.

Bad news: Mitt Romney wasn't talking TO you. Mitt Romney was talking ABOUT you.

I'm none of those... like I said. After reading you boast about once being an educator it made sense. You've never worked in the real world. You spend all your time reading about what other people accomplished instead of getting out and doing something. National debt doesn't just relate to the "mega rich" and I never said inflation was rapidly growing currently. Read before answering or get a refund from your "top 50" college. Of course I will receive S.S. how is that an entitlement?? I'll never get what I put in and I would have made 10 times more if I had gotten the chance to invest it!!! Get away from the academia world and be pro-active. I have a finance degree and was lucky enough to have some very good professors that understood what made the world go round... but I can tell you aren't one. The old saying is true... Those that can do... Those that can't.. Teach. This doesn't relate to all individuals in the academia field but you sure are a shinning example.
P.S. master's degree's very rarely pay for themselves...