Official 2016 Election Discussion

[Phillyphries]

Surprisingly there are a lot of women who would still vote for him, especially Republican women.

 

As for Rand Paul, I think the only reason he isn't a serious candidate is because he doesn't get screen time. The same thing happened with Ron Paul. They would be given a few questions, most of which absolutely useless or otherwise been answered a million times before. If they had the proper time, I think he could pull off a debate. The sad part of it all though is that the candidate has already been selected; we are just here to watch the inevitable.

 

(good post by the way. I really enjoyed the insight you put into it!)

 

Thanks! That was actually the third time I had to write it, because the reply functions on this forum are still :angry: (hitting backspace by accident... *sigh*)

 

As for republican women voting for Trump: I think we should put in some more factors into this, such as party hard-line voters, that no matter what, they vote for the highest polling candidate party. Other than that, there are women out there, just like men, who probably agree with his stance on "PC" language, but his kind of language is still highly offensive to people. This will eventually hurt him down the line. I'm talking feminist attack ads. I'm talking people protesting in the streets if he gets named as the nominee. At that point, if the majority of Republican women still want him (minus the hard-liners) I'd be surprised.

 

Yeah the main thing killing Paul at the moment is lack of airtime. He was doing quite well late last year and early in the year, until Jeb Bush and Trump announced their candidacies. I'm hoping more candidates start dropping so that the ones that can realistically win will get more airtime. Even Ted Cruz hardly got to speak at the debate.

[roastduck]

This is where charities come in and not the government, the government needs to stay out!  Also Republicans give the most to charity, look it up.  I may be below voting age but I do investigative work and campaign strategics so I know a thing or two about financial disclosure forms

Why shouldn't the government be involved in providing services to its citizens? It already is, considering the USPS and all the utilities regulations (roads, FCC, etc.). Why shouldn't the government also provide for education and healthcare?

[HumbleMobo]

I mean I ain't rich by any means but I'm doing good I'm not like console plebe or anything I'm not poor but you know these people earned the money and they should decide when and where they distribute it by means they see fit!

[roastduck]

Right, I didn't actually know about the charity things, although it makes sense. I'm personally of the belief that government should be involved in supporting lower socioeconomic groups (although I am from Australia, where that's a lot more of a thing, and charities seem to be involved more with overseas work).

In the interest of full disclosure, a lot of donations to registered non-profit organizations and charities in the U.S. (typically with a tax label of 501©3 ) are deductible from taxes to some extent. Very simply stated, if I give $500 to the American Red Cross, I can deduct $500 from my taxes.

Make of this information what you will

[Phillyphries]

Alright, so can we talk about candidates again?

[HumbleMobo]

Why shouldn't the government be involved in providing services to its citizens? It already is, considering the USPS and all the utilities regulations (roads, FCC, etc.). Why shouldn't the government also provide for education and healthcare?

Ok here's where the Dems are dead wrong.  There financials are based off of getting more and more money instead of using what they can get until they are in desperate need.  So in simple terms they believe in, High taxes and high spending and they can only get so much money so to fund what they do they get it from the rich whereas they could do low taxes and low spending which is much more efficient.

[elecxonica]

In the interest of full disclosure, a lot of donations to registered non-profit organizations and charities in the U.S. (typically with a tax label of 501©3 ) are deductible from taxes to some extent. Very simply stated, if I give $500 to the American Red Cross, I can deduct $500 from my taxes.

Make of this information what you will

Right, I believed that to be the case (it's the same here in Australia).

[HumbleMobo]

 

Alright, so can we talk about candidates again?

In a second hold yo chainz yeezus!

 

Wow we're pretty popular now lol, so what Rep candidates do you like? I like Jeb and Kasich but Kasich is more of a, I dunno how to put it...I guess he's good as a candidate but not as a prez imho

[roastduck]

I mean I ain't rich by any means but I'm doing good I'm not like console plebe or anything I'm not poor but you know these people earned the money and they should decide when and where they distribute it by means they see fit!

But a system like that has inherent flaws, which is why financial regulations are needed (otherwise you get more bubbles that burst like the subprime mortgage fiasco in 2008).

[HumbleMobo]

 

But a system like that has inherent flaws, which is why financial regulations are needed (otherwise you get more bubbles that burst like the subprime mortgage fiasco in 2008).

Don't worry my fam lived that and survived but honestly you shouldn't pay higher taxes because you decided to work hard.

 

Oh yeah baby, this topic is so hippity hoppitus freshity fresh that it is hot in the off topic list!

 

btw if you put Reagan and Sebastian together it makes GabeN thus proving Republicans are the master race

[roastduck]

Ok here's where the Dems are dead wrong.  There financials are based off of getting more and more money instead of using what they can get until they are in desperate need.  So in simple terms they believe in, High taxes and high spending and they can only get so much money so to fund what they do they get it from the rich whereas they could do low taxes and low spending which is much more efficient.

Not as simple as that. It's not just about taxing the rich to fund whatever they want. Democrats by and large support programs that help as many people as possible, which means the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. In my state, only 23% of families have an income over $100,000, from Census data adjusted for inflation in 2013. Democrats recognize that 23% can potentially afford to pay just a LITTLE more if it means the other 77% get easier/better access to some service. Needs of the many, etc. Of course, it's not perfect, but much better, in my opinion, than shaping policy in such a way that benefits the 23% more.

[HumbleMobo]

Well I'll see ya'll tomorrow I'm getting tired so lets try and keep this alive

 

 

Not as simple as that. It's not just about taxing the rich to fund whatever they want. Democrats by and large support programs that help as many people as possible, which means the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. In my state, only 23% of families have an income over $100,000, from Census data adjusted for inflation in 2013. Democrats recognize that 23% can potentially afford to pay just a LITTLE more if it means the other 77% get easier/better access to some service. Needs of the many, etc. Of course, it's not perfect, but much better, in my opinion, than shaping policy in such a way that benefits the 23% more.

They are not very helpful

 

They support Planned parenthood instead of organizations that actually help like a CPC heck I volunteer for a CPC we give free sonograms, free cribs, free clothes, free diapers, free toys, free blankets, free counseling, and free parenting classes! Jeb Bush gave us a grant and our governor approved but most of our funding comes from donations from the catholic diocese.

[roastduck]

They are not very helpful

I see you're heading out, but hopefully tomorrow you can come back with something a little more substantive than this.

[HumbleMobo]

I see you're heading out, but hopefully tomorrow you can come back with something a little more substantive than this.

I wasn't done so don't jump to conclusions plus it was in reference to the Dems focusing on organizations that help people when planned parenthood does the opposite!

[roastduck]

They support Planned parenthood instead of organizations that actually help like a CPC heck I volunteer for a CPC we give free sonograms, free cribs, free clothes, free diapers, free toys, free blankets, free counseling, and free parenting classes!  Jeb Bush gave us a grant and our governor approved but most of our funding comes from donations from the catholic diocese.

You think Planned Parenthood doesn't help low-income families?

 

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); Long-acting reversible contraception;^%5B42%5D emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment forsexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

I've personally gone to PP for a cancer screening before. How exactly are any of the services provided by them not helpful?

edit:

 

In 2009, Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services, 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services, 1,830,811 cancer related services, 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services, 332,278 abortion services, and 76,977 other services, for a total of 11,383,900 services.^{%5B10%5D%5B40%5D%5B43%5D%5B44%5D%5B45%5D%5B46%5D} Given that a single patient may receive multiple services, such as a pap smear and contraceptives, it is impossible given publicly available data to accurately determine what percentage each service comprises in the organization's total services.^%5B7%5D The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, and 830,000 breast exams,^{[citation needed]} which makes Planned Parenthood the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services.

Yes, I'm quoting from a Wikipedia article. If you feel like any information is inaccurate, feel free to check the 170 cited sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Services_and_facilities

[HumbleMobo]

They are helpful and don't sling the cancer stuff around because my dad went through cancer and so many other people in my family so I know what that is like but I didn't know they provided that but still I wouldn't go there if my life depended on it. I don't support killing innocent babies and humans are selfish so if you asked someone do you want to live or die they would say live no matter the circumstances.

 

I really have to go now so lets catch up later!

[roastduck]

They are helpful and don't sling the cancer stuff around because my dad went through cancer and so many other people in my family so I know what that is like but I didn't know they provided that but still I wouldn't go there if my life depended on it.  I don't support killing innocent babies and humans are selfish so if you asked someone do you want to live or die they would say live no matter the circumstances.

Abortion is a whole different debate, and not one i'll get into here. I'm sorry your family went through that, but don't think you're the only family who has had to deal with cancer, know what I mean? I'll only go so far to say that we both know how important early detection is, and it's a very significant fraction of PP's activity.

[Salty]

I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE

 

SOOOOOO

 

 

C A N ' T     S T U M P    T H E    T R U M P

A

N

'

T

 

S

T

U

M

P

 

T

H

E

 

T

R

U

M

P

Meanwhile at /pol/

[HumbleMobo]

Abortion is a whole different debate, and not one i'll get into here. I'm sorry your family went through that, but don't think you're the only family who has had to deal with cancer, know what I mean? I'll only go so far to say that we both know how important early detection is, and it's a very significant fraction of PP's activity.

Yeah I understand

[roastduck]

Yeah I understand

Let's both call it a night and hit it again tomorrow with fresh minds and new stats 

[Real_PhillBert]

Rand Paul would be my first choice but he seems to be falling behind.

 

Unfortunately I think Trump is going to get the nomination from the GOP. 

[HumbleMobo]

Rand Paul would be my first choice but he seems to be falling behind.

 

Unfortunately I think Trump is going to get the nomination from the GOP. 

Nah it's the media hype but Jeb is most likely getting the Nomination

[TopWargamer]

I'm leaning more towards Rand Paul, but I'm not sure if he'll financially last.

[HumbleMobo]

I'm leaning more towards Rand Paul, but I'm not sure if he'll financially last.

Probably not

[Real_PhillBert]

Nah it's the media hype but Jeb is most likely getting the Nomination

 

I don't think so, Trump has the money to run an effective third party campaign and has said he will do so if he doesn't get the nomination. I don't think the people who run the GOP are geniuses by any stretch of the imagination but even they know that if Trump runs as an independent, it will split the GOP vote and almost certainly hand the presidency to the democrats.