The Presidential Vote

[Tarheel Baptist]

I can't vote for either major candidate. I just can't ethically do it.

The liberal socialist Democrat candidate platform reflects the beliefs you defend on the forum.

Smellin' talking about ethics!  That's a good one!

In a sincere attempt at being ethical, specifically toward those who are different than I am, is why I cannot vote Republican.

Republicans create jobs, Democrats oppress those that create jobs and those that sweat bleed and crawl up the corporate latter.

Republicans allow employees to be exploited and used without proper safety protection while Democrats protect those that are the backbone of the economy.

Neither statement is really true but both have truth in them and is why neither party has all the answers.

Every time a democrat is in office on the federal level or local I have less and less money in my pocket.

Every time a republican is in office on the federal level or local level I seem to keep more of the money I work for.

Example:
Obamacare.

Before Obamacare I paid $450 a month with a $2,200 deductible. Enter Obamacare, first year it went up to $1,160 a month with a $5,600 deductible. Second year which is this year I pay $1,060 a month with a $10,000 deductible.

Tell me again how a democrat has helped the working families of America again??????????

Obamacare hurt many people but helped many others. There are plenty of kinks to get worked out. People who could not get insurance at all due to medical history now are able to get coverage. Annual physicals, mammograms and child well-care visits are now free. These are important! It was a well-visit to the doctor (before Obamacare) where I discovered I had cancer.

Under some personal umbrellas, things got worse. For others, it got much better. There is much work to be done to get it fixed. This included "free market competition" which your provider, not the plan itself, raised your rates in year 2. So there is tweaking and even a couple of overhauls that might need to be done to help balance this out. This takes time and both parties working together to fix it, rather than both parties fighting each other over its existence.

The Pros and Cons of Obamacare

You say it's not perfect and needs work as if I stumped my toe. Smh

But for the man with Muscular Dystrophy or the lady who had breast cancer in her early 20s , both of whom were previously unable to purchase health insurance, things look better for them.

Blinders must be removed to see the overall picture, not simply how it affects only my situation (which happens to be a Republican method of determination). A long ways to go on it for sure, but it is a first step in the right direction.

What a crock!
They lied, cheated and connived to pass Obamacare (which they now admit) because liberal have to deceive to get their programs passed, because they are idiotic* programs.




* because Smellin loves that word when it references liberal's.

 

[Bruh]

I just want to know: what is a corporate latter?

Maybe it's mean, or perhaps it is actually discernment:  but if someone doesn't know how to spell or doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between one word and another -- doesn't get the nuance implied-- (ladder, as in 'to climb' is just not at all the same as latter meaning 'closer to the end than the beginning'), well, then I tend to dismiss that person's opinion.

Smellin' thinks with his brain and his heart, both of which seem to function well.

For what it's worth


LOL!  I get it.....I post from my iPhone and well....spell check definitely wins more than me.

I also post like I text.

 

[sword]

I can't vote for either major candidate. I just can't ethically do it.

The liberal socialist Democrat candidate platform reflects the beliefs you defend on the forum.

Smellin' talking about ethics!  That's a good one!

In a sincere attempt at being ethical, specifically toward those who are different than I am, is why I cannot vote Republican.

Republicans create jobs, Democrats oppress those that create jobs and those that sweat bleed and crawl up the corporate latter.

Republicans allow employees to be exploited and used without proper safety protection while Democrats protect those that are the backbone of the economy.
Neither statement is really true but both have truth in them and is why neither party has all the answers.

Every time a democrat is in office on the federal level or local I have less and less money in my pocket.

Every time a republican is in office on the federal level or local level I seem to keep more of the money I work for.

Tell me again how a democrat has helped the working families of America again??????????

To be fair and honest, thing were not so good during Bush Sr. term or at the end of Bush Jr. term. Bush Jr spent more money than any president except the current one. Things were very good during and after Reagan and after Clinton. Reagan & Clinton cut taxes & encourage job growth during their presidency and expanded the economy.

(Note: Clinton went on to pass NAFTA & GATT with overwhelming Republican support and cost us an estimated 1.2 million manufacturing jobs.)

TOTALS         DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN
AYE 234 54%     102           132
NO 200 46%     156           43

 

[sword]

I am a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat for president.
I suspect I would have voted for Grover Cleveland, the last of the Conservative Democrats.

That being said I think Bill Clinton, with all his moral failures, would be a better 45th president than the 2 choices we have.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I can't vote for either major candidate. I just can't ethically do it.

The liberal socialist Democrat candidate platform reflects the beliefs you defend on the forum.

Smellin' talking about ethics!  That's a good one!

In a sincere attempt at being ethical, specifically toward those who are different than I am, is why I cannot vote Republican.

Republicans create jobs, Democrats oppress those that create jobs and those that sweat bleed and crawl up the corporate latter.

Republicans allow employees to be exploited and used without proper safety protection while Democrats protect those that are the backbone of the economy.
Neither statement is really true but both have truth in them and is why neither party has all the answers.

Every time a democrat is in office on the federal level or local I have less and less money in my pocket.

Every time a republican is in office on the federal level or local level I seem to keep more of the money I work for.

Tell me again how a democrat has helped the working families of America again??????????

To be fair and honest, thing were not so good during Bush Sr. term or at the end of Bush Jr. term. Bush Jr spent more money than any president except the current one. Things were very good during and after Reagan and after Clinton. Reagan & Clinton cut taxes & encourage job growth during their presidency and expanded the economy.

(Note: Clinton went on to pass NAFTA & GATT with overwhelming Republican support and cost us an estimated 1.2 million manufacturing jobs.)

TOTALS         DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN
AYE 234 54%     102           132
NO 200 46%     156           43

In essence, both major parties are, to quote Mr. Trump, "a disaster!"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I am a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat for president.
I suspect I would have voted for Grover Cleveland, the last of the Conservative Democrats.

That being said I think Bill Clinton, with all his moral failures, would be a better 45th president than the 2 choices we have.

Like you, I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. Not even in primaries.

I won't again in this election.

 

[sword]

I am a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat for president.
I suspect I would have voted for Grover Cleveland, the last of the Conservative Democrats.

That being said I think Bill Clinton, with all his moral failures, would be a better 45th president than the 2 choices we have.

Like you, I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. Not even in primaries.
I won't again in this election.\

Smellin:
I agree with you that Trump was not our best choice for president in the primaries. That being said we have 3 legitimate, viable choices now DEM, REP, or abstain. I do agree both parties are very messed up and the Republicans as a whole have let us down.
BUT:
Considering the 1 vacancy and 3 more justices in their 80's during the next presidential term what issues are so big that they would prevent you from holding your nose and voting for trump. Would he not choose justices more aligned with our values then Clinton? Is that not reason enough.   

 

[Bruh]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

 

[patriotic]

I often wear rose-colored glasses, but I still firmly believe that God can remove both of them from the running, and put into the running one that more closely aligns with the Constitution and policies that made this nation great.

And that's how I pray. 

 

[LongGone]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :

Yes, because it is all about you. Honestly the two strongest economies under presidents that I can remember have been Reagan and Bill Clinton. IMHO they both benefited from the other party controlling congress most of their 8 years so that neither was able to push to an extreme.


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

 

[Twisted]

I often wear rose-colored glasses, but I still firmly believe that God can remove both of them from the running, and put into the running one that more closely aligns with the Constitution and policies that made this nation great.

And that's how I pray.

Rand Paul *WAS* in the running.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

Again, you are short a few facts.
You are not employed because a poor person started your company with his government assistance debit card! Wealthy people and entrepenuaers employ people....Trump for instance.

Hillary, Obama, Reid and Hastert...to name a few politicians....went to Washington 'poor' and became rich thru government wheeling and dealing, selling influence, using their influence for personal gain etc.

By comparison to producers of their own wealth in business, they employ only those who they can pay with gubmit money. Liberal's and RINO's are stingy with their own money and generous with gubmit money...and the gubmit has NO money except what it takes from us!

You do realize that clicking your heels and saying something doesn't make it true, don't you?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

Again, you are short a few facts.
You are not employed because a poor person started your company with his government assistance debit card! Wealthy people and entrepenuaers employ people....Trump for instance.

Hillary, Obama, Reid and Hastert...to name a few politicians....went to Washington 'poor' and became rich thru government wheeling and dealing, selling influence, using their influence for personal gain etc.

By comparison to producers of their own wealth in business, they employ only those who they can pay with gubmit money. Liberal's and RINO's are stingy with their own money and generous with gubmit money...and the gubmit has NO money except what it takes from us!

You do realize that clicking your heels and saying something doesn't make it true, don't you?

You are correct about the politicians. I have never said otherwise. (Look at what the NRA can buy!) But you have to realize also that those "rich getting richer" (depending on the industry) do employ people, but they do so at a minimum. The 'gubmit' is subsidizing corporate CEOs and Wall Street types who will pay their workers just enough to miss being able to apply for food stamps, which is hardly a living wage. All the while, they get richer. And when technology is able to replace a human body, well, the technology wins because it is the cheaper alternative. Why else are big companies having foreign children manufacture their stuff at a quarter a day instead of hiring an American citizen at middle-class wages? Because it cuts into their corporate and personal incomes.

Like I said, BOTH parties and their support bases are complicit. BOTH.

I don't have to click my heels here.

Though it wasn't on this particular subject to which he referred, I agree with Juergen Moltmann and apply it here:

Every form of wealth acquired at the cost of other nations, and every kind of economic imperialism, debases the dignity of men and women, and is an infringement of God's glory.

THIS is a major way many American "rich" are getting "richer". And this concept is endorsed by the Republican party. Ya know, keep the riff raff refugees out but send the jobs over to them for pennies to what you would have to pay an American to keep them earning a liveable, family wage.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

Again, you are short a few facts.
You are not employed because a poor person started your company with his government assistance debit card! Wealthy people and entrepenuaers employ people....Trump for instance.

Hillary, Obama, Reid and Hastert...to name a few politicians....went to Washington 'poor' and became rich thru government wheeling and dealing, selling influence, using their influence for personal gain etc.

By comparison to producers of their own wealth in business, they employ only those who they can pay with gubmit money. Liberal's and RINO's are stingy with their own money and generous with gubmit money...and the gubmit has NO money except what it takes from us!

You do realize that clicking your heels and saying something doesn't make it true, don't you?

You are correct about the politicians. I have never said otherwise. But you have to realize also that those "rich getting richer" (depending on the industry) do employ people, but they do so at a minimum. The 'gubmit' is subsidizing corporate CEOs and Wall Street types who will pay their workers just enough to miss being able to apply for food stamps, which is hardly a living wage. All the while, they get richer. And when technology is able to replace a human body, well, the technology wins because it is the cheaper alternative. Why else are big companies having foreign children manufacture their stuff at a quarter a day instead of hiring an American citizen at middle-class wages? Because it cuts into their corporate and personal incomes.

Like I said, BOTH parties and their support bases are at fault. BOTH.

I don't have to click my heels here.

Click your heels 3 times and say:
"There's no place like Venezuela"! 

 

[Bruh]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

Rich Republican creates jobs.

Rich Democrat tells rich republicans that they are greedy.

 

[Bruh]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :

Yes, because it is all about you. Honestly the two strongest economies under presidents that I can remember have been Reagan and Bill Clinton. IMHO they both benefited from the other party controlling congress most of their 8 years so that neither was able to push to an extreme.


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

IMO, Clinton benefited from Reagan's policy's.

Is it just about me? No! It's also about the over 10,000 oil field workers that are unemployed due to the barrel being as low as it is today.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :

Yes, because it is all about you. Honestly the two strongest economies under presidents that I can remember have been Reagan and Bill Clinton. IMHO they both benefited from the other party controlling congress most of their 8 years so that neither was able to push to an extreme.


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

IMO, Clinton benefited from Reagan's policy's.

Is it just about me? No! It's also about the over 10,000 oil field workers that are unemployed due to the barrel being as low as it is today.

So if Obama getting richer from the oil industry by cutting its labor force, how is he lining his pockets so heavily as to keep the cost of the barrel so low?

Do you propose higher barrel prices to raise industry wages and pass along the extra cost to the consumers? Should we be paying $5.00 per gallon of gas to keep the oil field workers employed?

There is no simplistic formula or answer. And there certainly is not reason to put the low cost of crude of oil on Obama, whether in the form of credit to his influence or in the form of detriment to the industry.

And your 10,000 oil buddies? How is that in comparison to 93 million that Trump claims is unemployed?

National leadership has more than one industry to worry about, more than 10,000 people and their families (and each one IS important).

Maybe instead of pointing fingers at (the Republicans) Obama, those unemployed oil workers should get off their lazy keisters and find work in other lines of work instead of collecting government unemployment and choosing to live in poverty! (That was sarcasm, folks.)

In the end, the oil CEOs and the politicians whose pockets they line can do something about it, but it would mean they wouldn't gear their personal ambitions to "getting richer". (Example: Jim Sinegal and Costco.)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Well, down here in South West Louisiana, when a republican is in office the Oil Field seems to boom! Obama? not so much. 

Drilling = Jobs! plain and simple.  When republican is in office I consistently work 60 to 100 hours a week.  Obama? Well, Obama would rather make policies to make people unemployed and poorer just so the rich can be a little less rich. 

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job.............duh????

If the rich get richer, you will not always have a job. That is not how this world is headed. We now have robots and computers now on assembly lines. Why? Over the long haul, it is better to invest in a machine than a person. A machine never takes a day off. A machine never disobeys his supervisors. A machine doesn't need an income or benefits to support a family. A machine keeps working when a person cannot. So the rich become richer by using technology while the working class slowly deteriorates.

For Obama getting rich off the oil industry, I can't say. I never looked into it. I can say that fuel prices are much better the last couple years than when he took over. Not saying it is him personally, but it happened in his regime.

BTW, you have a dichotomy:

All the while he's becoming part of the filthy rich.  : :


If the rich continue to get richer, I will always have a job

You complain because the rich (Obama) is getting richer which is losing jobs in your industry then you say you will always have a job when the rich get richer.

Which is it? It can't be both ways.

Rich Republican creates jobs.

Rich Democrat tells rich republicans that they are greedy.

Tell that to the liberal CEOs of Pepsi, Google, Disney, TIAA-CREF and Goldman Sachs. I'm sure those companies don't create jobs.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Folks, vote your conscience according to your ethics, whatever candidate that may be (or perhaps, that would be to not vote at all).