The Next Election, Political News, and Other Forms of Comedy (US, UK, & Intl)

Someone posted a link on FB about Hiliary's accomplishments, shall I post it here? I actually hope you guys can help me to refute the post.
 
Someone posted a link on FB about Hiliary's accomplishments, shall I post it here? I actually hope you guys can help me to refute the post.

Please do. I'd be delighted to see it; I'm sure it's very extensive.

The great Trump called her the worst Sec of State evar!
Trump Calls Clinton 'Worst Secretary of State' Ever

Trump is a talking baboon. Most scholars agree on John Kerry, but I'm sure there's some "recency bias" built into that. Scholars votes put Kerry dead last in terms of effectiveness - The Washington Post

William Jennings Bryan was pretty bad as well, but who knows how much of that is Woodrow Wilson's fault.
 
Why the distinction? If Jeb is to be judged on the hours his brother put in, why wouldn't Billary be judged on what Roger did? (Which included being paid to peddle and purchase the Clinton's political influence).

His brother was well noted for being the president that just loved to vacation and he did so liberally and often. He was also noted for being a 7-8 hour a day when when he did work. Not exactly a hard worker. Bush Sr had his own knocks. Both tend to indicate what kind of president Jeb would make.

If Roger was a president or held any form of public office, I'd scrutinize as well. I clearly know less about Roger Clinton than you do, I am not aware of influence peddling.
 
His brother was well noted for being the president that just loved to vacation and he did so liberally and often. He was also noted for being a 7-8 hour a day when when he did work. Not exactly a hard worker. Bush Sr had his own knocks. Both tend to indicate what kind of president Jeb would make.

If Roger was a president or held any form of public office, I'd scrutinize as well. I clearly know less about Roger Clinton than you do, I am not aware of influence peddling.

Beautiful response. Use the phrase "well-known" so we just accept it as fact, make vague allusions to his fathers "own knocks", say both "tend to indicate". And again no real explanation of why any of it matters. Well done.
 
Beautiful response. Use the phrase "well-known" so we just accept it as fact, make vague allusions to his fathers "own knocks", say both "tend to indicate". And again no real explanation of why any of it matters. Well done.

Yes, the Bush family's penchant for time off in the White House is well known. Bush 2 took the most ever.

George W. Bush, in two terms, took 879 vacation days, which included 77 total trips to his Crawford, Tex., ranch. Nine of those trips were taken in his first year as president. (WATCH: Which U.S. president took the most vacation time? - The Washington Post

And his dad was similarly inclined towards rest and relaxation. G H W Bush, in just four years, went to Kennebunkport for 543 days. If he had won a 2nd term, he could have broken 1,000 days.

It matters because he made the comment during an his annual vacation at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. It's a family of vacationers, yet everyone else needs to work more.
 
Jeb's work longer hours comment was stupid, but do you actually think that time away from the office is time off of work? Maybe I'm a little bitter, as I realized yesterday that I have fifteen hours (and counting) of conference calls scheduled (which come with at least seven hours of prep and reaction) during my "vacation" at the end of the month.
 
Jeb's work longer hours comment was stupid, but do you actually think that time away from the office is time off of work? Maybe I'm a little bitter, as I realized yesterday that I have fifteen hours (and counting) of conference calls scheduled (which come with at least seven hours of prep and reaction) during my "vacation" at the end of the month.

I think the "Americans need to work more" comment he made was stupid, pointing out he made that comment while on vacation was exposing the irony of it. How many of us have the freedom to make 77 trips (for free) to our ranches to "clear brush" and fish in a private lake in Texas? Or spend any time at all in a "compound" that belongs to our family in Maine? It's a wealthy elite family. I'm hesitant to say this since it's corpo-media knock on them but sometimes the label does match, it's a family out of touch.

If I was you I'd feel frustrated as well, nobody should be expected to work on vacation. They don't own you.
 
I think the "Americans need to work more" comment he made was stupid, pointing out he made that comment while on vacation was exposing the irony of it. How many of us have the freedom to make 77 trips (for free) to our ranches to "clear brush" and fish in a private lake in Texas? Or spend any time at all in a "compound" that belongs to our family in Maine? It's a wealthy elite family. I'm hesitant to say this since it's corpo-media knock on them but sometimes the label does match, it's a family out of touch.

If I was you I'd feel frustrated as well, nobody should be expected to work on vacation. They don't own you.

Who's "they"? I work for the government, i.e. the taxpayers. As does the president.
 
Who's "they"? I work for the government, i.e. the taxpayers. As does the president.

"They" being the person(s) telling you what to do everyday, and that person(s) is an asshole to make you work on vacation. The "taxpayer" underwrites your paycheck, but Johnny Taxpayer isn't telling you to field conference calls while you're trying to be with your family. The expectation that you should commit your vacation time to an employer just serves to burn you out, bad business, public or private, thus a bad boss.

Now if you took an average of 135 days a year like HW Bush did, we might question your effort. Or if you demanded others work while you enjoyed free time in Maine as JE Bush believes you should, you might consider him out of touch with what a vacation means to the rest of us.

I sympathize with you. I would personally refuse, but that's not always advisable or possible.
 
Trump's Vegas speech was at least to say, impressive. He is coming for the establishment and both sides and the stupid fucking media are trying hard to knock him down.
 
I don't particularly like him, but I think there is a need for people such as Trump to shake the establishment tree. Sanders excluded. I hate that goddamn commie.
 
I don't particularly like him, but I think there is a need for people such as Trump to shake the establishment tree. Sanders excluded. I hate that goddamn commie.

Why Sanders excluded? Only shake the tree when they side with you? In that case, not shaking much of all.
 
The problem with Sanders is that he only serves to make other crazy (mainstream) candidates seem normal in comparison. Trump, to some, comes off quite sane and reveals the insanity and dishonesty of the mainstream.
 
Sanders - "we need to take the money out of politics", "we can't let money be our God"

"So give all your money to the Feds so I can decide how it's spent"
 
Spoken like a true commie. At least I will be prepared if he makes a leeway. I still have some of that commie blood in me.
 
Spoken like a true commie. At least I will be prepared if he makes a leeway. I still have some of that commie blood in me.

God help America if he every got in. The U.S. would become a dumber Canada with all the $$ going to the poors.

Won't happen though.
 
God help America if he every got in. The U.S. would become a dumber Canada with all the $$ going to the poors.

Won't happen though.

Except no money will be going to the poor. General American public is too fucking stupid to realise this.
 
Except no money will be going to the poor. General American public is too fucking stupid to realise this.

The socialist will increase the $$$ going to the poors so the populace bitches about the welfarenicks and not paying attention to where the rest is going.
 
Well we have to pay for elections somehow. So as opposed to having our elected politicians and billionaires emulate ho's and pimps, respectively, what would a viable alternative be?

The standard answer would be public funding for elections. I think there are better alternatives, but with the American attention span, nobody would pay attention.
 
Do US parties get money for their election expenses, based on their shares of the votes?
In Germany the political parties are funded by membership, donations and government money based on their success (not on the money they actually spent).
Of course, the donations are tax deductible and often come from dubious sources (and for even more questionable purposes).
 
Do US parties get money for their election expenses, based on their shares of the votes?
In Germany the political parties are funded by membership, donations and government money based on their success (not on the money they actually spent).
Of course, the donations are tax deductible and often come from dubious sources (and for even more questionable purposes).

No, there is a public funding system but I believe all major candidates opt out of it because they get a lot more bribes, whoops, I mean contributions via the private funding system.

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure
 
No, there is a public funding system but I believe all major candidates opt out of it because they get a lot more bribes, whoops, I mean contributions via the private funding system.

I just read quickly through it. I can see why they would opt out:

Candidates also must agree to:

  • Limit campaign spending for all primary elections to $10 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).6 This is called the national spending limit.
  • Limit campaign spending in each state to $200,000 plus COLA, or to a specified amount based on the number of voting age individuals in the state (plus COLA), whichever is greater.
  • Limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom