If Clinton Does Win

[Aftermath]

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I'm taking a guess here but I think the Progressives twist it in a bad light, assuming nothing will get cut in spending.  That is an ultimate must that stuff gets cut.  The three areas of concern for the government should only be reducing the debt, Defense, and the General Welfare.  And what that means basically infrastructure, not social programs.  Obviously some can't be completely cut but phased out over time.

I appreciate your response RavenHawk, however it doesn't answer my question directed to Quaentum:

"Can you please cite the source for this $7 trillion dollars?  Are you talking about the estimated reduction in federal revenue under Trump's plan?  Or are you specifically talking about the implementation costs to the federal government, i.e., IRS, under Trump's plan?"

His initial response to a similar question leads me to believe Quaentum is merely speaking about the cost of implementation, i.e., "I assume it includes such things as a major change to how the IRS functions concerning the tax code, software upgrades, publication changes, manpower requirements for implementing required changes, etc..."  However, even with the government, this seems awfully high.  Although $7 trillion may actually be a valid figure, if so I assert it is merely a ROM (Rough Order Magnitude) which doesn't go into detail, is not a real estimate, and is usually significantly higher than the real estimate as they rather go high and decrease the value later than go low and increase the value later.  This is why I asked for a source.

When Lie-lary assumes her office there is no way in hell she will transform the social programs that provide "general welfare" with infrastructure projects like what came out of Roosevelt's New Deal (i.e., First New Deal).  She will provide relief, but only to the poor, as all Democrats do, but recovery and reform will be as a foreign language to her.  So, in a sense it'll be akin to Roosevelt's Second New Deal.

At this point in the game it's irrelevant to speak to Trump's plan(s) and how it might affect us.  The Trumpcapade is all but finished...  

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Aftermath said:

I appreciate your response RavenHawk, however it doesn't answer my question directed to Quaentum:

"Can you please cite the source for this $7 trillion dollars?  Are you talking about the estimated reduction in federal revenue under Trump's plan?  Or are you specifically talking about the implementation costs to the federal government, i.e., IRS, under Trump's plan?"

His initial response to a similar question leads me to believe Quaentum is merely speaking about the cost of implementation, i.e., "I assume it includes such things as a major change to how the IRS functions concerning the tax code, software upgrades, publication changes, manpower requirements for implementing required changes, etc..."  However, even with the government, this seems awfully high.  Although $7 trillion may actually be a valid figure, if so I assert it is merely a ROM (Rough Order Magnitude) which doesn't go into detail, is not a real estimate, and is usually significantly higher than the real estimate as they rather go high and decrease the value later than go low and increase the value later.  This is why I asked for a source.

When Lie-lary assumes her office there is no way in hell she will transform the social programs that provide "general welfare" with infrastructure projects like what came out of Roosevelt's New Deal (i.e., First New Deal).  She will provide relief, but only to the poor, as all Democrats do, but recovery and reform will be as a foreign language to her.  So, in a sense it'll be akin to Roosevelt's Second New Deal.

At this point in the game it's irrelevant to speak to Trump's plan(s) and how it might affect us.  The Trumpcapade is all but finished...  

Says the Clinton News Network. They haven't given up on that tune since this started.

[Paranormal Panther]

12 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How will I react? I'll probably post a bunch of stuff on UM political forums, and whine and complain. But, otherwise I'll keep going to work, and pray to God that she doesn't do a bunch of incredibly stupid things. I hope that if she gets into office, that the Congress and Supreme Court will rein her in like they generally have Obama. I think we'll see another flipping of fortunes in 2018 for House seats, and another Republican ascendancy in Congress. 

I hope that you're right about Congress and the Supreme Court. I don't share your optimism, though. I think that Clinton will destroy what's left of our country. In a sane society, she wouldn't get within one inch of the White House.

[Paranormal Panther]

10 hours ago, Aftermath said:

Over the course of this week I have been debating how I would answer this question.  But I have finally come to a solid conclusion:

I will be initially p***ed, jaded and disillusioned...  then get over it.  My day to day life probably won't change at all; however I will pray everyday that the cornucopia of stupidity that is her, her Supreme Court appointments, and the corrupt Congress that backs her doesn't **** with my life too much.

Americans deserve better than this, and we should demand better than this! Have you seen the Wikileaks releases? Her cabal is a threat to our way of life. She's a Trojan Horse that will be used to end our sovereignty.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I hope that you're right about Congress and the Supreme Court. I don't share your optimism, though. I think that Clinton will destroy what's left of our country. In a sane society, she wouldn't get within one inch of the White House.

In a sane society....

Like I said, she's SO FANTASTIC that she is beating Trump by 1 or 2 points tops. 

[F3SS]

All while outspending the crap out of him with the full support of her party and the full collusion of most of the media. 

[Why not]

Even though I am in no way a Democrat I thought this country was heading in the right direction when we elected  a black man as POTOS. While running for office he had some good ideas and kinda sounded like he wanted to work for the people and not just politics as usual. It didn't take long to see it was the usual BS. Yet still historic for this country. He won't go down in history as a good President but it could have been worse. 

I would love to see a woman become POTOS in my life time just not this woman. It really would be a shame in the future to look back at this historic time and see the most untrusted person in politics was elected just because "it's a woman's turn" to be President. 

Trump is no Saint. By far. He has said and done thing to disrespect women on numerous occasions, but as far as I know has never physically hurt or severely mentally hurt any women. That can't be said of Hillary (the 12 year old rape victim and blaming the victims of her husband) and Bill himself. The Clinton's are two of the most untrustworthy people to ever play the politics game. Hillary lied to Congress, the DOJ, the FBI, and most importantly us the American people. Getting on national TV and lying through her teeth with a straight face numerous times.

i would really hate to see the first women President be known as the most corrupt, untrustworthy,selfish politician ever to hold the office.

Women, and the people of this great country deserve better WHEN this historic time comes.

My 2 cents if it means anything.

[+and-then]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:11 PM, Parsec said:

Just to be sure,  are there two posters with the same nickname or you mean that the person who wrote this (bolded part) 

Is the same as this? 

That's not my point, apparently it's yours and you clearly stated it in your previous post.

Probably things change and for sure you are entitled to change your mind,  but you patronising in the other thread now sadly loses any value.

 

Again, stating my opinion on  the events I see unfolding is NOT calling for violence.  You seem intent on making that point, though.  Carry on, if you wish.  It's rather flattering to have a newbie spending so much time trying to "put me in my place".  For the record - I don't actually care enough about your opinions to take the time to be patronizing to you. I'm beginning to think I've been given my own little troll. 

[Zenith]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Like I said, she's SO FANTASTIC that she is beating Trump by 1 or 2 points tops. 

8-9 points actually, but who's counting right?

[Michelle]

This is some witch hunt. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Trump's been tried and convicted by the media. All that's left is stringing him up from the nearest tree.

[Zenith]

12 minutes ago, Michelle said:

This is some witch hunt. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Trump's been tried and convicted by the media. All that's left is stringing him up from the nearest tree.

Why don't you ask Trump that?

He paraded a bunch of women on a panel to discredit Bill but didn't care that (1) Clinton settled the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit with no admission of wrongdoing (and this was after a first judge dismissed her case and she then appealed. Rather than go through that nonsense again, Bill just paid her what she wanted), (2) Clinton’s lawyer denied Juanita Broaddrick’s charge of rape and no charges were ever brought; and (3) Bill denied Kathleen Willey’s allegations of sexual assault and prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to take it further.

And yet Trump still put them in front of an entire nation, not to mention Bill, Hillary and their daughter. Why? For no other reason than to deflect from the video where he was caught saying some pretty disgusting things.

And wasn't it Trump's own campaign manager who asked supporters to retweet her if they agreed that victims of sexual assault should be believed? She was obviously taking a stab at Hillary but boy aren't those words coming back to haunt her now huh? If the Trump campaign believes, as they say they do, that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported" .. (and yeah they quoted Hillary and put the bold  on 'every')... then why shouldn't we believe every woman who claims to have been assaulted by Trump?

Their words and actions are coming back to haunt them. Karma's a b***** huh?

[coolguy]

If she wins america will be done, she will be worst then obama and she will say anything just to win. If she wins im moveing cause america will never be the same

[Tatetopa]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:27 PM, Nuclear Wessel said:

To be honest, though, I see nothing good coming out of either one of them becoming president. 

Likely true.

[Michelle]

11 minutes ago, Zenith said:

Why don't you ask Trump that?

And yet Trump still put them in front of an entire nation, not to mention Bill, Hillary and their daughter. 

Odd way to phrase it. I didn't see anyone brought in with handcuffs on.

Why would I ask Trump anything? I was commenting on the people here. Some of the same people who claim to be bastions of human rights.

[Thorvir]

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

This is some witch hunt. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Trump's been tried and convicted by the media. All that's left is stringing him up from the nearest tree.

All because he's the Republican candidate.  If this were a Democrat candidate, things would be much different.

[Claire.]

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

All because he's the Republican candidate.  If this were a Democrat candidate, things would be much different.

It's not all because he's the Republican candidate; it's all because he's Trump. He's made a total laughing stock of the GOP and has brought nothing but embarrassment to it - at least to those members who still remember what the party once stood for.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Zenith said:

8-9 points actually, but who's counting right?

Actually I believe the Clinton V Trump is at around 7% right now, and 4% if you add in the third party candidates. But, historically since the beginning of September, Trump as been within 2 or 3 points.

I repeat... Not very impressive Hillary. 

3 hours ago, Zenith said:

Why don't you ask Trump that?

He paraded a bunch of women on a panel to discredit Bill but didn't care that (1) Clinton settled the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit with no admission of wrongdoing (and this was after a first judge dismissed her case and she then appealed. Rather than go through that nonsense again, Bill just paid her what she wanted), (2) Clinton’s lawyer denied Juanita Broaddrick’s charge of rape and no charges were ever brought; and (3) Bill denied Kathleen Willey’s allegations of sexual assault and prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to take it further.

And yet Trump still put them in front of an entire nation, not to mention Bill, Hillary and their daughter. Why? For no other reason than to deflect from the video where he was caught saying some pretty disgusting things.

And wasn't it Trump's own campaign manager who asked supporters to retweet her if they agreed that victims of sexual assault should be believed? She was obviously taking a stab at Hillary but boy aren't those words coming back to haunt her now huh? If the Trump campaign believes, as they say they do, that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported" .. (and yeah they quoted Hillary and put the bold  on 'every')... then why shouldn't we believe every woman who claims to have been assaulted by Trump?

Their words and actions are coming back to haunt them. Karma's a b***** huh?

I believe Paula Jones got 850,000 dollars? But... Nothing happened, right? Just wanted to get the court case out of the way, because sending a lawyer to fight a frivolous lawsuit costs more then a million dollars???

I will agree with one thing though... if we throw out sexual accusations of one candidate, then we should throw them out for both. Though I personally think that Trump saying, "I can grab a woman whenever I want." And Billy grabbing an intern and saying, "suck on this...." are of two different levels, with Billy being so much, much worse.

 

[Thorvir]

9 hours ago, Clair said:

It's not all because he's the Republican candidate; it's all because he's Trump.

No, if Trump were running as the Democrat nominee, then things would be different.  Just look at how Shrillary is being protected and coddled by the media.  Not because of she hasn't done anything wrong, but because she's the Democrat running for POTUS.  This is nothing new, it's just how things happen anymore.

Quote

He's made a total laughing stock of the GOP and has brought nothing but embarrassment to it - at least to those members who still remember what the party once stood for.

The GOP has been a laughing stock since they lost their spines and decided to let the Dems have their way.  This is nothing new.

The Dems have been a laughing stock since Clinton I had his sexual escapades.  Then it got worse when they thought Al Gore was a worthy candidate.  Then Florida happened during the 2000 election.  They put many nails in their coffin when they thought a traitor and a coward (John Kerry) could be POTUS.  The final nail was having Obama as POTUS.  Believe me, the Democrats are much worse at this anymore than the Republicans.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[Thorvir]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I will agree with one thing though... if we throw out sexual accusations of one candidate, then we should throw them out for both. Though I personally think that Trump saying, "I can grab a woman whenever I want." And Billy grabbing an intern and saying, "suck on this...." are of two different levels, with Billy being so much, much worse.

The hypocrisy of the Left on the grand stage for all to see...

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Clair said:

It's not all because he's the Republican candidate; it's all because he's Trump. He's made a total laughing stock of the GOP and has brought nothing but embarrassment to it - at least to those members who still remember what the party once stood for.

 

Wow.  You actually are denying the hypocrisy and bias of the media on Republican behavior?  All the while, imploring us to remember our dignity?  Neither Party has improved with age and it's because America, in general, has declined.  Politicians are now and have always been whores.  The best that could be said of them is that they believed in what their actions might do to improve US ALL. Today, I don't even give 99% of them that much credit.  It is all about personal power and enrichment. I hope that this is the last president we elect under such circumstances.  We need a "Jesus in the Temple" moment with the money changer filth that runs the country today.  The last, bloodless option I see is the Convention of States.  Chances are that it would fail due to the corruption as well but it ought at least be tried.  People here know me to be virulently anti-Obama and there is very good reason.  He lied through his smiling teeth to get the job.  The media made him seem messiah-like and he knew he could do no wrong. The damage he did  could be fatal to this country and while you are laughing at my naivete or stupidity for that remark, consider this...

Imagine a Republican president that decides to dismantle social welfare completely.  He uses a "pen and a phone" to cut all benefits to working age men and women who are not physically disabled.  He scales back food assistance unless the person is actively seeking employment.  Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this?  He demands responsibility from every citizen before they can ask others to help pay for their existence.  He does this even though the opposition Party controls the House and Senate.  He does it AGAINST the clearly stated will of the majority.

This is Obama's legacy.  It is the precedent that all future presidents can look to, to bypass Congress and do as they will. Our Law and politics are based on precedents.  If you don't believe this is the case then we can revisit it about 6 months into a Clinton presidency - especially if the voters don't give her the House and or Senate.  Do you imagine that she will allow such a trifle to stop her from her agenda?  She has a Template to use.  Do as she will and make the Courts overturn it.  After she places a Liberal judge in Scalia's chair, even the court won't be an issue.  I begin to envision a future where her presidency has a chance of being a positive for America, though. The citizens that voted against this Liberal wealth redistribution may well be galvanized to action beyond complaining when they write the IRS a check.  Yep, old Hillary might be the match that burns the whole, rotten, decaying structure to the ground.  If she doesn't, no worries, it's about to succumb to it's own weight soon anyway.

[+Liquid Gardens]

 

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I will agree with one thing though... if we throw out sexual accusations of one candidate, then we should throw them out for both. Though I personally think that Trump saying, "I can grab a woman whenever I want." And Billy grabbing an intern and saying, "suck on this...." are of two different levels, with Billy being so much, much worse.

I don't see how. "I can grab a woman whenever I want" is saying he can sexually assault whenever he wants; Monica at least consented to her relationship.  I'll give you that what Bill did afterwards as far as lying about it and attacking her character when he was caught was very bad, but not sure it's worse than condoning sexual assault.

[Thorvir]

52 minutes ago, and then said:

Wow.  You actually are denying the hypocrisy and bias of the media on Republican behavior?  All the while, imploring us to remember our dignity?  Neither Party has improved with age and it's because America, in general, has declined.  Politicians are now and have always been whores.  The best that could be said of them is that they believed in what their actions might do to improve US ALL. Today, I don't even give 99% of them that much credit.  It is all about personal power and enrichment. I hope that this is the last president we elect under such circumstances.  We need a "Jesus in the Temple" moment with the money changer filth that runs the country today.  The last, bloodless option I see is the Convention of States.  Chances are that it would fail due to the corruption as well but it ought at least be tried.  People here know me to be virulently anti-Obama and there is very good reason.  He lied through his smiling teeth to get the job.  The media made him seem messiah-like and he knew he could do no wrong. The damage he did  could be fatal to this country and while you are laughing at my naivete or stupidity for that remark, consider this...

Imagine a Republican president that decides to dismantle social welfare completely.  He uses a "pen and a phone" to cut all benefits to working age men and women who are not physically disabled.  He scales back food assistance unless the person is actively seeking employment.  Are you beginning to see where I'm going with this?  He demands responsibility from every citizen before they can ask others to help pay for their existence.  He does this even though the opposition Party controls the House and Senate.  He does it AGAINST the clearly stated will of the majority.

This is Obama's legacy.  It is the precedent that all future presidents can look to, to bypass Congress and do as they will. Our Law and politics are based on precedents.  If you don't believe this is the case then we can revisit it about 6 months into a Clinton presidency - especially if the voters don't give her the House and or Senate.  Do you imagine that she will allow such a trifle to stop her from her agenda?  She has a Template to use.  Do as she will and make the Courts overturn it.  After she places a Liberal judge in Scalia's chair, even the court won't be an issue.  I begin to envision a future where her presidency has a chance of being a positive for America, though. The citizens that voted against this Liberal wealth redistribution may well be galvanized to action beyond complaining when they write the IRS a check.  Yep, old Hillary might be the match that burns the whole, rotten, decaying structure to the ground.  If she doesn't, no worries, it's about to succumb to it's own weight soon anyway.

Ominous.  No, seriously, because as soon as I started reading your post, A Game of Thrones season 4 music score popped up on my Pandora.  Perfectly timed for some mysteriously coincidental reason.

[preacherman76]

12 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

All because he's the Republican candidate.  If this were a Democrat candidate, things would be much different.

I don't think its cause he's republican. I think its just cause he isn't in the club. If I get anything outta this election, its verification that there is not really two parties at all. Its basically the banks and corporations vs we the people.

[Zenith]

2 hours ago, and then said:

 All the while, imploring us to remember our dignity?

Don't think Clair is the one who's doing the imploring. Point your finger at some of your own instead.

[Thorvir]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't think its cause he's republican. I think its just cause he isn't in the club. If I get anything outta this election, its verification that there is not really two parties at all. Its basically the banks and corporations vs we the people.

Ok, that has some merit as well.  But his being the Republican candidate makes him a target, regardless, that a Dem wouldn't have to suffer at the hands of the media.