SURVEY: Who do you believe would be the best president for the US?

[Ulysses G.]

Clinton might not be a felon YET, but everyone knows she violated the laws on national security numerous times. If there is justice in this country, she will be convicted like anyone else would be.

"Everyone" in the limited and lunatic circles you run in. As people who actually are familiar with the law know, her culpability depends on whether she used her server for information that either was already classified or that she should have known would be classified. She hasn't used her server for information that was already classified. So the questions remains should she have known that some of the information would be classified at some future date. As any knowledgeable person would tell you, the kind you're clearly not familiar with, it's very hard for a prosecutor to prove "should have known." They tend to shy away from such cases.

Maybe the legal opinionators you get your info from come from the same discount warehouse where George Bush dug up John Yoo?

Yea. Sure. That is the ticket. She not only signed documents forbidding her from what she did, but also sent memos to her staff forbidding them from doing the same things. Those are the FACTS. You can spin all you want, but you are not convincing anyone that has actually studied the case.

Hillary may not be a felon YET, but she is undoubtedly a criminal.

you are not convincing anyone that has actually studied the case.

What case...there aren't any charges, no prosecutor, no grand jury, no injured party, no docket number, no case number...no nuthin. Who anyway seems to think he's the only one to have "actually studied the case."

It would be interesting to do a Thai Visa poll; Do you think Hillary Clinton has violated the law concerning her emails?

I wonder how many members are actually convinced by you spamming the forum everyday with nonsensical spin.

[chuckd]

"Everyone" in the limited and lunatic circles you run in. As people who actually are familiar with the law know, her culpability depends on whether she used her server for information that either was already classified or that she should have known would be classified. She hasn't used her server for information that was already classified. So the questions remains should she have known that some of the information would be classified at some future date. As any knowledgeable person would tell you, the kind you're clearly not familiar with, it's very hard for a prosecutor to prove "should have known." They tend to shy away from such cases.

Maybe the legal opinionators you get your info from come from the same discount warehouse where George Bush dug up John Yoo?

Yea. Sure. That is the ticket. She not only signed documents forbidding her from what she did, but also sent memos to her staff forbidding them from doing the same things. Those are the FACTS. You can spin all you want, but you are not convincing anyone that has actually studied the case.

Hillary may not be a felon YET, but she is undoubtedly a criminal.

you are not convincing anyone that has actually studied the case.

What case...there aren't any charges, no prosecutor, no grand jury, no injured party, no docket number, no case number...no nuthin. Who anyway seems to think he's the only one to have "actually studied the case."

It would be interesting to do a Thai Visa poll; Do you think Hillary Clinton has violated the law concerning her emails?

I wonder how many members are actually convinced by you spamming the forum everyday with nonsensical spin.

The FBI, plus three other federal agencies, are still in the investigative process.

When the investigation is completed will be the time to call for prosecutors, grand juries, docket numbers and case numbers.

I think our learned friend knows this but his theory seems to be why not try and confuse the issue as long as possible.

I would contend there already is an injured party...the American people.

PS: Form 213 is an Immigration form. It has nothing to do with national security. He can't even get that right.

[Asheron]

Once again, if the nation's security and economic experts are so smart, why are we in this mess? If having a WTO with China in it is such a good deal, why have we lost so much money and jobs to them? For decades we've been following the experts' failed advice.

Insanity is doing the same thing while hoping for a different result? Then if we elect insiders to DC we are insane.

Cheers.

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

[slipperylobster]

For me, it has to be micky mouse or bluto.

bluto? never heard of him.

[slipperylobster]

It's just got to be Trump.

We already got the upper hand, annoying europeans, brits and aussies to the point of distraction. Trump will only add to our pleasure.

Besides, he has his own money, and doesn't care a bit about crooked politicians and their lobbyists. It is time the American system got a good old shot of capitalism...right in the butt. More jobs, more money...make them all work. Support the VA, and the people who served America.

Outbid the rest of the world....Make America Great! (rich). yeah buddy.

[Guest]

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

The individual politicians, in any party can be selfish bastards, therefore the country's policies need to be for the people. If only the education had been a valued and needed as much during the time your constitution was written, as it's required in today's world, it would had been an important amendment to your constitution.

I come from the country where the university and any tertiary education is free. Not only that, our government gives our students money for food and even occasional beers. It's not much, but it's possible to live and do full time studies, with the money. We also get money for accommodation, free healthcare, subsidised lunches and train tickets etc. This is to allow our students to get their reach their full potential, regardless how much money their parents have.

This changes the policy from educating only those whose families have money; to educating all those who are willing to do the work and have brainpower to do it, to get a good education. In this way, my little country can get far more out of it's population, than it would get, if the education would only be available for the few selected (with money).

Education is an investment for the future, both in individual and society level. The latter benefits the super rich people as well as everybody else in the society.

For the security, well educated middle class people rarely cause problems and havoc on the streets. At least not when they have mortgages to worry about. Did I remember to say that my socialistic government also gives tax deductions for people who have house loans?

While you might call this socialism and cancer, I call it as planning the future success of the country.

[Grouse]

Once again, if the nation's security and economic experts are so smart, why are we in this mess? If having a WTO with China in it is such a good deal, why have we lost so much money and jobs to them? For decades we've been following the experts' failed advice.

Insanity is doing the same thing while hoping for a different result? Then if we elect insiders to DC we are insane.

Cheers.

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

Blessed are the cheese makers !

Come on you American bible thumpers! Sermon on the mount and all that

[Grouse]

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

The individual politicians, in any party can be selfish bastards, therefore the country's policies need to be for the people. If only the education had been a valued and needed as much during the time your constitution was written, as it's required in today's world, it would had been an important amendment to your constitution.

I come from the country where the university and any tertiary education is free. Not only that, our government gives our students money for food and even occasional beers. It's not much, but it's possible to live and do full time studies, with the money. We also get money for accommodation, free healthcare, subsidised lunches and train tickets etc. This is to allow our students to get their reach their full potential, regardless how much money their parents have.

This changes the policy from educating only those whose families have money; to educating all those who are willing to do the work and have brainpower to do it, to get a good education. In this way, my little country can get far more out of it's population, than it would get, if the education would only be available for the few selected (with money).

Education is an investment for the future, both in individual and society level. The latter benefits the super rich people as well as everybody else in the society.

For the security, well educated middle class people rarely cause problems and havoc on the streets. At least not when they have mortgages to worry about. Did I remember to say that my socialistic government also gives tax deductions for people who have house loans?

While you might call this socialism and cancer, I call it as planning the future success of the country.

Absolutely correct!

I am so old that I got similar support in England. However only 4% got to universities in those days. Now you have 64% getting degrees in hairdressing!

Another move towards America for all the wrong reasons. A first degree is not worth the paper it's photocopied on to!

[chuckd]

You Europeans have the ball on these threads.

Run with it but don't be surprised when your opinions are either blasted or ignored.

[Grouse]

From the poll one COULD infer that the Democrats have it sewn up!

[sirineou]

From the poll one COULD infer that the Democrats have it sewn up!

I dont know about this poll, I am sure that many of the people participating are not even american and could not participate in the general

election

I am Watching the news right now, where Black protesters are being forcible removed from a Trump rally, while being yelled at by lily whites.

Given today demographics, no one can be elected with out a large percentage of the Black vote,

I dont think Blacks are insane, they will certainly not vote for trump in large numbers, and with out them Trump is toast, which is why the Republican establishment is freaking out,

[elgordo38]

From the poll one COULD infer that the Democrats have it sewn up!

I dont know about this poll, I am sure that many of the people participating are not even american and could not participate in the general

election

I am Watching the news right now, where Black protesters are being forcible removed from a Trump rally, while being yelled at by lily whites.

Given today demographics, no one can be elected with out a large percentage of the Black vote,

I dont think Blacks are insane, they will certainly not vote for trump in large numbers, and with out them Trump is toast, which is why the Republican establishment is freaking out,

Republicans have a way of "dealing" with the black vote and I have heard personal stories about this. Look at Florida where Bush beat Gore and Scalia and his black knights put their seal of approval on it. Yes elections can be and are stolen.

Edited March 5, 2016 by elgordo38

[Guest]

You Europeans have the ball on these threads.

Run with it but don't be surprised when your opinions are either blasted or ignored.

It's not winning or loosing a debate, it's more of getting the country back to it's track.

Why this matters for people outside of the USA? You are still the most powerful country in the world. The power balance is moving towards to the East. While China is able to think in the long term, their policies are not always the best for the individual person. The world tend to follow the leader, in the similar ways like people tend to follow their leaders.

As outsiders, we are not able to know how you really feel, deep inside. We, however are able to see the bigger picture with an objective view. This allows us outsiders to see, which things are good, which we should copy and follow. It also allows outsiders to see which things are seriously wrong and need improving.

Few weeks back I was talking with a fellow TV member, who is a avid republican. His views were quite distant from what I saw, when looking at the uttermost layer of the paint, but when digging a bit deeper, we could agree about many things. Discussion was good and friendly, even if we had profound disagreement about religion and politics, we still were able to see that the other person, is a 'generally good guy'.

The same way as our genes are pretty much the same, compared to each others, our ideas of how to live the life, is pretty much the same. Every now and then, there are people who target to separate the people, to gain power.

The change what these people are offering, is generally good and what people want. But the problem is that they overdo, what ever agenda they have. These people are also egomaniacs, which pretty much means that they only care about their own success, not the success of the people they have used to get to the position.

That's why the populist are so dangerous.

[sirineou]

You Europeans have the ball on these threads.

Run with it but don't be surprised when your opinions are either blasted or ignored.

It's not winning or loosing a debate, it's more of getting the country back to it's track.

Why this matters for people outside of the USA? You are still the most powerful country in the world. The power balance is moving towards to the East. While China is able to think in the long term, their policies are not always the best for the individual person. The world tend to follow the leader, in the similar ways like people tend to follow their leaders.

As outsiders, we are not able to know how you really feel, deep inside. We, however are able to see the bigger picture with an objective view. This allows us outsiders to see, which things are good, which we should copy and follow. It also allows outsiders to see which things are seriously wrong and need improving.

Few weeks back I was talking with a fellow TV member, who is a avid republican. His views were quite distant from what I saw, when looking at the uttermost layer of the paint, but when digging a bit deeper, we could agree about many things. Discussion was good and friendly, even if we had profound disagreement about religion and politics, we still were able to see that the other person, is a 'generally good guy'.

The same way as our genes are pretty much the same, compared to each others, our ideas of how to live the life, is pretty much the same. Every now and then, there are people who target to separate the people, to gain power.

The change what these people are offering, is generally good and what people want. But the problem is that they overdo, what ever agenda they have. These people are also egomaniacs, which pretty much means that they only care about their own success, not the success of the people they have used to get to the position.

That's why the populist are so dangerous.

"

"Replying to SURVEY: Who do you believe would be the best president for the US?"

Is the title of this thread

It is perfectly reasonable for anyone in the world , American or otherwise to have an opinion on the sublet, especialy given the global implications of the office in question.

And you are right , some times a different perspective is healthy. and by many including me appreciated.

Edited March 5, 2016 by sirineou

[Asheron]

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

The individual politicians, in any party can be selfish bastards, therefore the country's policies need to be for the people. If only the education had been a valued and needed as much during the time your constitution was written, as it's required in today's world, it would had been an important amendment to your constitution.

I come from the country where the university and any tertiary education is free. Not only that, our government gives our students money for food and even occasional beers. It's not much, but it's possible to live and do full time studies, with the money. We also get money for accommodation, free healthcare, subsidised lunches and train tickets etc. This is to allow our students to get their reach their full potential, regardless how much money their parents have.

This changes the policy from educating only those whose families have money; to educating all those who are willing to do the work and have brainpower to do it, to get a good education. In this way, my little country can get far more out of it's population, than it would get, if the education would only be available for the few selected (with money).

Education is an investment for the future, both in individual and society level. The latter benefits the super rich people as well as everybody else in the society.

For the security, well educated middle class people rarely cause problems and havoc on the streets. At least not when they have mortgages to worry about. Did I remember to say that my socialistic government also gives tax deductions for people who have house loans?

While you might call this socialism and cancer, I call it as planning the future success of the country.

The problem for socialists like yourself is to understand that nothing is free. And believing in socialism is like believing in the santa claus, most people grow out of it eventually, it's the reason why so many younger people are on Bernies side and so but there are of course older people who still believe in santa claus because hey, why not right?

I'm not american, i was born and raised in a socialist european country and that country is still a socialist country and will be so forever until it vanishes because people really think they are entitled to "something" and that "something" is to be given to them for free because they feel so. And this socialist country i'm talking about is pumping up it's already inflated GDP by borrowing money.

Do i have to say that the "free" education in this socialist country also haven't done anything to change the situation for the so called "poor" or middle class?

It's really fascinating that adult really think that persons X, Y and Z should give them money so they can ride trains etc for "free".

[Asheron]

Once again, if the nation's security and economic experts are so smart, why are we in this mess? If having a WTO with China in it is such a good deal, why have we lost so much money and jobs to them? For decades we've been following the experts' failed advice.

Insanity is doing the same thing while hoping for a different result? Then if we elect insiders to DC we are insane.

Cheers.

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

Blessed are the cheese makers !

Come on you American bible thumpers! Sermon on the mount and all that

I know it's hard to think rationally but i got news for you: not all non-american people in the world are brain washed socialists.

[jmd8800]

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

The individual politicians, in any party can be selfish bastards, therefore the country's policies need to be for the people. If only the education had been a valued and needed as much during the time your constitution was written, as it's required in today's world, it would had been an important amendment to your constitution.

I come from the country where the university and any tertiary education is free. Not only that, our government gives our students money for food and even occasional beers. It's not much, but it's possible to live and do full time studies, with the money. We also get money for accommodation, free healthcare, subsidised lunches and train tickets etc. This is to allow our students to get their reach their full potential, regardless how much money their parents have.

This changes the policy from educating only those whose families have money; to educating all those who are willing to do the work and have brainpower to do it, to get a good education. In this way, my little country can get far more out of it's population, than it would get, if the education would only be available for the few selected (with money).

Education is an investment for the future, both in individual and society level. The latter benefits the super rich people as well as everybody else in the society.

For the security, well educated middle class people rarely cause problems and havoc on the streets. At least not when they have mortgages to worry about. Did I remember to say that my socialistic government also gives tax deductions for people who have house loans?

While you might call this socialism and cancer, I call it as planning the future success of the country.

To add to this idea of education being good for the 'commonwealth' of a nation or society, my father who had a mechanical engineering degree before entering the Navy in WWII, received his MS and Ph.D on the GI Bill. As he entered University for his Ph.D he was married with 3 children. The GI bill was his source of income. Try doing that today. Single students end up with debt equal to buying a house.

The world has changed. The commonwealth of the nation is secondary to financial and power interests.

[bgrassboy]

For me, it has to be micky mouse or bluto.

bluto? never heard of him.

f

Bluto was the thug figure in the Popeye cartoon.

[NovaBlue05]

You are in this mess, because you keep on insisting that the republican party, who is mostly to serve the super rich, is the answer. Taxation of the rich and the big corporations, is one way to see what they are all about. That's money, which should be shared to the middle class, but is not.

You are in this mess, because your instinct, for what ever reason, is to believe, that GOP will protect the little people, while deep down you should know that it's not the answer.

You are in this mess because you put your faith in religion, not education and sciences, which make the fear of unknown disappear. You fail to help yourself out of the manipulation of few, who use your ignorance to gain power.

You are in this mess, because you have faith in the wrong people.

I know, democrats are pretty corrupted themselves. I personally don't trust Hillary as a person. However she still might be fairer to the real people, than any of the whoohaa persons, who are now representing GOP.

You could also put your faith to Bernie. He seems to be a person, who actually cares for the little people. You. If the middle class is happy, the country is often happy and thus productive. The US has forgotten the middle class, like many other countries has done as well.

About your last sentence about Bernie.

You mean that the rich should be forced to give away their money to the poorer people... because... erhm... why exactly? No one is responsible that someone is poor, they themself are responsible for that. I'm not 100% sure about the education system in the USA when it comes to costs but i would bet money that each state have so called "free" (read: paid by rich peoples taxes) college educations where basicly any dumbass can get a degree and start earning money instead of leaching of other people.

And do not kid yourself for even a nanosecond that any politician really care anything about "you".

The individual politicians, in any party can be selfish bastards, therefore the country's policies need to be for the people. If only the education had been a valued and needed as much during the time your constitution was written, as it's required in today's world, it would had been an important amendment to your constitution.

I come from the country where the university and any tertiary education is free. Not only that, our government gives our students money for food and even occasional beers. It's not much, but it's possible to live and do full time studies, with the money. We also get money for accommodation, free healthcare, subsidised lunches and train tickets etc. This is to allow our students to get their reach their full potential, regardless how much money their parents have.

This changes the policy from educating only those whose families have money; to educating all those who are willing to do the work and have brainpower to do it, to get a good education. In this way, my little country can get far more out of it's population, than it would get, if the education would only be available for the few selected (with money).

Education is an investment for the future, both in individual and society level. The latter benefits the super rich people as well as everybody else in the society.

For the security, well educated middle class people rarely cause problems and havoc on the streets. At least not when they have mortgages to worry about. Did I remember to say that my socialistic government also gives tax deductions for people who have house loans?

While you might call this socialism and cancer, I call it as planning the future success of the country.

To add to this idea of education being good for the 'commonwealth' of a nation or society, my father who had a mechanical engineering degree before entering the Navy in WWII, received his MS and Ph.D on the GI Bill. As he entered University for his Ph.D he was married with 3 children. The GI bill was his source of income. Try doing that today. Single students end up with debt equal to buying a house.

The world has changed. The commonwealth of the nation is secondary to financial and power interests.

Received Pell Grants to go to college between 1981-86. Not a loan, Also received a state Govt grant. Between the two, pretty much my entire tuition, room and board was covered. Received a degree in civil engineering. Over the last 30 years, I'm pretty sure the Govt have made their investment back many times over.

[bgrassboy]

It's just got to be Trump.

We already got the upper hand, annoying europeans, brits and aussies to the point of distraction. Trump will only add to our pleasure.

Besides, he has his own money, and doesn't care a bit about crooked politicians and their lobbyists. It is time the American system got a good old shot of capitalism...right in the butt. More jobs, more money...make them all work. Support the VA, and the people who served America.

Outbid the rest of the world....Make America Great! (rich). yeah buddy.

Ever played the game monopoly? That is capitalism in the extrem sense, at the end of the game the winner is they person who bankrupts everyone else. So in theory is this what you are advocating?

Really I'm not try to bait you, I've just been contimplating this for a while and since you brought up the capitalism idea I wanted to add this for fodder.

[sawadee1947]

See a doctor. He might help you

[boomerangutang]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

[Asheron]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

And if you did that the very wealthy would flee the country... what would you do then?

[Yahooka]

Why isn`t John Kasich on the list ?

[Ulysses G.]

Someone thought he doesn't stand a chance.

[chuckd]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

I crunched some numbers as well and then found the exact same thing you posted at this site:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

I notice you also failed to mention that George W. Bush's national debt increase of $5.489 Trillion was over an eight year administration.

Barack Obama's increase in the amount of $6.463 Trillion has been accomplished in just six years.

His 2016 budget calls for an estimated deficit of $474 Billion and his 2017 budget request will very likely add a similar amount for the 2017 FY.

Assuming these last two years will add another $950 Billion to the debt, that would raise Obama's total national debt increase to the rather kingly sum of $7.413 Trillion, a 63.6% increase.

It should also be pointed out the percent of increase means nothing since each administration starts with an ever increasing base figure. Bush started with a much lower base amount. Even though he added some $2 Trillion less that Obama is destined to add, his percent of increase will always be higher, even though the increase is less, dollar wise.

This is the way to attribute an article or information gleaned from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_budget

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

[Ulysses G.]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

I crunched some numbers as well and then found the exact same thing you posted at this site:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

I notice you also failed to mention that George W. Bush's national debt increase of $5.489 Trillion was over an eight year administration.

Barack Obama's increase in the amount of $6.463 Trillion has been accomplished in just six years.

His 2016 budget calls for an estimated deficit of $474 Billion and his 2017 budget request will very likely add a similar amount for the 2017 FY.

Assuming these last two years will add another $950 Billion to the debt, that would raise Obama's total national debt increase to the rather kingly sum of $7.413 Trillion, a 63.6% increase.

It should also be pointed out the percent of increase means nothing since each administration starts with an ever increasing base figure. Bush started with a much lower base amount. Even though he added some $2 Trillion less that Obama is destined to add, his percent of increase will always be higher, even though the increase is less, dollar wise.

This is the way to attribute an article or information gleaned from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_budget

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Thanks Chuckd for straightening that out. You are one of the few posters on here that sticks to honest statistics and other information. Thanks for correcting other's spin.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

Bush never suggested Obama committed treason with his abuses of debt and murdering posterity. Obama did pretty much accuse Bush of treason. So, folks can argue "likewise" all day long. However, the two can never be equal when Obama had so decidedly protested Bush incurring such debt. That makes Obama at least equally repugnant for the grand theft, but worse for mercenary character: Base, deceitful, and predatory- using the emotional fear of our population and posterity to wield as a weapon against Bush.

Antonym

[boomerangutang]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

Note, Reagan had the highest % of increase and he is the Republican's darling. He's the 'gold standard' that all Rep candidates, for any political office since, have been compared to. Reagan's 186% increase in overspending was during a time when the US was not conducting a war, unless you count the Contra war against the Sandanistas which Reagan was clandestinely fueling - which was against the law and contrary to congress.

[Linzz]

I just crunched some numbers re; US presidents since 1963. It's become fashionable for Obama bashers to claim he was the worst Federal Budget raiser of all time. Below are some numbers which should help disabuse the bashers' misconception:

D: Barack Obama: Added $6.463 trillion, a 55.4% increase..

R: George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase.

D: Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase.

R: George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase.

R: Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase.

D: Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase.

R: Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase.

R: Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase.

D: Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase.

D: John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8% increase.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Democrat Presidents since '63 increased budgets an average of 30.3%

Republican Presidents increased budgets an average of 84.4%

If I became president, I would reduce government spending and increase taxes on the very wealthy, to yield a surplus. Unfortunately, I could never be prez because, like Arnie Swarzenegger, I wasn't born in the USA.

I crunched some numbers as well and then found the exact same thing you posted at this site:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

I notice you also failed to mention that George W. Bush's national debt increase of $5.489 Trillion was over an eight year administration.

Barack Obama's increase in the amount of $6.463 Trillion has been accomplished in just six years.

His 2016 budget calls for an estimated deficit of $474 Billion and his 2017 budget request will very likely add a similar amount for the 2017 FY.

Assuming these last two years will add another $950 Billion to the debt, that would raise Obama's total national debt increase to the rather kingly sum of $7.413 Trillion, a 63.6% increase.

It should also be pointed out the percent of increase means nothing since each administration starts with an ever increasing base figure. Bush started with a much lower base amount. Even though he added some $2 Trillion less that Obama is destined to add, his percent of increase will always be higher, even though the increase is less, dollar wise.

This is the way to attribute an article or information gleaned from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_budget

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

$19 Trillion national debt and rising.

Here is something to keep on your desktop to keep track of how much you owe in real time.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/