Kasich 2016

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Hastley [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That said he has 0 chance at te nomination and even less than that in the general.

Kasich actually has the best national numbers against Clinton. I'm terms of electability, the polls rank the candidates like this:

1. Kasich
2. Rubio
3. Cruz
4. Trump

As for winning the primary, I agree Kasich has an uphill battle. However, it is unlikely anyone will surpass Trump in the primary case and equally unlikely that Trump will secure the number of delegates ended to lock the nomination. If he doesn't get a majority, the RNC won't nominate him, that is apparent. Accordingly it makes most sense to support the best suited candidate so that the RNC has an easier time nominating them.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Am I wrong?

Kasich was literally a higher-up investment banker at Lehman brothers when it went under in 2008. So I'd say if you want the government to keep serving the financial sector at the expense of the middle class (yes it is zero sum sometimes), vote Kasich or Hillary.

Climate science denier, but less intensely anti-environment than his peers.

Best healthcare position of any Republican candidate.

Bought and paid for candidate who operates with PACs, and is guaranteed as a politician in office to answer to bribes, rather than the best interest of the US as a whole. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says he actually says he believes, because his beliefs are available for purchase.

Probably the least destructive Republican candidate.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kasich was literally a higher-up investment banker at Lehman brothers when it went under in 2008. So I'd say if you want the government to keep serving the financial sector at the expense of the middle class (yes it is zero sum sometimes), vote Kasich or Hillary.

Climate science denier, but less intensely anti-environment than his peers.

Best healthcare position of any Republican candidate.

Bought and paid for candidate who operates with PACs, and is guaranteed as a politician in office to answer to bribes, rather than the best interest of the US as a whole. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says he actually says he believes, because his beliefs are available for purchase.

Probably the least destructive Republican candidate.

You're right about all of this except that he's better than both Sanders and Clinton on day one since he's been a governor and actually has done something in his life.

PS: You talk about Lehman brothers and banks. Sanders adds how much to the national debt? Who benefits from the government financing the debt? Large banks. Who wrote the budget in 2014? Citigroup. Are you following so far?

The national debt isn't a debate about Keynes or Friedman, it's an egregious example of corporate welfare that passes under the radar because:
1. republicans won't give up defense
2. dems won't give up welfare
3. neither will give up social security or medicare

Finally, there is a huge debate over whether a national debt actually matters. Not to bring up Greece or Venezuela, since neither is analogous to the United States government or economy, however, in our corrupt system, which you acknowledge has PACs, interest groups, lobbyists, etc, how much do you imagine that massive amount of money (trillions of dollars) influences our congressmen and women during their campaigns? Lobbyists are paid hundreds of millions every year to keep the budget high so that it will continue to line the coffers of massive banks, which in turn inject themselves into our political system.

Kasich is a shitty candidate, but he's the best this country has right now, and I voted for him on Super Tuesday. He got 4ish% in Texas. Bottom line, find me a Sanders-like candidate who understands that balancing the fucking budget is literally the most important part of eliminating corruption in the US. That will never happen, because this country is composed of idiots who can simultaneously understand Halliburton, the military-industrial complex, how insurance companies taint out healthcare system, but miraculously, through some amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance, CANT FIGURE OUT THAT CITIGROUP WROTE THE 2014 BUDGET PRECISELY TO INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT, which, coincidentally I guess to you retards, happens to perpetually guarantee that they HUGE assets on their balance sheets.

Oh, and who gives a fuck, because that government that finances the debt with them... if all of the major banks collapse the international economy, the government has to bail them out because if they didn't, the US federal government literally couldn't pay salaries and God forbid congressmen and senators actually ahve to answer for something. Oh well, add another trillion in debt so that the government can continue the illusion that they have a clue and the rest of us can happily pay our taxes so that Shylock can have another yacht.

I hope this what should've been middle school lesson on macroeconomics and government got through to you socialists who don't understand your ass from your elbow. Class dismissed.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2. dems won't give up welfare
3. neither will give up social security or medicare

This is a problem of democracy. You take those away, you lose your next election to someone who will restore them.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're right about all of this except that he's better than both Sanders and Clinton on day one since he's been a governor and actually has done something in his life.

PS: You talk about Lehman brothers and banks. Sanders adds how much to the national debt? Who benefits from the government financing the debt? Large banks. Who wrote the budget in 2014? Citigroup. Are you following so far?

The national debt isn't a debate about Keynes or Friedman, it's an egregious example of corporate welfare that passes under the radar because:
1. republicans won't give up defense
2. dems won't give up welfare
3. neither will give up social security or medicare

Finally, there is a huge debate over whether a national debt actually matters. Not to bring up Greece or Venezuela, since neither is analogous to the United States government or economy, however, in our corrupt system, which you acknowledge has PACs, interest groups, lobbyists, etc, how much do you imagine that massive amount of money (trillions of dollars) influences our congressmen and women during their campaigns? Lobbyists are paid hundreds of millions every year to keep the budget high so that it will continue to line the coffers of massive banks, which in turn inject themselves into our political system.

Kasich is a shitty candidate, but he's the best this country has right now, and I voted for him on Super Tuesday. He got 4ish% in Texas. Bottom line, find me a Sanders-like candidate who understands that balancing the fucking budget is literally the most important part of eliminating corruption in the US. That will never happen, because this country is composed of idiots who can simultaneously understand Halliburton, the military-industrial complex, how insurance companies taint out healthcare system, but miraculously, through some amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance, CANT FIGURE OUT THAT CITIGROUP WROTE THE 2014 BUDGET PRECISELY TO INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT, which, coincidentally I guess to you retards, happens to perpetually guarantee that they HUGE assets on their balance sheets.

Oh, and who gives a fuck, because that government that finances the debt with them... if all of the major banks collapse the international economy, the government has to bail them out because if they didn't, the US federal government literally couldn't pay salaries and God forbid congressmen and senators actually ahve to answer for something. Oh well, add another trillion in debt so that the government can continue the illusion that they have a clue and the rest of us can happily pay our taxes so that Shylock can have another yacht.

I hope this what should've been middle school lesson on macroeconomics and government got through to you socialists who don't understand your ass from your elbow. Class dismissed.

What do you think is going to happen to the national debt when you elect a party-loyal Republican like Kasich who is going to funnel money to defense spending and quite possibly put boots on the ground in Syria? Just how much did our national debt decrease under George "Small-Government Republican" Bush? You tell me to find a Sanders-like candidate who understands the value of balancing the budget, and you offer me an establishment Republican. Guess what, it's not hard to balance a state budget (Ohio) when you don't have things like defense spending, which his party absolutely LOVES. Jerry Brown balanced California's budget, and he's a DEMOCRAT in a state full of democrats, with a legislature run by democrats. And these aren't just any democrats, they are California democrats who fucking love to spend. Things are a lot different as POTUS.

I'm disappointed that you've fallen victim to the rhetoric that just because a candidate is a leftie means he wants to spend the country to death. That's just standard issue Fox News Republican Brand™ marketing meant to manipulate the naive and lazy, and stoke the fires of tribalism. Uprooting the graft and waste inherent in our healthcare system and cutting the bloat would have saved our country billions of dollars, but the insurance companies won, precisely because they managed to convince people like you that anyone actually trying to fix the problem is going to bankrupt us. It's like a Pavlovian response at this point, you're so well trained with the REFORM/SOCIALISM = DEBT SPENDING NO MONEY OMG NO DISCIPLINE RECKLESS HOW WILL U PAY FOR IT conditioning that here you are, vomiting it all back at me. Meanwhile here we are drowning in debt from politicians identical to Kasich. Bush was a moderate too. Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

Sanders was the only one on a crusade to liberate our country and government from Shylock, the only one serious about campaign finance reform (which addresses the root of all these problems, that our politicians represent money, not people.) He had foresight to try and save our economy from the banks when it mattered, and who was so far ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to solving the problems of the 2010's that he has been preaching solutions since the fucking 1990's. It breaks my bleeding heart that this guy spent his life fighting the good fight, only to lose to someone like Hillary Clinton, precisely because of disingenuous arguments like yours.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What do you think is going to happen to the national debt when you elect a party-loyal Republican like Kasich who is going to funnel money to defense spending and quite possibly put boots on the ground in Syria? Just how much did our national debt decrease under George "Small-Government Republican" Bush? You tell me to find a Sanders-like candidate who understands the value of balancing the budget, and you offer me an establishment Republican. Guess what, it's not hard to balance a state budget (Ohio) when you don't have things like defense spending, which his party absolutely LOVES. Jerry Brown balanced California's budget, and he's a DEMOCRAT in a state full of democrats, with a legislature run by democrats. And these aren't just any democrats, they are California democrats who fucking love to spend. Things are a lot different as POTUS.

I'm disappointed that you've fallen victim to the rhetoric that just because a candidate is a leftie means he wants to spend the country to death. That's just standard issue Fox News Republican Brand™ marketing meant to manipulate the naive and lazy, and stoke the fires of tribalism. Uprooting the graft and waste inherent in our healthcare system and cutting the bloat would have saved our country billions of dollars, but the insurance companies won, precisely because they managed to convince people like you that anyone actually trying to fix the problem is going to bankrupt us. It's like a Pavlovian response at this point, you're so well trained with the REFORM/SOCIALISM = DEBT SPENDING NO MONEY OMG NO DISCIPLINE RECKLESS HOW WILL U PAY FOR IT conditioning that here you are, vomiting it all back at me. Meanwhile here we are drowning in debt from politicians identical to Kasich. Bush was a moderate too. Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

Sanders was the only one on a crusade to liberate our country and government from Shylock, the only one serious about campaign finance reform (which addresses the root of all these problems, that our politicians represent money, not people.) He had foresight to try and save our economy from the banks when it mattered, and who was so far ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to solving the problems of the 2010's that he has been preaching solutions since the fucking 1990's. It breaks my bleeding heart that this guy spent his life fighting the good fight, only to lose to someone like Hillary Clinton, precisely because of disingenuous arguments like yours.

Bill Clinton balanced the budget... Lol
The Internet boom had nothing to do with that? What about NAFTA? Has the precipitous loss of jobs that Bill Clinton facilitated have anything to do with our current debt?

1. I voted for Kerry in 2004. Don't blame me for bush
2. Healthcare isn't fixed by socialism in this country. Heard of the VA? We aren't China. We don't hire Chinese men with huge brains to run things based on talent. We hire based on affirmative action and patronage. We aren't swedes or japs. We're Americans. This means that at least 1/3 of our population is useless and given that the government will always have some of the useless demographic within it, you shouldn't place so much faith in it
- as an aside, I hate insurance companies and expanding and federally insuring + allowing the accumulation year to year and movement from state to state, company to company of health savings accounts could destroy insurance companies. I say could because who the fuck knows

Oh, and we're fat pieces of shit. It's a dick thing to say but I don't want to pay for the obesity and diabetes of others. I realize that yes, I'm paying for it anyway, but if we do socialized medicine, I want to personally choose the diet of every fat ass I see on the street.
3. I don't want national defense spending. I guess you missed that part. NO ONE will close down bases or ditch the f-35 program. Kasich might invade Syria, I admit, that's fucked up, but Obama is now mulling action in Libya after toppling that country. And again, sanders can't win. He's the best on foreign policy, but he can't win. Kasich is less likely to go full retard with regard to foreign policy than anyone not named sanders

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2. Healthcare isn't fixed by socialism in this country. Heard of the VA? We aren't China. We don't hire Chinese men with huge brains to run things based on talent. We hire based on affirmative action and patronage. We aren't swedes or japs. We're Americans. This means that at least 1/3 of our population is useless and given that the government will always have some of the useless demographic within it, you shouldn't place so much faith in it
- as an aside, I hate insurance companies and expanding and federally insuring + allowing the accumulation year to year and movement from state to state, company to company of health savings accounts could destroy insurance companies. I say could because who the fuck knows

Oh, and we're fat pieces of shit. It's a dick thing to say but I don't want to pay for the obesity and diabetes of others. I realize that yes, I'm paying for it anyway, but if we do socialized medicine, I want to personally choose the diet of every fat ass I see on the street.

See now those are good reasons to disagree with healthcare reform as Sanders wants it, not that I agree with them.

Any time you reduce a central authority (like the government), you create a vacuum that is filled by something else. For example, any period at any place in the world that has had a weak, ineffectual, limited government has been rife with organized crime and/or some form of syndicate, usually economic in nature, sometimes religious, sometimes military. It is the nature of humanity to divide and conquer, to establish a hierarchy, and then exploit. I'd argue that of all the syndicates we could have, a representative government is the lesser evil. Yes, representation will sometimes be occluded by corruption, effectiveness will sometimes be compromised by incompetence or cultural issues, but our government has accomplished some amazing things that simply would not have been possible had the libertarian streak of our founding persisted. Medicare was not a bad program until people started living decades longer and costs skyrocketed (due in large part to the insurance paradigm we have going, with middle-men dipping their fingers in everything).

The New Deal is perhaps the greatest example of the value of interventionism ever recorded. Many of its programs are still in place today and enjoy bipartisan support. And I hate to use Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as positive examples, but Hitler and Mussolini used New-Deal like programs to bring Germany and Italy out of depression in the decade prior to WW2 (construction of the Autobahn, large public works, massive purges of corruption and organized crime in Italy, job programs, cultural engineering). That said, the Axis mostly funded this with fraud and confiscation, but not so in the USA. In the USA it paid dividends.

Dwight Eisenhower once wrote:

Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things ... Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Today, that splinter group is known as the Tea Party, and we can thank Ronald Reagan for laying the foundation to turn it from a splinter group to a major faction in modern politics.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Probably the least destructive Republican candidate.

This practically an endorsement coming from you Lune ^^

As for Lehman Brothers, I just want to point out that he was one of several hundred investment bankers there. His influence there has been overstated (by others, you seem to have been reserved in how you raised the issue). Unsettling that he was a part of that firm, but I don't think it is reasonable to attribute the fall of Lehman Brothers or even a portion of it to him.

[Blitzers]

Not to mention Kasich supports Obamacare and common core. Yes they got rid of the testing in Ohio but the curriculum still exists in the schools.

[Patriam1066]

I like my hockey players Canadian and my presidents American. That's how dad did it. That's how America does it.

PS: Ted Cruz looks like a cross between my landscaper and Jared from Subway. In case I'm being too vague (I realize Cruz supporters are slow) I'm saying he looks like a Hispanic pedophile.