Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / How'd the Bhengazi thing work out for you, Trey?

How'd the Bhengazi thing work out for you, Trey?

14 posts
  1. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    10/23/2015 5:10 AM



  2. Steven Huffstutler
    Steven Huffstutler avatar
    11 posts
    10/23/2015 5:10 AM
    Well, I think they did damage Hillary, so it's probably a win. As far as getting to the bottom of what happened in Libya? Not so much.



  3. Trevor Monreal
    Trevor Monreal avatar
    5 posts
    10/23/2015 7:10 AM
    [img">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30950781/Hillary2016.jpg[/img">



  4. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    10/23/2015 7:10 AM
    I was in the car for several hours and listened to the entire morning round of questioning. What I learned:

    1. It was very much a partisan investigation.
    2. The democrat committee members had no interest in trying to find answers.
    3. The republican committee members were trying to bait Clinton.
    4. The embassy made over 600 requests for additional security and it was not supplied.
    5. Clinton's attitude about an emergency is - "if there is an emergency call my peeps, don't bother me with your little people problems".



  5. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    11/10/2015 11:11 AM
    FBI is still digging pretty deep into her. she could still be criminally charged if Obama doesn't prevent it with his wonderful Justice Dept. Her private e-mail server and her bald faced lies in front of the committee certainly should make people thing twice about voting for her if not charged. She is not a good person.



  6. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/10/2015 2:11 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: FBI is still digging pretty deep into her. she could still be criminally charged if Obama doesn't prevent it with his wonderful Justice Dept. Her private e-mail server and her bald faced lies in front of the committee certainly should make people thing twice about voting for her if not charged. She is not a good person.


    So Bernie has a chance?

    You know if the Republicans would produce a decent candidate like a Gov./Ambassador Huntsman, they would win this thing hands down.

    The moderates running now like Gov. Bush don't stand a chance. The far right who turns out for primaries won't vote for him. Romney went so far right to get the primary vote, the independents didn't trust him in 2012.

    Except for his bombast, I actually think Trump could make a decent candidate, since he supports a more middle of the road agenda with his thoughts on health care, I think his tax policy of 5-10-15-20% (if I remember correctly) sounds interesting but I don't know if anyone has done the math.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  7. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    11/10/2015 3:11 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: FBI is still digging pretty deep into her. she could still be criminally charged if Obama doesn't prevent it with his wonderful Justice Dept. Her private e-mail server and her bald faced lies in front of the committee certainly should make people thing twice about voting for her if not charged. She is not a good person.


    So Bernie has a chance?

    You know if the Republicans would produce a decent candidate like a Gov./Ambassador Huntsman, they would win this thing hands down.

    The moderates running now like Gov. Bush don't stand a chance. The far right who turns out for primaries won't vote for him. Romney went so far right to get the primary vote, the independents didn't trust him in 2012.

    Except for his bombast, I actually think Trump could make a decent candidate, since he supports a more middle of the road agenda with his thoughts on health care, I think his tax policy of 5-10-15-20% (if I remember correctly) sounds interesting but I don't know if anyone has done the math.

    Mel


    Jeb would do just fine in the primary if he would learn how to speak complete sentences and quit stepping on his schwantz. All candidates, left and right, preach to their hard core constituency during the primaries. So pah-leez, enough with the idea that far out speech is limited to the right.



  8. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/10/2015 4:11 PM
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    Jeb would do just fine in the primary if he would learn how to speak complete sentences and quit stepping on his schwantz. All candidates, left and right, preach to their hard core constituency during the primaries. So pah-leez, enough with the idea that far out speech is limited to the right.


    I suppose that's true to a degree, but I didn't think President Obama really went that far left, Senator McCain, I don't think went that far to the right, well until he made is VP selection. I can see Senator Sanders be a little left out there, more so with maybe with his solutions, but his targets seem reasonable, I'm not a Senator Clinton fan either, the Democrats could have come up with some better candidates as well. But at least the ones we have seem to believe in Science and have taken history (Pyramids anyone?), although they tend to not use science so much either when it comes to rule making, they tend to go overboard in some regulations but isn't that better then no regulations? I guess another topic for discussion.

    Of course I don't see some of the some of the left stuff being crazy as much since I lean some that way?

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  9. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    11/10/2015 7:11 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    I can see Senator Sanders be a little left out there,

    Mel


    A little? Oh boy, Mel. I believe you just disqualified yourself from rational discussion about any republican candidate.



  10. Steven Scott
    Steven Scott avatar
    0 posts
    11/11/2015 8:11 AM
    I mean the doomsday scenario is that we get the option of voting for the self proclaimed socialist Sanders or the far right tea party Ted Cruz, right? I don't see any of the candidates in either party reaching across the aisle and approaching issues with any sort of common sense, scientific or otherwise. I hate to say it but Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan may have been our last two presidents who were willing to even deal with the opposing party and not just work over their heads. I'm financially conservative and socially liberal which is starting to overlap too much with our current politics. Time to invest in a bunker and a bunch of food and ammo...



  11. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    11/11/2015 12:11 PM
    Mel, that is why Joe Biden's I am not running speech sounded very much like a candidate! He is just waiting to pounce. Sanders is a total Socialist. What his ilk doesn't understand is that taking money from the wealthy doesn't help the poor and punishing corporations just sends more of them and the jobs overseas! None of these guys have run a business or I guess even studied basic economics. Redistribution doesn't work but creating opportunity always does. Cruz may sound extreme but he preaches a heavy dose of common sense. Jeb is done and as much as I like John Kasich and his accomplishments, he doesn't stand a chance. I think Cruz or Rubio with Carly as the VP candidate will prove tough to beat. I think the good doctor and Trump will begin to slowly fade though Carson is very likeable and both not being politicians is very attractive to many. Not like the politicians of either party have done us much good! The lack of partisonship is directly related to Pelosi and Reed. They may have been the two most toxic people in the history of politics. Their idea of working together is the Republican Party caving to everything they want without giving much if anything in return.



  12. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/11/2015 9:11 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Mel, that is why Joe Biden's I am not running speech sounded very much like a candidate! He is just waiting to pounce. Sanders is a total Socialist. What his ilk doesn't understand is that taking money from the wealthy doesn't help the poor and punishing corporations just sends more of them and the jobs overseas! None of these guys have run a business or I guess even studied basic economics. Redistribution doesn't work but creating opportunity always does. Cruz may sound extreme but he preaches a heavy dose of common sense. Jeb is done and as much as I like John Kasich and his accomplishments, he doesn't stand a chance. I think Cruz or Rubio with Carly as the VP candidate will prove tough to beat. I think the good doctor and Trump will begin to slowly fade though Carson is very likeable and both not being politicians is very attractive to many. Not like the politicians of either party have done us much good! The lack of partisonship is directly related to Pelosi and Reed. They may have been the two most toxic people in the history of politics. Their idea of working together is the Republican Party caving to everything they want without giving much if anything in return.


    Sandy, while Congresswomen Pelosi and Senator Reid have their issues, they can't take all the blame, I still remember Senator McConnell's statement before the President took office was to make him a one term president, so they really didn't want to work with the democrats either. Senator Cruz I don't think will survive, after seeing some of the debate, Senator Rubio might be the one who outlast everyone else. Ms. Farina is starting to fade, I don't see the VP candidate coming from the current group. I disagree that the democrats are really looking at redistribution, it is more making sure to bring in enough tax revenue to rebuild our infrastructure so the poor have decent jobs.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  13. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    11/12/2015 9:11 AM
    Like I have said for years and Carly said very clearly in the debates. No more tax revenue is needed. Go to 0 based budgeting, identify every dollar and be able to move it where it is best utilized. Review every agency, dump a few and force every manage to manage, just as we have to do. Don't know if we will ever find out but I would bet you could cut every phase of the budget and every agency by 30% and realize we still have sufficient dollars to run everything. We have excused total mismanagement for so long that we just accept government working that way. We have the most under employed population we have ever had yet we are bringing in record tax receipts and it still isn't enough? Just think if we encouraged economic growth instead of hampering it at every turn. If that under or unemployed population was working, the government would have all the money they need to do everything but first lets get back to honestly managing and cutting fat and waste before we tax any individual or company another cent!



  14. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/12/2015 10:11 AM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Like I have said for years and Carly said very clearly in the debates. No more tax revenue is needed. Go to 0 based budgeting, identify every dollar and be able to move it where it is best utilized. Review every agency, dump a few and force every manage to manage, just as we have to do. Don't know if we will ever find out but I would bet you could cut every phase of the budget and every agency by 30% and realize we still have sufficient dollars to run everything. We have excused total mismanagement for so long that we just accept government working that way. We have the most under employed population we have ever had yet we are bringing in record tax receipts and it still isn't enough? Just think if we encouraged economic growth instead of hampering it at every turn. If that under or unemployed population was working, the government would have all the money they need to do everything but first lets get back to honestly managing and cutting fat and waste before we tax any individual or company another cent!


    There are some things the government might do to hamper growth, but most of it is to protect the citizens, we could all debate what is more important but we all won't agree on it. Look at the coal fired plant issue. We know exhaust can cause health issues, but states that rely on that are not going to push for more regulations because they are not prepared to diversify. Of course my contention is, this is where new innovations should be encouraged to provide even cleaner emissions out of power plants, and if we come up with those ideas we can export them to the real bad apples like China and India. Isn't that what we have done before? Look at the tech industry, we came up with all that stuff. I digressed, my thought on economic growth is up to the companies, if they want to make more money they will grow themselves. I think what prevents some companies from growing is a weak middle class with less disposable income.

    I can agree the government needs to be more efficient with its money, but part of that problem is caused by making sure there is not waste, fraud and/or corruption. We have all seen the stories of mismanagement in and out of the government sector, but the government sector in an effort to protect peoples tax money has probably double the checks and balances that a private business might have.

    Now when it comes to spending tax revenue, the problem their I see is we can't all agree on what our priorities are and what we should be spending money on. I will use Gitmo as an example, that is a huge waste of money to keep those people locked up in Cuba, yet the Republicans do not want to see them prosecuted and put into our prisons, (despite our ability to prosecute the blind sheik who first bombed the World Trade Center, and the Boston Marathon bomber to name 2, also I know I used a Republican issue, I know there are plenty of Democrats spending money wastefully as well.). If we were able to close Gitmo how many millions could we save? We discuss funding the military, we all want a strong military but at what point are we spending to much when we outspend the next what is it 10 countries combined? Many of them our allies? Yet congress (Ohio delegation) kept the tank lines open, despite the Army not wanting them, or the A-10's being phased out, (although that one puzzles me as I think it is the best ground support weapon out there) because the military doesn't want to keep them going, yet Senators from both sides in my state fought to keep them (since we have a base that is home to some). I would like to see more of that money spent on veterans care. I would like to see more money spent on infrastructure, it doesn't bother me as much because it is such a small percentage that welfare and Medicaid is supported with our tax dollars, sometimes people need a helping hand, now I do think they need to find a way out, but you know who benefits from those people on food stamps? Businesses like Wal-Mart and other big grocery chains. Where I don't want to see money spent is on subsidies for big corporations and huge tax breaks or tax codes that benefit these large companies. Yea, taxes are high if you can't find deductions or get tax breaks, so lets just lower the rate and cut the deductions. Many people would disagree with a few of my suggestions, that is where we would find problems trying to curb government spending, because we couldn't agree on our priorities.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

View or change your forums profile here.