2016 Election
Quote: mcallister3200It would be nice if the people spoke, I think that's the way it's supposed to be. But the people only are allowed to choose between figure heads that will support special interests. It's why Ron Paul had zero chance last election and Bernie has none this election.
I think that the people have abdicated their responsibility to the process--love or hate the Tea party (and regardless of how it originated), people were elected who had different views from the mainstream of their party. The problem is that it takes paying attention for more than one cycle to change things. A movement that lasts on ly one election cycle won't really make a difference. Change takes involvement; involvement takes time. Most people just want someone else to take care of things for them, and this is what we get.
Maybe it has always been this way, but the politicians are getting craftier in their methods of retaining power.
The people can do something about it, but it will take time and effort.
Quote: ams288Then after Joe said that one time, Lindsay Graham must have been watching because he called in right after Trump and the interview was nowhere near as interesting.
That guy is hard to listen to...at least Trump will always say something that makes you want to listen one way or the other. Graham is just boring.
Quote: kewljThe Republicans really can not stop Obama from not only nominating, but appointing the next member of the supreme court. All they can do is delay it until the final days of his term. Here is my understanding of the way it works.
Obama will nominate someone and the republican led Senate can refuse to schedule hearing. As long as the Senate does not go into recess, that nomination is on hold. If the senate goes into recess at any time, the president can appoint a judge without confirmation.
So, the Republicans will make sure the Senate does not go into recess, even during vacation and down time. I think all that is required is that someone from leadership gavel a session to order for a minute every 3 days. So the republicans will be very vigilant about doing that.
But here's the problem. The current Senate expires on January 3, 2017. The new senate begins several weeks later, with the winners from Novembers elections taking their seats. That is a finite thing. The senate ends January 3, 2017....means they are in recess and that little gavel trick does not apply, because there is no official senate during that period.
20th Amendment, Section 1: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." The new Senate begins pretty much immediately, especially as they have to swear in the new members right away.
Also note that the unanimous opinion of NLRB v. Canning says that a recess of shorter than 10 days is too short for the President to make a recess appointment.
Solidly on point. But 9,000 years of recorded history tell us a different story. Especially after the Athenians' implementation of democracy. Democracies become greedy, corrupt and lazy, and they last 200 to 400 years.Quote: RonCThe people can do something about it, but it will take time and effort.
Trump 42, Cruz 20, Rubio 15, Kasich 9, Bush 6, Carson 6
3 things stand out to me. Obviously Trump's big lead in what is supposed to be a strong Cruz type state. That is confirmed by a number of online betting sites which currently have Trump as the odds on favorite to win South Carolina, as low as 1-10 (bet $10 to win 1).
The second thing that stands out is Kasich's rise after his second place showing in New Hampshire. Previously he was polling at 1 or 2 % in South Carolina.
And Finally, Jeb's 6% number. South Carolina is supposed to be a Bush strong hold with big military population and strong Bush family support. This poll certainly doesn't reflect this. Just looks like Jeb continues to be rejected at every turn by the republican voters. He is tied for last place with Carson, who really isn't even running for president.
Quote: RonCAs President, will he have a different opinion on every issue every day? That does not appeal to me.
He is fun to watch. Like a train wreck.
He doesn't change his mind on anything,
that's his appeal. He never apologizes,
never walks back his comments.
In fact, he usually doubles down, you
hear the pundits talking about that all the
time. He's the opposite of a 'train wreck',
he's a wrecking ball, knocking down all
those who oppose him. Your comments
are so off track all the time, you obviously
never watch most of his interviews.
My early feeling is that playing this obstructionist card yet again, is going to be a net negative for republicans. I think it will turn off independent type voters. Whether you like Obama or not, he is president for almost another full year and as such he has not only the right, but the responsibility to nominate a supreme court justice.
The senate has the responsibility to hold timely hearings on the nomination. They have the right to reject a nomination based on that persons merit, but to come out and say they will not consider anyone, is not fulfilling their sworn responsibilities. Sure the republican based loves that, but I just don't think it is going to play well with independents, whom the republicans need this fall.
Furthermore, it is a very risky move for republicans. At present, I would say the democrats are favored to win the presidency based in large part on the advantage they currently hold in the electoral map. Polls and data and changing demographics of the population seem to back that up, although things certainly can change.
In addition, because 24 republican senate seats and only 10 democratic senate seats are up for election in 2016, including several current republican seats in democratic leaning states like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin, it seems very likely that the republicans will lose senate seats.
This mean that come January 2017 there very well could be a democratic president with a democratic senate, making it easier for the democratic president to get through an even more liberal nomination.
I realize the republicans are upset at losing perhaps the most conservative justice, but there strongest play at the current time, might just be to use their current advantage in the senate to force the president to nominate a Justice that is a little more moderate, towards the middle, rather than postpone the whole process to a time next year that could be even worse for them.
Quote: ams288.
Joe Scarborough always says people complain about them giving Trump so much air time, but none of the other candidates are willing to call in and answer their questions.
.
They don't know what the questions will
be and they don't want to screw up, so
they carefully pick and choose who's show
they go on. Trump doesn't care what they
ask, he'll talk about anything. He's had a
full life and has tons of interesting anecdotes.
That's his appeal. He's a billionaire, yet he talks
like a regular person, like somebody who says
what he means and yes, means what he says.
That's why he's forgiven for so many inappropriate
comments, people understand that real people
screw up once in awhile. Watching Trump run
is fascinating, I'm real curious to see how he does
if he's elected. It would be impossible for him
to worse than than what we have now, that's
laughable.
Trump does have a long record of getting things
done. He keeps pushing and dealing till he makes
things happen. He won't change just because he's
president. He'll either be a huge failure or a huge
success, and he's not the failure type.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/Quote: kewljInteresting CBS poll out this morning. The poll was taken after the New Hampshire primary results but obviously before last nights debate.
Trump 42, Cruz 20, Rubio 15, Kasich 9, Bush 6, Carson 6
Quote: EvenBobhe's a wrecking ball, knocking down all
those who oppose him.
This is true, but I do think it was a mistake to continue to attack Bush. It just doesn't make sense to punch down like that. Trump is polling at 42%, Jeb at 6%. He is irrelevant. No need to give him a platform by engaging him.
Although I am supporting Trump, his temperament is a concern for me. He has very thin skin, takes things personally and holds a grudge....big time. Those aren't really great traits for a president.
Quote: EvenBobHe doesn't change his mind on anything,
that's his appeal. He never apologizes,
never walks back his comments.
In fact, he usually doubles down, you
hear the pundits talking about that all the
time. He's the opposite of a 'train wreck',
he's a wrecking ball, knocking down all
those who oppose him. Your comments
are so off track all the time, you obviously
never watch most of his interviews.
You're right EB, (kind of)
And Trump has a beguiling side.
I personally don't like giving guys who already think and act like they are already powerful and unassailable already even more power, or in this case the ultimate power. There's a possibility you can't stop them when you really need to.
Why you wanna risk being a serf one day, just to have a super duper daddy figure like Trump?
Quote: kewljforce the president to nominate a Justice that is a little more moderate, towards the middle, rather than postpone the whole process to a time next year that could be even worse for them.
Study this chart of the history of the SC. Look
for how long so many justices were right near
the middle of Left and Right. Look at how
it is now. Half are distinctly Right and half are
very distinctly Left. That isn't a good thing,
there has to be several more to the middle
or the court is a waste of time. Just rubber
stamp everything, why even go thru the motions.
Quote: EvenBobHe doesn't change his mind on anything,
that's his appeal. He never apologizes,
never walks back his comments.
In fact, he usually doubles down, you
hear the pundits talking about that all the
time. He's the opposite of a 'train wreck',
he's a wrecking ball, knocking down all
those who oppose him. Your comments
are so off track all the time, you obviously
never watch most of his interviews.
I don't watch most of his interviews. They really aren't worth watching, since he always says the same thing and never apologies for anything...
"Ultimately, that's what Colbert's segment shows: Trump has consistently changed his opinions over the years when it suits him. That's not exactly abnormal for a politician, but it certainly disputes the tell-it-like-it-is style that Trump is supposed to champion."
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10868392/stephen-colbert-debate-donald-trump
Quote: RonCI don't watch most of his interviews. They really aren't worth watching, since he always says the same thing and never apologies for anything...
I can't even believe this. He rarely says the same
thing over and over like the other candidates.
He talks about what he wants to do, but not
always in the same way. And he actually answers
questions. Ask Cruz or Rubio or Bush a question
they don't don't like, they ignore it and say
something not connected to the question at all.
Trump rarely does that, it's why he get gets
interviewed all the time. Nobody wants to hear
Cruz and Rubio's canned answers that we've
all heard 1000 times.
Oh no, Trump has changed his mind over the years!
Who the heck does that? Normal people, that's who.
I've changed dramatically in the last 30 years. We all
change, except politicians. Which Trump is not.
Quote: EvenBobI can't even believe this. He rarely says the same
thing over and over like the other candidates.
He talks about what he wants to do, but not
always in the same way. And he actually answers
questions. Ask Cruz or Rubio or Bush a question
they don't don't like, they ignore it and say
something not connected to the question at all.
Trump rarely does that, it's why he get gets
interviewed all the time. Nobody wants to hear
Cruz and Rubio's canned answers that we've
all heard 1000 times.
Oh no, Trump has changed his mind over the years!
Who the heck does that? Normal people, that's who.
I've changed dramatically in the last 30 years. We all
change, except politicians. Which Trump is not.
You said that he always says the same thing...he's changed his tune over months, not just years. In other words, he is like the other politicians in that way. His interviews are not all that interesting as he is just saying the same thing in different ways without much of the "how" behind it.
Like I said...he'll probably win because I am always wrong about him and where he is headed in the polls. I just don't feel comfortable with him. Maybe he will grow on me; and I will surely support him if he is the nominee.
last night with over 1000 Bush and Rubio donors and
loyalists and lobbyists. In an audience of only 1600, it's
why there was so much cheering when Bush and Rubio
talked, and booing when Trump said bad things to Bush.
This had the opposite intended effect on folks who voted
in the Drudge Poll. Trump is winning today with over 50%
of the vote, with Cruz far back at 20%. It's an unscientific
internet poll, but all season it's been an accurate precursor
to the real polls that follow. The RNC is so desperate to
have Rubio or Bush be the nominee that it's beside itself
with desperation.
Quote: EvenBobHe doesn't change his mind on anything,
that's his appeal. He never apologizes,
never walks back his comments.
In fact, he usually doubles down, you
hear the pundits talking about that all the
time. He's the opposite of a 'train wreck',
he's a wrecking ball, knocking down all
those who oppose him. Your comments
are so off track all the time, you obviously
never watch most of his interviews.
Not true, sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on many things, including abortion, planned parenthood, gay marriage, etc. It is true that he never apologizes for his many insults, but he often denies he meant to insult someone or some group when challenged on it. "I love Mexicans, I've had thousands of Mexicans working for me"...etc...from the very start of his candidacy. "I love women" while ducking Megyn Kelly's question about his many misogynistic quotes. etc.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot true, sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on many things, including abortion, planned parenthood, gay marriage, etc. It is true that he never apologizes for his many insults, but he often denies he meant to insult someone or some group when challenged on it. "I love Mexicans, I've had thousands of Mexicans working for me"...etc...from the very start of his candidacy. "I love women" while ducking Megyn Kelly's question about his many misogynistic quotes. etc.
Why do you doubt he loves Mexicans and/or women ? ? ?
then watch the republicans squirm
trying to get the Hispanic/woman vote to win the 2016 election while denying a Hispanic/Woman a seat on the court
I'll have the popcorn out :-)
Quote: nodummy57Why do you doubt he loves Mexicans and/or women ? ? ?
Next you will be telling me Bill and Hillary respect women...
Quote: beachbumbabsNot true, sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on many things,
Not since the campaign started he hasn't. He
has obviously different opinions on things
over the years, but he hasn't said something
in June and is saying something different now.
Trump is right when he says Reagan changed
his stance over the years on many issues, just
like most normal people do. People change,
they evolve.
I think he's correct that he didn't mean to insult
a whole bunch of people with some of his remarks.
He never said all Mexicans are rapists. He said Mexico
is "sending people that have lots of problems" to
America including rapists, drug runners, and
other criminals. Which is absolutely true. It's
the media that distorted it. Even Jeb Bush said
last night that Trump says all Mexicans are rapists.
I don't think Trump heard him, though.
Quote: terapined
I'll have the popcorn out :-)
Why do you say that all the time, what
does it even mean. You say it constantly,
is it a movie reference? You'll have the
'popcorn out', do you live at the circus?
Why do you want it 'out'?
Quote: EvenBobNot since the campaign started he hasn't. He
has obviously different opinions on things
over the years, but he hasn't said something
in June and is saying something different now.
Trump is right when he says Reagan changed
his stance over the years on many issues, just
like most normal people do. People change,
they evolve.
I think he's correct that he didn't mean to insult
a whole bunch of people with some of his remarks.
He never said all Mexicans are rapists. He said Mexico
is "sending people that have lots of problems" to
America including rapists, drug runners, and
other criminals. Which is absolutely true. It's
the media that distorted it. Even Jeb Bush said
last night that Trump says all Mexicans are rapists.
I don't think Trump heard him, though.
"1. Afghanistan
At first he said: Entering Afghanistan was "a terrible mistake"
"We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place," he told CNN's "New Day" on Oct. 6. He added: "At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time."
180: I've never said it was a mistake
"Iraq was a disaster," he told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday. "Not Afghanistan, because that's probably where we should have gone in the first place."
When pressed by CNN's Alisyn Camerota on his change of position, he said: "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan.""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/20/donald-trumps-many-campaign-180s-in-his-own-words/
Quote: terapinedThe smart thing for Obama to do is nominate somebody like Sotomayor
then watch the republicans squirm
trying to get the Hispanic/woman vote to win the 2016 election while denying a Hispanic/Woman a seat on the court
I'll have the popcorn out :-)
That's probably not a bad strategy. I don't know if it needs to be a female Hispanic, but it needs to be someone (probably in the southwest) with a very strong Hispanic following who would cause a severe backlash even further in Hispanic support in 2016 election if that person was delayed for no good reason by the Republican controlled senate.
Quote: rxwineThat's probably not a bad strategy. I don't know if it needs to be a female Hispanic, but it needs to be someone (probably in the southwest) with a very strong Hispanic following who would cause a severe backlash even further in Hispanic support in 2016 election if that person was delayed for no good reason by the Republican controlled senate.
I'm sure Obama is currently weighing a million different options and figuring out which is the best hand for him to play in order to put the Republicans in the worst situation possible. He's got the Constitution and historical precedent on his side, they've got........ nothing.
Quote: ams288I'm sure Obama is currently weighing a million different options
Doubtful. He already has an extremely short
list, with somebody at the top. All presidents
do. He won't decide anything, his underlings
will and interrupt him on the basketball court
to tell him what to do. Or the golf course if
it's summer. Remember, without a teleprompter,
Obama is clueless.
Quote: ams288I'm sure Obama is currently weighing a million different options and figuring out which is the best hand for him to play in order to put the Republicans in the worst situation possible. He's got the Constitution and historical precedent on his side, they've got........ nothing.
I'm not so sure. He didn't do that when he had control of both houses; luckily, he only got a limited part of his agenda passed during that time. He has a weak party chairperson; she won't be much help. He would be correct in putting the Republicans in a box...I just don't know if he will do that or just appoint a very liberal jurist who the Republicans can easily reject.
He does have an advantage. We will see if he uses it properly.
Quote: RonCI'm not so sure. He didn't do that when he had control of both houses; luckily, he only got a limited part of his agenda passed during that time. He has a weak party chairperson; she won't be much help. He would be correct in putting the Republicans in a box...I just don't know if he will do that or just appoint a very liberal jurist who the Republicans can easily reject.
He does have an advantage. We will see if he uses it properly.
I don't see him attempting to appoint a hardcore liberal. He doesn't need to.
Heck, even a moderate would be considered a win in comparison to Scalia. This opening is basically a freebie for him. No one on the left was really expecting to tilt the court left under Obama's remaining time in office.
Quote: kewlj....I am liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative...
I wish a Presidential Candidate from either party would run on this platform.
Paradigm 2020 has my vote.Quote: ParadigmI wish a Presidential Candidate from either party would run on this platform.
Edit: crap. I just posted in a political thread.
Quote: mipletParadigm 2020 has my vote.
Edit: crap. I just posted in a political thread.
Are you going to be vaporized now?
Nope. I've posted in some political threads in DT. I even started one. I just don't think we are going to change any one's views on things by posting on the internet. I was one of our precinct delegates for Clinton back in 2008. By then it was pretty much decided that Obama would be the party nomination. We had record turnout then. In 2012, I was the only one from my predict to even show up. My uncle had a major accident so I didn't get to attend our 2008 congressional caucous. I'm sure there weren't as many people there as there was in 2008.Quote: rxwineAre you going to be vaporized now?
And now I'm rambling on. Another reason why I avoid political threads.
Quote: Mooseton
Appropriately allocate some government revenue to the problem....kinda the same way you would figure out how to pay for the Defense Dept and every other real need. It isn't a no welfare or no defense proposition. They are just choices that need to be made and neither the extreme Left nor the extreme Right seem to be willing to bend to get anything reasonable done...and so we get one side or the other trying to unilaterally ram their position through the system using any and all methods available...it is all so pathetic.
Quote: Mooseton
This is essentially what the Republican Party was before the Reagan presidency. (And my personal stance, or close to it). Republicans were pro-ERA, pro-choice, workfare, all kinds of progressive social issues, while wanting smaller gov't and fiscal responsibility. Those of us still in that wheelhouse are considered RINO's by the bedroom peepers and regressive religious-ites. But it's our party, too.
BTW, I would pay for "welfare" by a combination of higher thresholds to qualify with able-bodied people required to work to get assistance, child-care problems mitigated by shared "parenting" with mothers earning wages for caring for other mothers' kids while those mothers work, public service earning benefits, attending trade schools or retraining for available jobs subsidized, and only those incapable of working not involved in some way with earning their keep. Both God and the gov't should help those who help themselves.
Quote: nodummy57Trade schools account for 10% of student loans and 90% of student loan defaults. Don't expect that to change anytine soon.
I didn't know that. I wonder why. I would have
thought they would be the ones to pay the
loans back. I know a couple of younger trade
school people who have really good jobs now.
One got a computer degree from ITT and is now
part owner of a company that installs automatic
trannys in semi trucks. Very heavy computer
oriented product.
placement.
On trade schools, DeVry just got popped by the government.
"The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit against the operators of DeVry University, alleging that DeVry’s advertisements deceived consumers about the likelihood that students would find jobs in their fields of study, and would earn more than those graduating with bachelor's degrees from other colleges or universities.
“Millions of Americans look to higher education for training that will lead to meaningful employment and good pay,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Educational institutions like DeVry owe prospective students the truth about their graduates’ success finding employment in their field of study and the income they can earn.”
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/01/ftc-brings-enforcement-action-against-devry-university
Quote: Rigondeaux
"The Federal Trade Commission has filed suit against the operators of DeVry University, alleging that DeVry’s advertisements deceived consumers about the likelihood that students would find jobs in their fields of study,
Some law schools are being sued by the lawyers
they trained for making similar promises they
had no intention of keeping. A law degree now
helps you get a job as an assistant manager in
a mall shoe store. One step above Al Bundy.
Quote: RonCAs President, will he have a different opinion on every issue every day? That does not appeal to me.
Trump is on record as liking HIllary and Bill. He's also on record as calling Bush the worst President in a long time.
An interesting position to be in. But I don't pretend to figure out the republican electorate on such strange factoids on their leading candidate.
Possibly he may even do things I like if he becomes President, which will certainly give me a hearty laugh. Not sure what his supporters think he will do, or if they consider him incapable of changing his mind again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
Quote: EvenBobDems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
That was dem and this is now.
Anyway, there is plenty of precedent for both sides reversing on issues.
Quote: rxwineTrump is on record as liking HIllary and Bill. He's also on record as calling Bush the worst President in a long time.
An interesting position to be in. But I don't pretend to figure out the republican electorate on such strange factoids on their leading candidate.
Possibly he may even do things I like if he becomes President, which will certainly give me a hearty laugh. Not sure what his supporters think he will do, or if they consider him incapable of changing his mind again.
I don't see the major issue is changing your opinions over time. There have been many times in my life in which I have changed positions over time. Sometimes, it has to do with me becoming more educated or knowledgeable about a topic or issue, some has been seeing how certain things affect certain people, and some has been due to new information coming out. I am 37 years old, and I don't think there are many people out there who are my age who believe the same way about the world in terms of politics or much of anything as they did when they were 18.
Especially if you mean Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, who change their story every time whoever is president changes.Quote: rxwineAnyway, there is plenty of precedent for both sides reversing on issues.
Quote: EvenBobDems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
Wrong. They opposed *recess* appointment power. As GovTrack said, "[T]here is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically." GovTrack.us
Of course, you would come to the erroneous conclusion that EvenBob did if you limit your reading to right-wing magazines and blogs.
Quote: SanchoPanzaEspecially if you mean Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, who change their story every time whoever is president changes.
Well, in this case the most extreme action is being taken by senators threatening to not confirm an appointment before it has even been made. And if the delay is going to be 3 times longer than even longest previous confirmation by delaying it that is also extreme. But you won't throw your bums out, so who cares what you think about the other sides bums.
I expect Obama will nominate an African American woman. Apparently there is one who is 'qualified', whatever that means. I can't wait for the hearings where the dozen old white men try and excoriate the poor black nominee. This won't go well for the Republicans on any level.
Quote: EvenBobA law degree now
helps you get a job as an assistant manager in
a mall shoe store. One step above Al Bundy.
I thought Al was the manager of the store.
