2016 Election
Quote: terapined???????
The Hispanic vote is lost, Hillary in a landslide regardless of debate performance.
Why is this? Because Trump does not do like a liberal and jump up and down saying "I LOVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!?"
If a conservative said that Hispanics would vote for whoever favors illegal immigration, the howls of "RACISM" would be deafening. And I will say it again, if to win the Hispanic vote you have to support illegal immigration, the USA is lost and there is not much use in anything, it is over.
Quote:I am certainly not wondering why it is not being handed to Bush. Where does this come from? fantasyland?
Every lib I know or see keeps saying, "You had better nominate Jeb!" Not fantasyland, words and actions.
Quote:Its obvious Trump is earning the Nomination. I expect him to win the nomination.
I don't. I expect him to be a stalking horse for Walker, who will take the general. Trump is doing a great job of taking fire right now. Said fire is thus not being spent on the rest of the field. Meanwhile across town the Hillary circus continues. Dems put all their eggs in one very bad basket. The lamestream media is finally starting to do their job and questioning her on the server. Liberals will keep insisting that use of a free aol.com account would be perfectly acceptable for classified material, of course. But the server issue is real. Who knows what else will pop up from her past before IA.
Hardworking regular folks such as the Hispanic portion of the vote has been totally lost by Trump.
His latest actions insure he gets the nomination and also insures he loses the Presidency.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd I will say it again, if to win the Hispanic vote you have to support illegal immigration, the USA is lost and there is not much use in anything, it is over.
Trump's problem is that he comes across so strongly as being against all immigration. Whether that is his true position or not, it most certainly is the perception he is putting out there.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy is this? Because Trump does not do like a liberal and jump up and down saying "I LOVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!?"
It's a fact that Latinos do not vote as a block,
like blacks do. Polls show that many many
Latinos are against illegal immigration. To
say Trump has lost them is totally wrong.
A major reason why so many Hispanic people don't like illegal immigration is that so many of them had to endure the tribulations that the U.S. government imposed on them.Quote: EvenBobIt's a fact that Latinos do not vote as a block, like blacks do. Polls show that many many Latinos are against illegal immigration. To say Trump has lost them is totally wrong.
Quote: SanchoPanzaA major reason why so many Hispanic people don't like illegal immigration is that so many of them had to endure the tribulations that the U.S. government imposed on them.
Are you saying that they don't like illegal aliens because they decided to follow the law and don't care for those who didn't?
If it was hard for them to get in and they respect the laws of the US, why should they respect those who don't do the same?
Quote: beachbumbabsThe only candidate I've seen who can take the general election for the Repubs is Kasich. Trump's ceiling is somewhere around 35%. Jeb might have a chance still. Otherwise, it's Hillary.
I think we are a long way from there being much to an assertion that strong.
Clinton was a shoo-in in October of 2007:
"Clinton’s lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx
It is so far from being a done deal to declare much with certainty at this point. A shift in the economy from "weak recovery" to "recession" could make a huge difference; a strong recovery following the weak one could do the same the other way.
Quote: SanchoPanzaA major reason why so many Hispanic people don't like illegal immigration is that so many of them had to endure the tribulations that the U.S. government imposed on them.
Sure except for that 1 relative/ brother, sister, mother, father they'd like to see join them. If you have a lot of families making that one exception, it adds up. Blood is probably thicker than overall political views.
I can't remember the last republican talking seriously about immigration reform with exception of what to do about illegals. Hard to imagine that really plays well with the majority of Hispanics.
Except for contrarians, it's seems likely Trump is not helping things.
Quote: RonCI think we are a long way from there being much to an assertion that strong.
Clinton was a shoo-in in October of 2007:
"Clinton’s lead over Obama has expanded to nearly 30 points in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Oct. 12-14: 50% vs. 21%."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx
It is so far from being a done deal to declare much with certainty at this point. A shift in the economy from "weak recovery" to "recession" could make a huge difference; a strong recovery following the weak one could do the same the other way.
Chances are you're right. I just felt like going out there with a strong prediction. The one thing we all can see is that it's not going to be "Politics as usual", so who the hell knows where things will be in a year, let alone election. :)
Quote:NASHVILLE - Donald Trump promised Saturday to make an announcement “very soon” on whether he will rule out running as an independent candidate, saying that “a lot of people are going to be very happy.
Pretty sure, I have no idea what that means.
Quote: rxwine
I can't remember the last republican talking seriously about immigration reform with exception of what to do about illegals. Hard to imagine that really plays well with the majority of Hispanics.
Let me guess, by "talking seriously" you really mean "blanket amnesty," no?
Quote: AZDuffmanLet me guess, by "talking seriously" you really mean "blanket amnesty," no?
Like many failed policies, we want to revisit things we have tried in the past that didn't work and double down on them. Amnesty did not work because we did not do enough to stop people from coming here.
--Make it illegal to work here without proper authority
--Make it illegal to obtain benefits here if you are here illegally (give emergency compassionate aid and a bus ticket home)
--Fine businesses for using illegal labor
--Protect the border
--Suspend economic aid to Mexico and tariff imports when they buck our immigration system
--If you give a "path" to "legality", make it two strikes and you're out forever if you commit a crime...automatic deportation upon the second conviction of anything more serious than jaywalking
NEITHER party is serious about "Immigration Reform"...amnesty is not reform; it is accepting failure. That alone doesn't count as "reform." Reform is changing things so that it doesn't happen again and being smart enough to fix what failed the last time. Too many supposed "conservatives" want cheap labor; too many "liberals" want to give away your farm. Not there farm, of course...everyone else's farm!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-locking-up-delegates
I had almost forgot about 'super delegates', which is a ploy used by both parties to take away some of the decision making and power away from voters. :(
I suppose on the republican side, Jeb, being the establishment candidate has likewise 'locked' up many of the super delegates.
Even though nothing is really locked, these super delegates can switch their alligence up until and including convention time (in 2008, many early Hillary super delegates did switch), I REALLY hate this whole aspect of taking away from the voters.
i watched all his 'apprentice'. he is so a charming... i would see him in the white house.
Quote: kewlj
I suppose on the republican side, Jeb, being the establishment candidate has likewise 'locked' up many of the super delegates.
Haven't heard there but IIRC the "supers" are not as important in the GOP system.
Yup, nothing like the great divider attacking and belittling any point of disagreement in the other two co-equal branches of government. All accompanied by infantile name calling. Hmmmmm!Quote: ams288Think of all the things Obama would have accomplished if it weren't for the Republican asshats in Congress.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYup, nothing like the great divider attacking and belittling any point of disagreement in the other two co-equal branches of government. All accompanied by infantile name calling. Hmmmmm!
There is more than enough blame to go around on BOTH sides for the gridlock that Washington has become. I am sure neither side is anxious to co-operate with the other and I suspect it has been that way for far longer than I have been paying attention for.
However, I never remember hearing an opposition party leady stand up and state that his main objective over the next 4 years was to oppose everything the current president did, so he would be a one term president, as Mitch McConnell did on day one. Maybe they think it, or say it in private, but I have never heard anyone say it publically like that. :(
And frankly, if someone that was supposed to be representing me did that I would be pissed. I elect someone to go to Washington to work for the best interest of the state, not to throw up a road block on every single thing, even things that could benefit the state, because he wants to make the current President look bad.
But when someone who is supposed to be presidential does just that continuously for what is now almost seven years, it is perfectly all right. We are living with those results right now, just as much of the rest of the globe is contending with the effects of erroneous and venal policies.Quote: kewljHowever, I never remember hearing an opposition party leady stand up and state that his main objective over the next 4 years was to oppose everything the current president did, so he would be a one term president, as Mitch McConnell did on day one. Maybe they think it, or say it in private, but I have never heard anyone say it publically like that. :(
And frankly, if someone that was supposed to be representing me did that I would be pissed.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBut when someone who is supposed to be presidential does just that continuously for what is now almost seven years, it is perfectly all right. We are living with those results right now, just as much of the rest of the globe is contending with the effects of erroneous and venal policies.
That is a huge distortion of what's happened up there. Every SOTU, every major bill, President Obama has asked, challenged, offered ways to work together. Every single time. And gotten repudiated and mocked for it, every single time. Health care. Immigration. Jobs. Infrastructure. Iran. Gun legislation. Tax structures. Everything (which is not much) that HAS passed, has passed over the opposition of the Republicans, who have rarely if ever proposed any workable alternate solution. I heard him do it myself on each of those occasions, so please don't suggest there hasn't been a co-ordinated, universal block on anything he's tried to advocate.
And the incumbent has done, at best, absolutely nothing to improve working together. He continues to omit anyone but his close circle from conferences on legislation, except, of course, for the Pacific Trade Bill. He continues to throw out insults whenver he can.Quote: beachbumbabsThat is a huge distortion of what's happened up there. Every SOTU, every major bill, President Obama has asked, challenged, offered ways to work together. Every single time. And gotten repudiated and mocked for it, every single time. Health care. Immigration. Jobs. Infrastructure. Iran. Gun legislation. Tax structures. Everything (which is not much) that HAS passed, has passed over the opposition of the Republicans, who have rarely if ever proposed any workable alternate solution. I heard him do it myself on each of those occasions, so please don't suggest there hasn't been a co-ordinated, universal block on anything he's tried to advocate.
Ask the lying Harry Reid for whom he was blocking any legislation from the House after 2010. Ask Reid and Pelosi just how many times they violated the law by not even submitting national budgets.
And the heir apparent continues the scummy tradition by likening anyone who is involved with the opposition party "terrorists." All the while the F.B.I. is investigating her abuse of top secret information.
What a bunch of doctrinaire hypocrites and wannabe tyrants!
Quote: beachbumbabsThat is a huge distortion of what's happened up there. Every SOTU, every major bill, President Obama has asked, challenged, offered ways to work together. Every single time. And gotten repudiated and mocked for it, every single time. Health care. Immigration. Jobs. Infrastructure. Iran. Gun legislation. Tax structures. Everything (which is not much) that HAS passed, has passed over the opposition of the Republicans, who have rarely if ever proposed any workable alternate solution. I heard him do it myself on each of those occasions, so please don't suggest there hasn't been a co-ordinated, universal block on anything he's tried to advocate.
Boo hoo hoo. You act as if Obama is the only POTUS who Congress has been against. Fact is the GOP has not "worked with" Obama because he from the start told them their input was not wanted. He took zero GOP input on Obamacare and that is why he got zero GOP votes on it. Blocking of bills happens. The US Constitution is designed to make it hard to pass things.
Please name ONE time he offered to work together that was not a matter of "vote for what I want." Obama has failed to get GOP votes because he does not understand how to work withe the other party. He never stopped the campaign even after the election. Then liberals cry that the mean GOP "will not work with him."
GWB got NCLB passed because he actually let Democrats have major input. Obama said for the GOP to sit in back and let him drive. Well, they did. Since their help was not wanted, none was given.
Quote: kewljHowever, I never remember hearing an opposition party leady stand up and state that his main objective over the next 4 years was to oppose everything the current president did, so he would be a one term president, as Mitch McConnell did on day one. Maybe they think it, or say it in private, but I have never heard anyone say it publically like that. :(
Like the current Geico slogan -- that's just what the Party of No does.
Filibuster -an action such as a prolonged speech that OBSTRUCTS progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.
Worse yet, they blame everyone else. Who shut down the government when they couldn't get their way? Which party had a bunch of members take an extra oath to NOT do something (which happens to be not raise taxes whether they needed to or not).
Quote: rxwine
Who shut down the government when they couldn't get their way?
Bill Clinton shut it in the 1990s and Barack Obama shut it down recently. Did you forget this? Both vetoed budgets and shut the government when they did not get what they wanted.
Quote:Which party had a bunch of members take an extra oath to NOT do something (which happens to be not raise taxes whether they needed to or not).
Good for them! Why on earth do liberals get upset when taxes are NOT raised? Who wants higher taxes?
Quote: AZDuffmanEvery lib I know or see keeps saying, "You had better nominate Jeb!" Not fantasyland, words and actions.
Because we mean it!! You really need to get over your delusion that we are only saying things to secretly try to trick the right into nominating a bad candidate and that we actually fear Trump.
I have said that Republicans' best chances at winning the general were with Jeb many times. But that was weeks ago. His campaign performance has been abysmal. So boring. Hasn't figured out how to handle Trump's daily harassment of him.
At this point I don't know which Republican could win a general. Maybe Kasich? If he were to be able to break through the circus....
It certainly isn't Trump.
Quote: ams288Because we mean it!! You really need to get over your delusion that we are only saying things to secretly try to trick the right into nominating a bad candidate and that we actually fear Trump.
If you think I believe that you must really think I am stupid.
Libs say this because they want the most beatable and most liberal candidate. Liberals fear Trump because he is generating energy and excitement. If he can keep that up remains to be seen, but right now they see him as unstoppable. If they thought he was so beatable they would be encouraging him.
Really, you want me to believe liberals have the best interest of the GOP at heart?
The 21st century Democrat is not a liberal but a very anti-liberal communist who wants to bleed the working class and middle class to benefit their base-millionaires, welfare bums, marxist intellectuals (sic), illegal aliens and the overfed government work force. See Clinton, Bill and Clinton, Hillary.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you think I believe that you must really think I am stupid.
Libs say this because they want the most beatable and most liberal candidate. Liberals fear Trump because he is generating energy and excitement. If he can keep that up remains to be seen, but right now they see him as unstoppable. If they thought he was so beatable they would be encouraging him.
Really, you want me to believe liberals have the best interest of the GOP at heart?
In real life, no. We don't have your best interest at heart.
This is a message board. We can say what we actually think here without swaying the electorate. lol
Quote: AZDuffmanLibs say this because they want the most beatable and most liberal candidate. Liberals fear Trump because he is generating energy and excitement. If he can keep that up remains to be seen, but right now they see him as unstoppable. If they thought he was so beatable they would be encouraging him.
Had to break this down more cause it's so crazy.
I will agree that liberals would love for you to pick a very beatable candidate. But that fact that you think liberals think it's Bush and we're trying to "trick" the right into nominating him is hilarious.
When liberals start telling you that a Huckabee or a Santorum is your best bet in the general, THEN you will know that they are being disingenuous.
As for Trump, your pretending that liberals fear him is tired. Not even worth responding to at this point. Nothing we say to the contrary will get that (wrong) idea out of your head.
I'm curious, do you support Trump? You defend him on here against criticism and wrongly claim that liberals fear him. But you haven't really seemed to fully support his candidacy yet. You used to indicate that you thought "President Walker" would be the most likely scenario in 2016. Do you still believe that? Or is it President Trump for you now?
Quote: AZDuffman
I don't. I expect him to be a stalking horse for Walker, who will take the general.
Walker is tanking.
He needs Iowa. Its right next door. They know him and its easy for him to campaign there.
He was leading, now he is tanking.
Trump, Carson and Fiorina are beating him.
How can you win the general if you cant win a primary next door?
and Christie still act like contenders. Can
you imagine the stress of the job added
to all that lard Huck and Christie carry
around?
The workers are forming the revolutionary vanguard to lead the uprising against the imperialist bourgeoisie who seek to suppress the worker's struggle to seize the means.of production. They have also denounced Sen. Sanders as a petty bourgeois dupe! We must empty into the streets to support the worker's struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat!
(This post is so deleted. BTW, I was just channeling some of my early 70s stuff.)
Quote: Gabes22There is an Iowa poll showing Carson polling even with Trump. The national polls matter little to none right now. After a few losses in the first state or two, the people not among the frontrunners will drop out of consideration, and their votes will coalesce around another candidate. I see very few people where Trump would be the 2nd option. This is where Trump will falter.
I think that's been the general consensus amongst the talking heads: when the lesser candidates start dropping out, their supporters will move on to other candidates who aren't Trump. This will allow someone like a Rubio to compete with Trump's 25-30% of support, which seems to be his ceiling so far.
But Trump has proved them wrong at every turn so far, so who knows.
Quote: AZDuffmanGood for them! Why on earth do liberals get upset when taxes are NOT raised? Who wants higher taxes?
We are upset about the borrowing money. Why on earth don't conservatives get upset about the government spending money it doesn't have? Who wants higher debt?
Quote: TomGWe are upset about the borrowing money. Why on earth don't conservatives get upset about the government spending money it doesn't have? Who wants higher debt?
Because of Bush. How did he pay for the Iraq war?
How can conservatives get upset when they borrow or spend as much as libs.
Quote: terapinedBecause of Bush. How did he pay for the Iraq war?
How can conservatives get upset when they borrow or spend as much as libs.
The fact of the matter is that they don't however. During the Bush years, the Libs didn't even propose budgets because by doing so, they wouldn't have been able to use the argument you are trying to make. Unfortunately, IMO the party not in power is the only party to whine about the deficit. Libs demeaned it under Bush, Conservatives demean it under Obama. The fact of the matter is, that the deficit has grown with every President in American history. I personally think that if you did a true audit of the government, you could probably trip 40% of the fat pretty quickly. I would also suggest getting rid of base-line budgeting. Base-line budgeting is what enables people to call for a 4% increase in spending when they are asking for 7% as a "devastating cut" When local governments are threatened with budget cuts, they always claim they will have to cut teachers or cops. Why don't they get rid of some paper pusher at City Hall? In most businesses, the term "making budget" means you attained a sales or revenue goal, in government offices it means spending all of your allocated money so you can ask for more next year. There is a crapload of waste is merely "making budget"
like a namby pamby who is running for the PTA.
And doctors are not decision makers on important
matters. They always get second and third opinions
so they don't get sued. And he's never been elected
to anything, he's a newb. At least Trump has been
dealing with politicians for decades, he knows how
they work.
Quote: EvenBobAt least Trump has been
dealing with politicians for decades, he knows how
they work.
Bob, it doesn't matter who wins. Cosmetic differences.
Politicians are only the front men for the big rich, who pay the armies. (Hence the saying, "The rich make poor politicians.")
Quote: Gabes22The fact of the matter is that they don't however.
Fact or opinion?
Quote: Gabes22The fact of the matter is, that the deficit has grown with every President in American history
Fact or lie?
http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/
Quote: Gabes22I personally think that if you did a true audit of the government, you could probably trip 40% of the fat pretty quickly.
That would definitely help conserve our money. So why is it we don't see national level politicians doing so? Is it because none of them are truly conservative?
Quote: TomGWe are upset about the borrowing money.
I really don't buy that, liberals never saw a social program they didn't like. When anybody proposes slowing the rate of spending growth on a social program liberals scream. If they were upset about borrowing, they would come to the table and act like adults, agreeing to some changes.
Quote: ams288
I'm curious, do you support Trump? You defend him on here against criticism and wrongly claim that liberals fear him. But you haven't really seemed to fully support his candidacy yet. You used to indicate that you thought "President Walker" would be the most likely scenario in 2016. Do you still believe that? Or is it President Trump for you now?
Walker remains my first choice, he is the most qualified on either side. If Trump gets the nod I would vote for him with no hesitation as he has experience running a successful organization and has a leadership personality. If Jeb gets the nomination I will write in "John Galt" same as I do when a Democrat is running unopposed for low office here. I could vote for Carly, her experience is mixed but would not have a problem voting for a strong woman. She is showing she knows how to handle herself. Most of the others have no chance and/or I know nothing about them. No Democrat gets my vote, all too radical on both economic and social issues.
Quote: Gabes22I have gone back nearly 100 years in that link you have given, and every President has added to the deficit.
Coolidge had a surplus every single year. Hard to see how you can add positive numbers together and come up with a negative. I agree it may not be relevant to, but if that was your intention you shouldn't say all of American history. Clinton was able to see it increase only 0.1%. By far the most conservative President in recent years
Quote: AZDuffmanWalker remains my first choice, he is the most qualified on either side.
Walker and Trump and Carly are the
only ones I would vote for. Walker's
problem is, he has the experience yet
comes off like a wimp. Like he's
beholden to so many big donors
he doesn't dare open his mouth.
Quote: AZDuffmanI really don't buy that, liberals never saw a social program they didn't like.
When the benefits exceed the costs we like it. If not we don't like it. Why are conservatives any different?
Most all of the political screaming you hear comes from those who care about their own interests, not the interests of either liberal or conservative values. If you could ignore that for any amount of time, you would hear things far differently
Quote: TomGWhen the benefits exceed the costs we like it. If not we don't like it. Why are conservatives any different?
Name even one social program where a legit cost/benefit discussion has been made. They are all on baseline budgeting. Try to cancel or cut one and liberals accuse you of starving kids. starving old people, or feeding kids to old people.
Perfect example, Head Start. No long-term benefits found. But do we cut it or modify it? Never. That is just one.
Quote: TomGCoolidge had a surplus every single year. Hard to see how you can add positive numbers together and come up with a negative. I agree it may not be relevant to, but if that was your intention you shouldn't say all of American history. Clinton was able to see it increase only 0.1%. By far the most conservative President in recent years
I went back to FDR and got bored. The fact of the matter is none of these guys will reduce the deficit and you know it, and I know it. Quit trying to play gotcha games with semantics.
Quote: Gabes22The fact of the matter is none of these guys will reduce the deficit and you know it, and I know it
Exactly. Which proves that none of them are conservative
Quote: TomGCoolidge had a surplus every single year. Hard to see how you can add positive numbers together and come up with a negative. I agree it may not be relevant to, but if that was your intention you shouldn't say all of American history. Clinton was able to see it increase only 0.1%. By far the most conservative President in recent years
Silent Cal, one of the best POTUS, surely the most underrated.
Deficits were relatively small and stable before the early 1970s. Sure, some spikes during wars and depressions, but not like today. But then this thing called "baseline budgeting" was put in to allow Congress to ignore their job. Increases are now automatic. Anyone who understands compound interest knows why this has killed the budget. I think I may start an econ column at DT to let me rant/explain some of this stuff.
