Trump Second Edition
The other thread has gotten way too long, figured I'd start a new thread.
The only thing I will give Trump is he certainly knows how to keep himself in the limelight. Oh I almost forgot he's good at making money too. Those are the only two qualities I can see..not even sure if they are qualities.
I find everyone's strong opinions very interesting and I'm glad that it has been civil so far.
positive ++100 for a new thread and civility. Trump is entertaining, never at a loss for words but presidential material, not! I can not see him negotiating with foreign leaders in the Middle East or even Russia as we've witnessed.
iRun 
Clyde Potts 
truth
JeffersonRepub 
kb2755 I don't have a problem with Kelly's seductive pictures. That doesn't imply that she degraded herself nor does it imply that she's a hypocrite. That was her choice and something she wanted to do. Just shows me that she is a confident woman in touch with were her sensuality.
What is demoralizing is when you have a person (?) who has continually put down women concerning their looks. Ugly, fat, etc., which sends a disturbing dangerous message to women and young girls.. "if you don't look like barbie you aren't good enough."
None of the candidates, on either side, are "presidential material"....except in this America.
Unfortunately, "this America" is a pretty far cry from the one our founders worked out for us. Granted they were flawed men (and women, the inspiration behind the man...sometimes...back then), just like us, but they created a pretty good framework.
There must be a few people out there who can't watch a mainstream news broadcast without getting a headache from the blatant stupidity and manipulation.
That clowns like Trump, the "Bern" and all the rest of these sociopathic slimeballs still divert so much attention is pretty disheartening....but history shows plenty of slimeballs rising to power, with the support of some majority, who do some really bad stuff and kill a lot of people.
Turn off your TV, stop caring how big a Kardashian's ass is and start to think more critically.
jjmonth4 Oh, so if an african-american uses the "N word", it's ok, but no one else is allowed to?
BULLSHIT.
Trump running from Megan, now that's funny. She is nothing but a pawn for Fox. Fox needs a fall guy/gal and who better than her. She is climbing the corporate ladder, getting ready to change networks. Her new hairdo says it all. She does look like Barbie, she cannot be taken seriously with that look. So she has to come off acting the bad guy. But acting and being are two different things. Look at Hillary. Do I as a women agree with it, no. Oh stupid her for letting the higher up take advantage of her, just like Hillary has done her whole life. When will women stop being door matts.
auntiel What a strange analogy..not sure I'm getting your point. Anyway, if Kelly blatantly came out and put women down like "your's truly" than I could see your point. However that did not happen.
I disagree auntiel, her good looks do not in anyway elude me to not take her seriously or to have less respect for her. That would make me just as biased as Trump.
Me thinks Trump has a crush on Kelly so he must run from temptation or his campaign will falter. Just a Freudian theory.
Gimme a break he isn't running from Kelly. He is on the most liberal channels with the most liberal pundits doing interview with whomever. This is a huge political move. It hurts fox and he's proving a point. Fox is in the stink for Rubio
Forcefed4door 
Heidi Yes, because he is a liberal in disguise, I always sensed it. Thanks for confirming that FF4D. Lol
Another view
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/26/anti-trump-network-fox-news-money-flows-open-borders-group/
Old Gent @positive. The funny thing is if trump were running as a democrat, with his current views, he would have the same group voting for him. He would have republicans switching to crats to get there vote in.
I think Donald is dumb as a fox. He is running from strength. Iowa is close. Why put yourself out there when you can let those behind you fight it out with out taking any risk.
To all supporting hillary or sanders or any other candidate. Trump is the inevitable winner, unfortunately there are a few people who probably don't like that fact. But a much much larger portion that do. (I can see the future)
Forcefed4door,
Get new glasses, because your vision is faulty.
Trump is toast !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think there is an "inevitable winner" in this one....
...but I can't wait to hear from happiest girl on Nov. 9...
Simon and Garfunkel said it best in the 1968 song Mrs. Robinson ...
the movie The Graduate intrigued me because I was a graduate of high school that year.
going to the candidates debate
laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose
everyway you look at this you lose
Andy Loigu I think Megyn Kelly won the night by out-dealing the deal master general in the art of the deal. Let's see:
- she scared Trump away clearing the air for a better discussion of actual issues
- she got Trump to help needy veterans raising over $6M for the cause
- she got Trump to personally pony up $1M; a small amount for a man of his wealth but one of the largest contributions he has even given to charity
Sure he can call it strength of convictions for being mistreated by the lady or he can say no, really, it wasn't what I said first, it really was her boss's snarky comments which were bland compared to Trump-speak, but in the end he ran from her, she stood fast and resolute.
And then she made him do good things for others as one of his first acts of public service and charity which in his history he has never really participated in at all.
I'd say Megyn struck a good deal!
strangerdanger She's no "lightweight reporter" now.
By making comments like that, Trump is showing me he's no better than the average, insecure Joe Schmo you'd meet in Anytown, USA. He tries to build himself up by putting others down. We've all done it, but we're not running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, either.
Reminds me of Nixon, who was very contrary with "the media" (which is not monolithic, by the way).
Trump may appeal to people who have money. Generally people who have money want more money and never seem to have enough. They are never happy.
Regarding acts of charity, here's what the Good Book has to say about it ... sorry if I'm coming across as real preachy today...
http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-1.htm.
Trump appeals to a broad number of angry white (mostly) males of the shrinking working to lower middle class, who are suspect of the changing American lifestyle and ethnic makeup we see around us. Trump hits on all the right notes for these individuals, who usually aren't terribly well educated and feel embittered at the passing of the old fashioned American dream that was really a short term anomaly in the length of our national history. All they need is a silly slogan like "Make America Great Again".
The question is, which point in time do these people see as marking a defining moment of American exceptionalism? Certainly not the '30s, (Great Depression, dustbowl) or the 40's (World War). The 50's? I think that must be it. The rise of the middle class, single income families, nuclear families, home ownership, (but also the Cold War and threat of nuclear annihilation). The 60's were rife with racial and social upheaval and Vietnam. The 70's were a nightmare on many levels. The 80's weren't great. When exactly was America so star spangled great that we must return to it?
eperot The thing is, America has stayed great through all of it.
I'll give the GOP (Guardians of Privilege) credit for this much,
they get people to vote against their own self interest, to benefit the wealthy investor class who really intends to do NOTHING to help the shrinking middle class ... and it was shrinking 10-15 years ago, ever since "downsizing" became the big thing in corporate boardrooms.
Oh, so if an african-american uses the "N word", it's ok, but no one else is allowed to?
BULLSHIT.
JeffersonRepub
You can say or do anything you like. If you want to use the "N word" go right ahead, JUST BE READY to except the consequences if said around the wrong person/people
"Trump appeals to a broad number of angry white (mostly) males of the shrinking working to lower middle class, who are suspect of the changing American lifestyle and ethnic makeup we see around us. Trump hits on all the right notes for these individuals, who usually aren't terribly well educated and feel embittered at the passing of the old fashioned American dream that was really a short term anomaly in the length of our national history. "
How...insulting. Lemme see what I can do:
Obama appeals to a broad number of angry people who want things given to them for free: free healthcare, free college, ... the entitlement generation, if you will. They don't want to work, they don't want to earn their way, they think the American Dream has become a RIGHT that the 1% need to pay for.
Now I don't actually BELIEVE that, which is why people like you are so scary, eperot. Maybe scary isn't the right word.... ignorant? (not meant as an insult, meant as it is defined: UNKNOWING.)
JR, I wouldn't disagree with you about many people who voted for Obama, although I am not part of the entitlement generation. Think older.
I still stand by what I said about the majority of Trump voters, however.
DannyC @eperot: agreed 100 percent on view of Trump supporters. I see a microcosm of these views on HL when it comes to the ethnicities on Main Street and it sickens me.
@JeffersonRepub: Interesting counter view though we I know many Bama supporters who love to work and don't feel entitled to anything but a paycheck for working.
Danny, they love him because he's proposing free college tuition. Remember he's a Socialist with big unrealistic dreams.
positive - generation gap? I was drafted, went to war, survived, and came back to backlash lasting many years. I have no respect for gimme generation.
Aside from Trump's occasional misconstrued blurting, I think he's a brilliant business man with a no nonsense approach. Probably the most brutally honest person running. He stands by his statements. That's takes strength. I think he would be a fine president, much better than any democratic candidate, that's for sure!
Politicians are poor negotiators. (Example: Obama's Iran deal) Good news, Trump is not a politician. He is a successful business man and powerful negotiator. Being politically correct doesn't scare him. Sometimes that's exactly how you need to be to keep our country safe.
I like Trump, Cruz, Rubio thus far. (Christie is growing on me too)
Hilary and that other extreme socialist are the real joke. Not sure how people don't see that.
Positive: "Remember he's a Socialist with big unrealistic dreams."
Why are his dreams unrealistic? There is nothing unrealistic about them. It all depends what your priorities are. Why have you come to accept that education and health care must be a burden placed on the individual while we have been annually spending over 600 billion dollars on the military....more than the next seven highest spending countries combined?
I believe it should be the job of the US government to keep its citizens safe, but not at the expense of everything else. In a forward thinking nation we would realize the benefits of making certain things rights of the citizenry, namely universal free education, healthcare, food safety and clean water (ask the people of Flint Michigan about that one...)
It CAN be different, but sadly it won't. Because while we all sit here bickering about which empty suit will best represent us in the next election, the reality is that these elected officials, even well meaning ones (and I include the current POTUS) must back down to their overlords and compromise their beliefs and intentions. It's the big business interests and K street lobbyists who really run this Country. The politicians are just put there to give you the illusion that you have some kind of power. You don't. There is a huge problem when the most powerful persons in the Federal Reserve Bank come directly from financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. They write the rules, they draw up the bailouts and give it to their friends on Wall Street who promptly make sure the top brass continue getting their bonuses and that no one goes to jail after knowingly driving the US housing market and general economy to the brink of collapse. Lobbyists make certain that no meaningful financial regulations can be passed to keep the same thing from happening again.
Lobbyists for the commodities markets make sure that corn becomes the dominant crop and price it so low through misused subsidies that it is worth less than the product itself. They also make sure that farmers remain forever indebted, stepping away from the dignity of a farm of ecological diversity to one of monoculture. Then all that glut of corn becomes HFCS and ends up in everything you consume. And now, with all that sugar spiking type 2 diabetes in the population, lobbyists for the insurance companies are strong enough to get a President like Obama (who had originally supported moving to a single payer system) to drop that plan in favor of basing the Affordable Care Act on an exchange using all the big players in the HMO business. Meanwhile, other business lobbyists manage to loosen trade relations and this, coupled with the greed imparted to companies when listed publicly on the stock market and now beholden not to their workers but to their shareholders, quickly dump their US workforce in favor of fattening their bottom lines by outsourcing to countries where people are willing to work for a fraction of the price.
And that is the general trajectory of a city like Flint, Michigan. Once a bustling city of proud working class citizens with solid jobs, first the jobs vanish as "free trade" gets the execs at GM to move operations to Mexico. Now jobless, the people find they have no real opportunities and with a lack of money (and grocery stores) take up eating copious amounts of fast food, which thanks to the corn subsidies, can be priced at artificially low prices. Except now you have type 2 diabetes, but that's OK because the insurance companies will step in to provide you with all the insulin you need (also helping the drug makers). Unfortunately, none of this really matters because the cash strapped city of Flint has switched water sources to the acidic Flint River, which eats away at the old lead supply pipes poisoning everyone who drinks it. Who should we blame for all this? Better blame the unions. Yeah.
JR, I really sound ignorant of reality?
There is Blood in the Water and the sharks are circling!
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2016/01/blood-in-the-water-purists-vs-pragmatists/#i3KtA0TxobuwmvjR.01
I can't wait for November 2016 when President Trump is elected by the Biggest Crossover Electorate in History!
http://www.drudgereport.com/#pd_a_9290478
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/28/candidate-donald-trump-is-exposing-the-entire-sordid-and-corrupt-political-media-scheme/
Good to see there are people on HL that can ' see the Forest for the Trees!'
sha44ss Eperot - i am curious about your statement made about the Trump voter profile. Where are you getting your information. From my "unscientific" observations this could not be any further from the truth. Uneducated, angry white males. Please clarify your statements with that's your opinion and observations. Certainly not fact.
CraftBeerBob And this IS Megyn Kelly! NOt just a 'tit for tat' between Trump & Miss Kelly!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/28/rick-santorum-rips-megyn-kelly-roger-ailes-fox-news-for-making-sure-game-is-being-stacked-in-elections/
Most of the women I know are voting for Trump Beer Bob!...
Trump is a smart version of Paris Hilton. Nothing more. Negative publicity is better than no publicity at all. Paris would not have been as popular if not for the release of the naughty video. Trump wants to rile up any one he can. The more his name is mentioned, the happier he is. It's subliminal advertising, branding, if you will, for free! Capitalizing on the veterans is just wrong. The night of the debate, a lot of people watched TV on a split screen. Crazy!
sparksjbc1964 maureen,
Please explain how someone who declared bankruptcy four times is a successful businessman.
Then again, what one person sees as "misconstrued blurting" a great many others see as bigotry.
JerryG Everybody keeps saying "angry white males" are voting for Trump, but if you look at his events there are more women in the audience than men. Also, just about every woman I know is for Trump - even a few Democrat friends are for him. He is the only one who has a female's endorsement.
NONE of the females I know (white, black, Hispanic, gay, conservative, liberal or otherwise) like Hillary. So the whole Hillary gets the women vote and Trump gets the angry white male vote is a bunch of BS.
While I agree with a lot of what you say eperot the one thing you can't ignore is that Unions share the blame - maybe even the bulk of it - for forcing prices upward and thus contributing to the desire to move manufacturing outside the US.
However, I agree there is a culture in the upper echelons of this country (a culture that us lowly peons often want to emulate) of an *expected* return on investment that drives business decisions. How can any society prosper if every single person expects an 8% return every year on their money for doing nothing other than lending it via "investments"? Productivity grows by mere fractions per year yet the returns are still expected. That can't possibly work without some sort of intervention, can it?
So IMO our economy is/has been manipulated to keep the money coming even though there is little underlying reason why it should. It's that manipulation that we should all be wary of - the "why" is greed (by all parties - even those seeking to do "good"), the "how" is the Federal Reserve and our no-restraint, debt-based monetary system that is on an exponential upward curve. Knowing that, what you are proposing will only strain an already broken system further where we would literally "feel the Bern" lol.
I'd ask a different question then: Where are the intellects who know how to actually "fix" what's broken instead of just being a taker on one side or the other?
justintime "@JeffersonRepub: Interesting counter view though we I know many Bama supporters who love to work and don't feel entitled to anything but a paycheck for working."
@irun
And I know a lot of Trump supporters who are hard-working, middle-class people who are sick and tired of the 2-party good cop/bad cop scenario and illegal immigration run amok. I also know there are many BLACKS amongst Trump supporters, and even some democrats as well.
So where does that leave us?
Like I've been saying it's inevitable that we will see trump in the white house. You've got to be living in a box if you don't see what's happening out there. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a movement. No other candidate stands and chance at all.
"Where are the intellects who know how to actually "fix" what's broken instead of just being a taker on one side or the other?"
Intellectuals are smart enough to know it can't be fixed IMHO, and they are certainly not in politics in America. Our particular political system does not seem to attract intellectuals. Other countries' systems certainly do, but not ours.
Rebecka "Intellectuals are smart enough to know it can't be fixed IMHO, and they are certainly not in politics in America. Our particular political system does not seem to attract intellectuals. Other countries' systems certainly do, but not ours."
WELL SAID!!!! (not sure I agree about other countries' politicians being any more "intellectual" than ours, however)
And the intellectuals (whatever THAT really means...) who do get into politics, either can't get elected, or when they do elected are stopped by the 2-party machine that is the keystone cops.
Very nice series of posts from both sides. Go figure.
sha44ss Michael Savage piece is very good, IMO. Same sort of thing happening on the Dem side tween the "hope n change" the world types and the pragmatists.
As far as Donald exposing a corrupt media scheme, sure. But at the same time he is really just using the press and you to gain notoriety and suck the air of common sense out of the room. In his book, he explains his strategy of "there is no bad press as long as you are filling the airwaves and blocking everyone else out." Now you see it in action as you accept hook, line and sinker the words of what Politico has called the greatest liar of 2015. Why? Because he's bashing the status quo and the media whom you blame for the ills of the country. Remember, in the last round he bashed FOX, supposedly the good guy in the mix. Don's not bashing the press because he wants change, he's exploiting the press as free advertising and folks are eating it up. He doesn't even need facts, truth or plans to get your vote. Just "make amerika great again" and entertaining snipes at folks you are frustrated with.
He's even convinced you that never stepping back, never changing your mind, never apologizing for being a total ass, is strength. History would clearly tell you he's 100% wrong in this behavior but for today it's strength. The concept of making the right decision based on the facts at hand and then pivoting because of new facts, evolving situations, or even public mood swings is out of fashion, seen as a weakness, even though this is exactly what Trump is doing right in front of your eyes since his last run at the Presidency on almost every single issue. I say apologizing for being an ass is a good thing (and have done it more than a few times here). Changing your mind in light of new information is smart, not weak. And never doing either is just plain stupid, not strength.
Trump is NOT just pulling angry white males although he has most of them. His women vote looks pretty good, he draws across the educational spectrum, income spectrum and even some minorities. Perhaps not strong in the country-club Republicans, on a macro level his supporters are a little older, less educated, and have smaller incomes, but that generalization would dismiss Trump's full spectrum of support. They may be angry, but they are not just angry white men. Democrats need to pay heed to this when going to the general. Especially in the South.
sha44ss , Santorum is a cry-baby has been. He stunk in PA, he does not belong on the national stage. Who cares?
If the measure is money, Trump is a successful businessman. If you use almost any other business metric, he is a failure. To make his money, he dealt and flim-flamed his way to the top just like he is doing to you today. One of his favorite stories is how he bamboozled some investors in AC to start casino development. Invited them up and then put a bunch of heavy machines on site looking busy doing nothing. Investors were impressed with the activity and Trump sealed the deal on smoke and mirrors. Perhaps great for a businessman, but how do you like that from your candidate?
To gain his net egg, the Don used bankruptcy bailouts, the socialist businessman's friend, 4 times, almost went personally bankrupt once, was booted out of his own company and even tried to sue to get the Trump name off the casino. The bankruptcies were due to excessive debt based on false revenue expectations. Today his business is like his buildings: all glitter, no gold. He sells his name basically and there's a sucker born every minute willing to buy as long as Trump stays in the news. I applaud his success but not sure the country can take the failures he is prone to
Even his self-funding is a flim-flam. It's a Trump businessman loan to Trump candidate that Trump candidate can repay Trump businessman, with interest at any time. Trump candidate takes donations, he lies that he doesn't. The DONATE button is on page one of the Trump website. And Trump candidate regularly buys things from Trump businessman generating profits for Trump INC.
Trump touts his lack of government experience as an asset. Frankly he has never done anything for the public and the only charity he really ever expressed Megyn Kelly got him to do. That's a long lifetime of gimme with virtually no giving back whatsoever.
Funny how in this whole tread there is precious little support for Trump's plans or lack thereof. It's mostly about who Trump wants us to hate. That will only go a short distance to making America great again.
JIT
"Where are the intellects who know how to actually "fix" what's broken instead of just being a taker on one side or the other?"
JR
"Intellectuals are smart enough to know it can't be fixed IMHO, and they are certainly not in politics in America. Our particular political system does not seem to attract intellectuals. Other countries' systems certainly do, but not ours."
eport
It CAN be different, but sadly it won't. Because while we all sit here bickering about which empty suit will best represent us in the next election, the reality is that these elected officials, even well meaning ones (and I include the current POTUS) must back down to their overlords and compromise their beliefs and intentions
This is a great conversation.
So it is in Caesars world. The fight between good and evil. I liken it to Lucifer and God. We are all tempted in this world. Even Jesus was. Matthew 4:1-11
https://youtu.be/Rksd80-FCAw Here is Donald Trump talking about the non economic recovery in 1991 caused by the "Game Changer " in 1986!!......
"Survive till 95"?...It's going to be a lot longer than that!!! . He is a very good Business man smart enough to know's how to cut his losses using Chapter 11 to 'restructure' Jerry G.
sha44ss,
So when Trump's arrogance gets us into a shooting war with Putin, or his anti-Islam bigotry embroils the US in another pissing contest with OPEC, how is he going to "restructure" his way out of it?
"So when Trump's arrogance gets us into a shooting war with Putin, or his anti-Islam bigotry embroils the US in another pissing contest with OPEC, how is he going to "restructure" his way out of it?""
I have similar questions regarding Obamacare, the increase in welfare and food stamp usage, and his continued attempts to separate americans by color and religion (white shooter = gun control, black shooter = police brutality. christians = clinging to their guns and bibles, muslims = a-ok, let 'em all in)
It will have been 8 years, and I see no improvement anywhere. But then- it's all Bush's fault, right?
Anyone who is such a brilliant businessman wouldn't rack up $5 bill in losses. The restructuring also wouldn't always include Trump being thrown off the board of directors for mismanagement. No one needs bankruptcy to cut their losses. All you do is sell off your share of the property and it's done. It's a careless disregard for someone else's money when you continue to rack up losses and refuse to let go. Trump isn't a candidate free from special interests, he's totally beholden to the banks has billions of $ of loans to. Even the "Trump the Businessman" loans "Trump the Candidate" owes are borrowed from the banks. He's running on the ultimate platform of "Federal Reserve uber alles". That's "Make Amerika Greatly Depressed Again". His era of greatness is 1929. His book is proof.
GC Old Gent I am not exactly sure what the point you are making with that particular Bible passage. Could you please explain.
I will explain Matthew 4 1-11 as I understand it. God sent the Prophet Jesus pbuh out into the wilderness to test him. After 40 days and nights of fasting he became hungry. He either dreamed/hallucinated or possibly the devil actually came to him and tempted him not once not twice but thrice ( which may explain why the string stops at thrice ) but the Prophet Jesus pbuh was not tempted and the devil left him Why? because he knew the Prophet Jesus pbuh could not be tempted by evil.
I can't quite figure out who is playing which roles in your comparison but I would truly appreciate an explanation.
CBGB "I have similar questions regarding Obamacare, the increase in welfare and food stamp usage, and his continued attempts to separate americans by color and religion (white shooter = gun control, black shooter = police brutality. christians = clinging to their guns and bibles, muslims = a-ok, let 'em all in)
It will have been 8 years, and I see no improvement anywhere. But then- it's all Bush's fault, right?"
Yes, Virginia, you can blame Bush Jr, who Jeb adores but I deplore. He dug the deepest fiscal hole that we have had since the 1930's, worse than the shape we were in post the WWII war expenditures of 1945. You can't blame Obama for the depth of our despair, but sure, feel free to blame him for not digging out faster combined with our helpful Congress from both sides of the aisle but mostly from the non-relenting, no compromise right. At least on occasion Obama did compromise.
As to the numbers. Yes, Virginia when you suffer the largest loss of wealth since the market crash of 1928, there will be increases in welfare, unemployment and the double whammy of more people and higher prices for medical. Would you suggest that we not lend a hand?
But as to the numbers, the welfare and unemployment roles have been lowering, albeit slowing, for a few years. Jobs are being created, job openings are up, corporate profits are up, long term unemployment is being reduced, our personal earnings are up, energy production is up, energy importation is down, and exports are up. So are the number of Americans insured for health care while health care prices have risen at the lowest rate in years. None of it is fast enough or good enough but it's not as if he's getting any help. And, of course, violent crime and homicides are down but that's the NRA, not Obama :>) Even new cars have better mpgs than previous models.
Meanwhile the largest increase of welfare occurred during the Bush Jr. years; just saying.
On the down side, consumer prices are up but at the lowest inflation rate since WWII, food stamps recipients are down over 5% from 2012 and down from last year but still up and up way too high. Remember, Bush Jr added 14.7 million to the rolls, Obama is way down from that.
Hope that helps to answer your questions. Here's the link but remember that the plus's and minus's are from day 1 of Obama's reign. Read the text to get the flavor for the current 12 month trend.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/
Also bear in mind that when you look at the total welfare program there's over 17 programs and medicare tends to put a skew in the numbers. Since medicare is a huge part of total payments and it's getting the double whammy of increased participation plus massive price inflation, it tends to be on it's own glide path different that the other 16 welfare programs but skewing the total budget based on whatever direction its going. In other words, if medicare rises but everything else falls, welfare expenditures rise. Really needs to be broken out into a separate story.
JR,
This is supposed to be a Trump thread...not an Obama thread, or a Clinton thread, or a Cruz-Rubio-Christie or anyone else thread. I would think the purpose is to discuss the merits of Trump, not to bash anyone else.
That being said, please stop answering valid questions about Trump and his ability to lead this country with criticisms of others. If that's what you want to do, then start a "Dump on Obama" thread or the like.
@Stranger danger: Well put. Nobody wants to credit Obama for anything because of blatant racism. The President knows it, his school yard petty Congress confirms it by not confirming anything and so it goes. It's a shame how much racism still exists. There is much work to be done!
iRun, I strongly disagree. I don't care for Obama for many reasons but certainly not because of the color of his skin same as my admiration for Ben Carson not because of his skin color.
Let's not make this into another racial thread.
Some racism, sure, but don't bet the farm that's the only reason he's not popular with everyone. Just look at the normal R vs D stuff and how divided many are. Based on that alone one could argue that racism probably has very little to do with it.
Andy - +1!
Excellent point justintime concerning the division of our nation, which has made matters worse. It's refreshing to know that someone is thinking outside of the box.
"I don't think there is an "inevitable winner" in this one ................
but I can't wait to hear from happiest girl on Nov. 9 .............
"JR"
So what does that mean? Do you think Trump will win?
lol
No way ever ---- and if there even *WAS* that possibility -- he would be *taken care of* -- like some others in the past ---- if you get my drift.
JIT...the Don. I should have clarified that. Definitely not directed at anyone here.
Obama has done NOTHING good. He allowed ISIS to prosper when he pulled out our troops, against the military's advice.
His Obama care is a CRAPPY plan ($2000/ month for our family of 4- we gross $35,000 / year).
Obama fiddled while Rome burned.
Worst President since Carter.
Plusgirl 
Megyn Kelly is an Illuminati ho....and natural born means born in the damn country - they are brainwashing you...yes you = but you put up with it so they take it even farther...how much are you going to put up with?
Evidently a lot more!
lmao - they are laughing at you
RU Check your calendar is it 1992?
Clinton vs Bush = don't vote - revolt!
They are giving you some tired old women who should be in jail for the Democrats along with her rapist husband & the Republicans wont nominate Trump so they will have a brokered convention - Rubio has a gay prostitute charge against him - he is out - Cruz was not born in this country so he is out - Jeb F'nn Bush is who they will nominate...that's their plan
Clinton vs Bush - like I said don't put up with this BS!
Cause they think you are fools - prove them different
How a 200K yahoos from Iowa & 50K freaks from New Hampshire elect a party nominee is bizarre = imo
More corruption - Peace
RU you are funny and I like the way you think.
Andy ...Yes politics is poopadoodle and because we were all asleep while the 'intellectual's took over, the poop is ON US and all our descendants for a very long time
happiest girl ...you are scary and vindictive and indicative of the EVIL that the powers that be would unleash upon us if you don't get your way...you would like it if they 'took care of him' wouldn't you. ( I really dont like you)...
proving Old Gents point CBGB.... So it is in Caesars world. The fight between good and evil. I liken it to Lucifer and God. We are all tempted in this world. Even Jesus was. Matthew 4:1-11
History repeats itself over and over again from the 'beginning' of time because of the SIn of Temptation.
Yes plusgirl you are so right... 'Rome is burning while the Fiddler fiddles' and it will stay that way until the only ONE that is never tempted comes back to fix it....and then we will all have a CHOICE....(happiest girl) Life or Death 4 Eternity.
In the meatime we have to survive here ...Hell on Earth, and the only one I see that has been worried about this Mess since 1988 is Donald Trump.
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Here is a word from one of Donald Trumps top adivsors now
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-2016-is-last-chance-to-take-back-control-of-government/article/2581874
If you dont know who he is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/25/top-sessions-aide-joins-trump-campaign/
Jerry G...you dont get the Big Picture.
Donald Trump is brilliant!......but Old Gent does.
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." Ephesians 6:10-13 ~
hapiest-
I'm not saying I think Trump will win. But to assume Hillary will is equally foolish. Judging by numbers, if Trump gets the nomination, there is no guaranteed winner. Your "no way Trump can win" is laughable. Just because YOU despise him, you assume the rest of the country must agree with you. I think you're in for a rude awakening.
At this point, it's anybody's race (well, anybody meaning Trump or Hillary, with Cruz on-deck and Bernie on-deck if Hillary gets indicted- which she won't)
The GOP regulars have no chance. Neither does Bernie unless all of Hillary's treasonous deeds actually get a lot of media time.
Joe...lol..... yeah, I guess that's possible.... if Hillary gets indicted, it'll be on purpose, not to rightfully send her to prison, but to replace her with Joe in the race. Still, I think it's a longshot Hillary gets indicted.
Here we go again .... Mr Google/Strangerdanger comes on here with long winded rants against the Republican front runner ... Twisting facts to meet his end game. Keep in mind this man's a burnt-out ex hippy ... Lets just call him a nerdy hipster.
Trump has a lot of resistance in front of him from the RNC and other established power centers, so his road will be difficult no matter how things appear at the moment.
Which twisted facts? The fact you find facts twisted speaks volumes. Actually the fact that many of you have to generalize, cubbyhole, brand and then stereotype shows why Trump's brand of narcissistic fascism can find support.
Haters gotta hate.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
-John Adams
Greg If trump somehow loses nomination, it hands election to democrats no matter who there nominee is. The republican party would be over, and we would never see anyone other than democrats in the WH ever again. They would grant citizenship and voting rights to all illegal immigrants, as there currently doing right now. The minority vote would then decide who goes into the Whitehouse. Am I the only one who thinks this is a real real sad picture for America? It's disgusting.
Old Gent - "Crazy uncle" Joe might be falling off his white horse, like Lee Marvin in "Cat Ballou". Dems are in deep do-do, no matter what happens to Hillary, and whatever press protection they get. IMO, the realistic question is which Republican candidate will be our next president. Severe pendulum swings are a problem?
DannyC: what year do the "minorities" take over the master race?
And explain how the "minorities" magically bond to work together as the team to topple the master race?
Nice quote Greg. I'd also point out that facts exist within a context, so not only can facts be "right" but also they can be completely wrong when used in a different context. Happens all the time.
On a cloudy day the sky is gray, but if you fly above the clouds the sky is blue. Both are true facts, but stated from different perspectives. That's why you'll see me repeat far too often that presenting a perspective *with* facts is much more important than the facts themselves.
And that's also why you see the same people continually arguing over stuff - Imo they choose to NOT see the other perspective from which the facts are presented. It's the same concept of "walk in someone's shoes" before judging.
"If trump somehow loses nomination, it hands election to democrats no matter who there nominee is. The republican party would be over, and we would never see anyone other than democrats in the WH ever again."
I think you're close, but...
I'd say, if anyone other than Trump OR CRUZ win the nomination, the republican party will effectively BECOME the RepubliCRAT party, meaning even less difference between the 2 parties than already exists.
The only way the republican party retains ANY of it's conservative principles (what you extreme left wing hippy types would call "extremist views" LOL) is if Cruz or Trump not only get the nomination, but win the presidency. That would validate the current conservative movement to retake the republican party.
If Trump or Cruz DO get the nomination, and LOSE, it will invalidate the CONSERVATIVE republican party movement forever, and a new, 3rd party will have to be formed... the seeds of which we have already seen in both the libertarian party, and to a greater extent, the Tea Party (oh no, not those crazy/extremist/whacko tea baggers!!!)
strangerdanger - I never mentioned anything about "minorities" or a "master race", just democrat vs. republican electoral probabilities. Where did get these ideas? Nuts!
sha44ss,
I don't get the "big picture?" Which "big picture" is that? That Trump worked the system and declared bankruptcy four times? I asked you a question, since you seem to think his "restructuring" is the sign he'll make a good president...so please enlighten me how that will work in the face of Putin's posturing or a worsening Mid-East crisis. See if you can do it without quoting scripture, please.
JR,
Keep your childish insults to yourself. What are you doing, calling me out to the schoolyard after class is over to "settle it like men?"
Donald Trump is brilliant!......but Old Gent does
In his way of playing with the masses. Thats what leaders do in Caesars world. My faith is in the Lord when looking at the the big picture of life. It comes from his word for me and sha44ss.
Ooooh burnnnn. Thanks for asking sha44ss to stop quoting scripture, too. Drives me nuts and has no place in a discussion about politics.
strangerdanger - You owe me an apology for your attempt to portray me as anti-minority, pro-master-race without any good reason. It was unfounded, unjustified and hurtful. Really pissed off by it, and awaiting your public apology.
quote>>> proving Old Gents point CBGB....
Wow , that's quite good , I don't even know what his point was!!
Quote>>> Keep in mind this man's a burnt-out ex hippy ... Lets just call him a nerdy hipster.
You say this as if it is a bad thing.................
Ooops,. need new glasses: DannyC should have read Forcefed4door. And I never portrayed anyone as anything, just asked some simple questions based on a previous submission, obviously not by you. Simple questions, here's my simple answers. Never and they don't.
DannyC, l think SD really meant his remarks for Forcefed4door, just by reading what he had posted.
strangerdanger - So get some new glasses and address your nasty posts to the right target next time, OK? Thanks.
SD, no idea what exact year it will happen, but by the way things look now, it looks very possible sooner than later. It's proven that minority votes lean democrat by a long shot. They all want everything handed to them. And that's why we're on our way to the next Greece.
"So gracious in your apology acceptance."
WHAT apology? "Oops"? Was that it?
proud left leaning liberal - on the fringes of former hippiehood - who worked with minorities for over 40 years - and found none looking for the handouts you are so sure about - finds the level of mean spirited, vile stereotyping, anger spewing that sometimes appears here not only makes me ill but it scares the crap out of me ---- unbelievable what some will post - and some of the most vile in the name of religion -
go ahead - have at me - I know you won't be able to contain yourselves.
4catmom "proud left leaning liberal - on the fringes of former hippiehood - who worked with minorities for over 40 years - and found none looking for the handouts you are so sure about "
Interesting. And to show that no one person's microcosm tells the ENTIRE story.... my mother worked in the social services field for 20 years, and saw quite a bit of abuse of the system by it's recipients.
There are a large amount of articles about the problem, I guess it's all made up... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/
And yet, in the very article you post is written ""This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants," Camarota said about the findings. "Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system." So basically, of course recent immigrants have a higher percentage of the population receiving some kind of federal assistance. They have jobs that most white Americans feel is below them and/or pays too little to live on. In the 1800's these were referred to as "negro jobs", which were always in competition with the most recent new immigrant population, like the Irish.
I know and work with a lot of south-central American immigrants and I can tell you they are some of the hardest working people I've come across, generally just looking to make a better life for themselves. Instead of ripping them down, perhaps it would be good for you to remember that we are all immigrants here.
I'm not suggesting that there is not abuse, because there is. But do you know who are some of the worst abusers and "takers" in this country? White people from southern red states. Nobody seems to ever mention that, though....
The one thing I have noticed about "facts" is that too many people seem to confuse facts with opinions.
"I'm not suggesting that there is not abuse, because there is. But do you know who are some of the worst abusers and "takers" in this country? White people from southern red states. Nobody seems to ever mention that, though...."
Not that I'm disputing this in any way, but can I ask how you know this? I'm sure there are distribution graphs somewhere but I haven't seen them. I mean, with something like 2/3 of the entire Federal Budget being spent on the "takers", ie entitlement programs, I'd be interested to see the relationship for the percentage of who puts in vs who takes out, what their nationalities and races are, and where those people live. That's A LOT of money we're talking about here, and figuring out who's taking more than they put in would be good to know. And if we did know then we'd be able to target those who we feel are not pulling their own weight, right?
Eperot likes stating opinions and represent them as fact. Called out several times above and fails to ever address.
Ephesians 6:10-13
an interesting choice and I do see some similarities here.
The Prophet Jesus pbuh like several prophets before him and a few after , wanted to rid Jerusalem of Roman rule and instill Hebrew law. One of the ways he gathered followers was by rallying the poor with promises of a better life. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was similar in this manner. He too saw the injustices of the rich and powerful and rallied the poor to his cause.
So I do see how both prophets are similar to today's problems.
But I will add my own opinion here. If that bible passage is meant to be a wake up call then I agree. I don't know if it is meant for Americans or Christians but either way if anybody thinks God favors either then indeed they should wake up. Americans in general have turned their backs to God. It seems to me that our policies want to move as far away from God as we can. I don't see this as garnering God's approval or favor. As for the Christians I know very few are devout believers. God gave us The Ten Commandments but do we follow them? I am not overly concerned with a good versus evil comparison of America and anybody else in the world because in my opinion America is the evil in this world. Of course not the only evil in this world but number one in my opinion.
"happiest girl -- I really don't like you" ------- sha44ss
Well, what a relief ..... thank God for that!!
lol
sha44ss -- which white supremacist organization are you a member of ???
CBGB- you say in your opinion America is the evil in this world. Why do you think this? Please elaborate. In my opinion evil comes from the human heart not the place. America is a place.
America or Americans....semantics.
Define evil , profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Sounds like America and Americans.
Wow, I guess I spoke too soon when I said "I'm glad it has been civil so far."
I should've known better.
That bible passage,in Ephesiansis is meant to be a wake up call for the church not Caesar. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
I just thought it is funny, Paul using the term 'Stand your ground"
My take is, it means, standing your ground for Jesus
Old Gent, my take on full armor is faith and strength in God. Not faith in a very questionable, selffulling person like Trump.
There is no human on this planet that can save us..we can only saves ourselves.
I know you don't want to hear this, but who knows Trump may be the false prophet...
No one knows what any one of these prospective leaders will bring.
No Auntiel I don't think you get it.
It is a balance. The good you do versus the bad or good versus evil however you chose to word it. You weigh up the good , you weigh up the bad. Lets take sarcasm as an example. The definition of sarcasm is , the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Obviously bad. Of course today sarcasm sadly is also considered saying the opposite of what you truly mean or lying. Again , bad.
Just do some searching.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8
It isn't an opinion. Red states are typically the highest recipients of entitlement money, paid for by more liberal blue states, including New Jersey.
CraftbeerBob, sorry I don't have all the time in the world to come back on here and refute your assertions that I just spout out opinions as fact. Perhaps I don't have the time because (although liberal) I am out working hard to make my way in the world so I don't have to be a "taker". Never mind the main issue that you ignore the very essence of my writing above...to point out that recent immigrants are now and have historically been marginalized and struggling due to the poor pay of the types of jobs they are able to access.
Jobs (or lack thereof) are usually part of the problem, and perhaps that's why Owsley County, Kentucky, which is 99.2% white and 95% Republican, is also the highest per capita recipient of food stamps in the nation. I'm not certain of the job prospects there, but I can't imagine they are too good. Point is, it isn't just minorities (who typically vote Democrat) that use Federal assistance. It's also a whole lot of white Republicans who get by with the help of government aid, members of the party which oddly enough is the first to try to cut the social safety net that citizens depend on in times of need.
positive, I am agree with you but instead of saying names I refer to all of goverment as Caesar world and have stated that many times. I have no faith in any of them for my well being..
Thanks eperot. After a quick scan I do have one question: could it be that the states least dependent also seem to fall into the highest taxed, therefore don't need federal money because their own taxes cover state entitlements? Iow they are more self-sufficient?
If so I'm not sure what the correlations are. I mean just because fewer federal funds are received doesn't mean there are more it less "takers".
Will have to read the links more thoroughly when I'm awake lol
As per your question, JIT, it is possible. It's also possible that certain states simply do NOT tax residents as much precisely because they do take in a disproportionate amount of federal funds provided by states that impose heavier taxation; that is, they can afford not to. But whatever the case the reality is that there is a gross imbalance where many typically liberal states (coastal and north east) get back far less from their taxes than do many conservative states. Last I checked NJ only gets back about 48 cents of every dollar collected as a return on taxpayer investment.
@4catmom,
You nailed it. Congrats.
@happiest girl,
If we are judged as individuals by the views others have of us and who doesn't like us, then you have risen greatly in my estimation.
4catmom, the only thing that separates your desire to help others in need from "non-leftists" is method. The Left's primary method to accomplish the goal, especially the far left to which you claim to ascribe, is to forcibly take the money: that is the primary dispute, not the goal you seek. You see, some actually think that it is wrong to steal and thus theft should never be a vehicle for "doing good". It's a principled stance, yes, but no less principled than wanting to help those less fortunate. This is one man's opinion of course, but if you'd stop insisting that the government point a gun at people's heads to accomplish the goals you want I think you'd find a great many people would get on board.
When seeing one's earnings forcibly taken through taxation, the question that comes to mind is "Why should I personally help others when the government is already doing that for me?". IOW, the taxation method is not only immoral but it also leads to a less caring attitude because the assumption is that the government will take care of everyone. And the results haven't exactly been stellar either.
We need to do something radically different, because what we're doing is illogical and simply isn't working.
"I know you don't want to hear this, but who knows Trump may be the false prophet..."
No no no... you got it wrong: my sister said OBAMA was the false prophet, and Trump is the anti-christ.
"my sister said OBAMA was the false prophet, and Trump is the anti-christ."
I don't care who ya is, that's a funny joke rye chair... ;-)
We need to do something radically different, because what we're doing is illogical and simply isn't working.
When listening to 60 mins last evening, one of the commentators , a Lawyer, said. The goverment is run by Lawyers and Wall street . They make laws to protect themselves.
My first thought was. no wonder it takes so long to pass laws. They have to play with the words to protect something. They are not a logical group of people. .
You're topic Entitlement Spending topic covering givers and takers, abusers, forced payments at the end of a gun, and who gets what is a bit of a misnomer until you boil down to what you seem to want to discuss: welfare.
Entitlement Spending, also know as Mandatory Spending mostly consists of Medicare, Social Security (and govt/military retirement), and Welfare however also includes unemployment, most VA programs, and agricultural price support. It also includes interest payments on the debt which most don't talk about.
All of these Entitlement programs share one thing: by law the payments must be made and that's about the only thing. To lump Entitlements into some generality bucket is basically impossible beyond that fact. Then there's Discretionary Spending which is done by appropriations bill, mostly on a yearly basis by Congress. Defense is discretionary.
Chart shows both.
There are different funding mechanisms and "payouts" depending on the program making entitlements a mixed bag for who pays, how we pay, and what we get. Medicare and Social Security are funded by us over our entire career based on salary. SS payouts are like insurance --- if you live average life span, you get your cash back cash based on what you paid in. Medicare is similar except you get back what you need to survive no matter how long you live.
Social Security as a pre-paid trust fund very different from Welfare. We "forcibly" put in based on what we earn hoping to reap benefits and profit later like insurance. If you die early, you lose. If you live long, you prosper. Like insurance. As a trust fund, we also "invest" our trust fund in the national debt: it floats us by holding 16% of the national debt, we are our largest investor. Unless you die young, you get your money back. It's a mandatory insurance scheme.
Life before Social Security was less secure. Removing the forced tax would basically result in a lot old folks without a safety net. To bet Americans would save for their future or that charities would bail the losers out is a very long bet.
Medicare is similar except costs are so out of control and Congress has not acted to increase revenues or lower benefits so only Part A is trust fund funded. Meaning only 50% is covered by the trust fund and the 50% is paid for each year by taxpayers to cover Part B and D. Again it's supposed to be insurance, but if it was, the company would be bankrupt. So it's 50% a yearly tax and a big one. According to it's purpose, the funding mechanism is broken but the concept is good.
Life before Medicare was sicker but Medicare is pretty sick too. If we didn't have Medicare, we would have most of these people at ER funding those prices at perhaps 50% to 100% more than we pay today. If may be force, we at least we save money.
Welfare is a straight out tax as are the rest. So you can see that some entitlements are "earned benefits" or insurance. You pay in and you get back, winners are the old and the sick, losers are the healthy and the dead. Sure it's forced, if you feel your legislators are despots. The alternative is worse IMHO. Other entitlements are straight out taxes, but without them you have issues with not only the poor but the VETs, military retirees, and paying for our debt. Don't think charity will cover that.
The math says yearly spending at 1/3 discretionary, 2/3 mandatory but that is misleading since many of the incoming tax payments have been made over decades so even there you can't say payouts = current taxes because they don't.
In the mandatory and of the total Federal Budget its: 23% SS, 22% Medicare/caid, 10% Welfare, 6% debt interest and 4.8% VET/military pension so the lion's share of entitlements are the pre-paid trust funds or insurance funds where payouts are supposedly based on what you paid it.
When we are talking Welfare abuse we are talking about a minor percent of 10% of our spending. Defense at over 18% of the budget probably has more dollars in abuse.
When talking about some states giving and some taking, that's true. Basically the higher income states give to the lower income states.
When it comes to the goodness of man, forced taxes, and government assistance or "This is one man's opinion of course, but if you'd stop insisting that the government point a gun at people's heads to accomplish the goals you want I think you'd find a great many people would get on board." I think we tried that before the 1930's and it didn't not work nor end up too good. The US is already one of the most charitable countries on the face of the Earth usually ranking in the top 10 as a percent of income and number 1 in total dollars. So if we are taxed less, we would cover the gap? The numbers just don't agree.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/15/1292380/-Federal-Spending-In-One-Beautiful-Pie-Chart
I think everyone should just come together, hope and prey that trump wins Iowa. Thanks :-)
Forcedfed4door -
Using *trump* and *prey* in the same sentence?
Sha44ss will call you EVIL.
lol
the only thing Iowa is good for is weeding out the herd. should have a few bow out of the race once they FINALLY realize how pointless it is for them to run. Which is ironic since the last 2 that won Iowa will probably be the first 2 to drop out after Iowa this year.
Huckabee and Santorum
darwin Why do the Republicans even care about Iowa? They typically lose it in the general election anyway. Since Reagan left office, John Kerry was the only Democrat to lose Iowa to the Republicans. Even Michael Dukakis managed to win Iowa in 1988 when NJ went red...
ianimal hear, hear, Justintime...now I dont have to 'have at her' which would just add more fuel to happiest girls fire and make them both 'happy.
Ephesians 6:10-13.> cbgb > I am not a Bible scholar…but I listen with my Heart to God & I do believe it to be a wake up call to anyone that has a Open heart to hear it... Americans, Mexicans, Germans, Italians, etc., Christians, Jews , Athiest & Muslims alike....including me ,…. He is calling me to hear Chapter 6 right now.
Are you Muslim cb? I detect a cultural influence to your reference to the Prophets..(pbuh) .and your reference to Americans in the third person? Or was that a verse out of the Quran you quoted?
‘The Big Picture’ > is the ~ Realization that none of us are in Control and that we are in this Big Spiritual Battle from the very beginning, the minute Eve took a bite of the Apple at the Serpents bequest.
Chapter 6
“There is a war going on. It is not a war that is like the wars which are currently going on between nations today (although such wars may be a part of the bigger war). It is a spiritual war. It is a war between Satan and his fallen celestial allies and Christ and His church. It is an invisible war in that we fight against unseen forces. It is therefore a war which must be waged by faith, and not by sight. It is a war that we cannot fight in our own strength, but only in the strength which God Himself supplies.
The war is not being waged to see which side will win. God has already won the war by the death of His Son on the cross of Calvary (see John 12:31; 16:11). The war is for our good, and for God’s glory. The war is a part of God’s instruction to the angelic hosts (see Ephesians 3:8-11). The war is a part of God’s eternal plan and purpose for his creation.
In spiritual warfare the battle is the Lord’s. At times, God simply commanded the people to “stand still” and watch the Lord win the battle, without any human help:
"We are to stand (in effect, to stand still), because God is the One who wins the battle. In the Book of Revelation the saints who are “overcomers” do not defeat Satan. Indeed, many of them actually die at his hand (12:11). Satan’s final defeat (20:7-10) comes not at the hand of the saints, but from the hand of God, who sends fire from heaven (20:9)."
The great question is not, “Who will win?,” but “Who will stand?” The question is not whether God is on our side as much as whether or not we are on His side. “
Hmmm very profound.
10-18 **Spiritual strength and courage are needed for our spiritual warfare and suffering.
To be "strong in the Lord," is:
(1) to be strong or courageous in his cause;
(2) to feel that he is our strength, and to rely on him and his promises
***Even in the Face of Death,,,we are to give Grace to our Enemies!***
read more here: https://bible.org/seriespage/26-spiritual-warfare-ephesians-610-20
I always wondered how those Journalists who were beheaded could have such courage as to trust the savages they sympathized with. HAD to have had Faith! Most of them were Liberals…go figure,
Happiestgirl> I didn’t call you Evil >>but lets be honest >you would GLOAT to watch ‘Caesar’ throw ME to the Lions!
I guess I am guilty of not being able to put on the FULL armor of God just yet,
I TRUST in GOD…..but to give grace to my enemies is one I will have to work on.
I‘ll stick with your interpretation for now Old gent
“My take is, it means, standing your ground FOR Jesus!”
I guess I will burn here in hell fighting for my God and my Country and my freedoms then!
If I were to cite The Qur'an (and I am) I would start with
Surah al-ma'idah 5:54 ....the Asad translation
0 you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith, God will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him - humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in God's cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God's favour, which He grants unto whom He wills. And God is infinite, all-knowing.
Philliesman sha44ss-
You think I would GLOAT to watch "Caesar" throw you to the lions??
That's so nutsy.
Sounds like you have a persecution complex.
Seriously!
In the days of Caesar and the Roman empire Christians were thrown to the lions for their Faith just in case you didnt get it.
Yes... alot of people on here like to persecute my christian faith....My words are picked apart and I'm accused of 'forcing' my religion down throats just by taking about God.
It is my views and Christianity doesn't FORCE anything....people get uncomfortable & defensive just hearing the TRUTH.
I am a sinner and the only thing I have above all of you is my Faith that GOD IS there and HIS forgiveness.
sha44ss --
You DO know this is a political thread and not a thread about you or your religious beliefs, right???
If you want to discuss your ideas about Christianity, start a new post !!!!
Calico696 lol calico -
She better take some valium lest her having nightmares of lion dens.
Julius Caesar was dead 50 years before Christ was born. It would have been difficult for him to feed Christians to the lions... Nero, on the other hand...
Enough already - why don't the 5 or 6 or you who keep spouting off here just meet in some dive bar and duke it out.
Ok...happiest girl...lets make it political...
"So what does that mean? Do you think Trump will win?
lol
No way ever ---- and if there even *WAS* that possibility -- he would be *taken care of* -- like some others in the past ---- if you get my drift.
'Caesar' will represent the Gov't as Old Gent likes to call them:
"positive, I am agree with you but instead of saying names I refer to all of government as Caesar world and have stated that many times. I have no faith in any of them for my well being..""
So you are saying ''the Government is going to do away with Donald Trump' if that became a possibility"
Sounds like Donald is being fed to the Lions > for his beliefs!!
"It is my views and Christianity doesn't FORCE anything....people get uncomfortable & defensive just hearing the TRUTH."
Boy, there's a lot of truth in that. Talk about Christianity and you're some redneck bible thumping religious nut job who's trying to force your religion down everyone's throats....talk about ISLAM, on the other hand, and if you don't agree it's "a religion of peace" you're a fear-mongering religious bigot... riiiiiiiiiight........
cynic - Today's politics seems to bring out the worst in otherwise good people, but count me out for duking it out. I only do that to protect my family when threatened and it is absolutely necessary, but prefer to be properly armed to insure a proper result.
Thank you JR....and in that context ( Christianity vs Islam) Politics and Religion is intertwined with their version of our Constitution vs Sharia law)
http://counterjihadreport.com/category/constitution-vs-sharia/
And since it IS a Trump Post:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting
Sorry cbgb...it sounds beautiful but it also sounds like you are saying that since America has turned it's back on God that he has decided to replace US with the "whom He loves and who love Him ". Only problem is that Allah and the Christian GOD are not the same God......
in other words Christianity is being replaced in the US with Islam.
If I were to cite The Qur'an (and I am) I would start with
Surah al-ma'idah 5:54 ....the Asad translation
0 you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith, God will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him - humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in God's cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God's favour, which He grants unto whom He wills. And God is infinite, all-knowing.
CBGBCBGB ✉
5 hours ago
JR- Even mention the word Christ and your considered nutsy and should be on valium. I wonder who the people in the twin towers were praying to when the towers started to fall and buried them alive. Mr. Lollipop and Miss Rainbow.
So true auntiel and JR. However when speaking in parables and constantly trying to make a point using verses from the Bible..well I can certainly see confusion and misunderstanding from people who are not familiar with the Bible.
I on the other hand have no problem with it since I grew up with that dialect. I respect everyone's choice and I would never attempt to impose my belief on anyone, but I do not want anyone to tell me that I can't talk about it and label me as a religious wack job if I do.
Oh and BTW JR, I think your sister may be on to something...1/2 serious+1/2 joking= IDK
Positive >I think we better get used to seeing confusion & misunderstanding from people who are not familiar with the Bible because the liberals are letting in enough Muslims into This Country that are planning to wipe the Christians out just like they have all over Europe and the Mideast!
Syria: http://russia-insider.com/en/christianity/christian-community-syria-being-wiped-out/ri11808
Libya : http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/libya.php
Germany: http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/10/the-persecution-of-christians-in-a-german-refugee-camp/
Germany: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/germany-may-be-reneging-on-its-refugee-welcome.html
London: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/16/old-school-feminist-slams-establishment-calls-for-debate-on-islam-without-political-correctness/
We are next.....but I'm the religious fanantic!
Trump represents the worst of America and of Americans. I'd respond to this but unlike many people on this forum I work and don't collect a government check. And I'm a single mom to boot.
Trump has praised greed and money, and it's b@st@rd$ like him that bring this nation down. He doesn't make America great...he sells us out to the lowest bidder! He does deals with people in other nations and sells off our prime real estate to foreign investors. He seeks out money from questionable foreign sources as well, and he'll sell out America. He's told us no details about anything he'd do.
Rather, he throws out red meat covered in populist pap at the angry white voter...a sizable chunk of the American electorate. If you want to flush our country down the toilet go ahead and pull the lever for Trump just as you pull the lever for your pot. Eperot makes a lot of sense and I really wish that there were more like him speaking up and making sense. Trump is doom for this nation, and you're deluded if you think otherwise.
And don't even quote 13 Hours or other con-spira-noia clap trap. Enough is enough. The country has to be run by sane adults, not fringe zealots on both sides.
Jimmiesmommy2016 Ted Cruise pulls off the impossible mission against the Donald. Rubio is only a point behind. Oops. Maybe blowing off the debate was a bad idea. Maybe the bloom is off the rose. I still say that Rubio is the only candidate who stands a chance in the general election.
I love how Trump never talks about any ideas or policy plans and still comes in second LOL. I thought the Palin endorsement speech was embarrassing, do people really take her serious?
brown bear2 brown bear -
Palin is completely wacked out.
Nut job.
Only impressionable people would support Trump & Palin.
If Trump owned the Titanic, he would have said, "we've got enough lifeboats for the wealthy investor class? Yes, that's good enough. Why cut into our profits for the surplus population?"
Sadly, Cruz would say the same thing.
If Rubio ever remembers where he came from, he could get young Hispanics and many others to register Republican, so they could vote for him.
If he dared to be different, that is.
The Titanic is a great analogy Andy. Sadly, just like the real life Titanic, those in charge are acting irresponsibly.
What would have saved the Titanic was responsible operation - restraint, caution, and sacrificing a bit of time for the survival of the ship. IOW crossing t's and dotting i's.
Trump would be arguing for more speed, for sure, but so is every other candidate being presented! Not a single one recognizes the iceberg of exponential debt (latest example, federal debt nearly doubled under Obama's watch, just like it did under Bush). Did you know that public debt alone is forecast to be $29 trillion in a decade? Based on recent trends I think that number is conservative!
My point is that the bickering of R vs D is absolutely the most ridiculous thing we could be doing now. Both party's are the problem, and by extension every one of us who continues to play this stupid, suicidal election game every four years. And that's exactly what it is - a game. My team vs your team. My team good, your team bad. Hello! We are all on the same team! Our collective us vs them mentality is surely going to result in extreme events, so it's best to recognize it an knock it off.
Gawd, this years politics is completely insane in every sense of the word, as are WE for both participating and encouraging it with our entertainment-centric attitudes.
Oh, and "Politics is poopadoodle" ;-)
"Rubio will most likely get my vote in the primary ... fewest negatives."
" I still say that Rubio is the only candidate who stands a chance in the general election."
Totally disagree- RECORD TURNOUT in Iowa = the people have been mobilized. BECAUSE THEY'RE PISSED. Also because they're optimistic there's a REAL chance a non-GOP establishment candidate could win this thing, and they are excited about that prospect. While I admit Rubio's rise was a surprise, I don't see Trump or Cruz falling anytime soon: Rubio has a very tough row to hoe.
I'm surprised with the 50/50 dem side: I'm not sure what surprises me more: that so many people would vote for a person under FBI investigation, or that some many people would vote for someone who's batshit crazy and thinks money grows on trees.
Gee, I'm not surprised that so many people would vote for a Socialist Canadian soon to be under investigation or someone who's batshit crazy and thinks money, Muslim's and Mexicans grow on trees.
I am surprised that the Republicans dumped on Bush, the one guy with a proven track record of getting things done and working across the aisle, a pedigree as his father's son not his brother's clone, the one guy you may not agree with all of his plans, but you probably agree with some, the guy who knows the most without the pivot or spin of others, true red white and blue, does not lie, and would not steal, the guy who know the word compromise and the one guy that could have stolen my vote from Hillary. In your zeal for a no-compromise my-way-or-the-highway, I think you sacrificed the prize.
Meanwhile: the dean of the deal, the dealmaster general, dealt death to himself in Iowa. Choice to run away from that young lady's harsh questions does not seem like a good deal now. Gonna have to get mean now, down and dirty New England style, and starting naming names. Gonna be hard to pick on minorities in New Hampshire; have to find them first.
I say New Hampshire should think hard before they vote to:
Make American Second Rate Again
Send in the clowns.
The Titanic analogy is a what if , how about a what was. Lets take the Rwanda Genocide. Bill Clinton in office and he took a hands off approach WHY? because America had no money/investment interests in Rwanda. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death. Here is something I read online about the Rwandan Genocide.
The United States was very loath to take any kind of action in Rwanda because Rwanda did not represent one of the country’s economic interests. They refused even simple means of interference, and even helped to impede other countries from taking action.
SD,
Question:
Why should the republicans be expected to "deal across the isle" when the democrats NEVER do?
Lemme guess.... because the democrats are level-headed and reasonable, and the republicans a religious zealot fascist nut job extremists, and therefor only the republicans SHOULD be expected to deal across the isle, right? I'm sure that's how hapiest girl sees it...
Dealing across the isle has been, and will be, the death of the republican party. Which is fine, if that's what the GOP wants: a RepubiCRAT party. If that's what they want, they've been doing the right thing for the last 20 years. Methinks an awful big chunk of voters disagree with their tactics, hence the record turnout and Trump/Cruz lead nationally....
brown bear2 - No ideas or policies? Come on now, "I hate *@!#& Mexicans" and "Kill all the *@!#& Muslims" are certainly policy to some.
JR - But Cruz is establishment, just more extreme establishment. If they really wanted anti-establishment then Trump would have won by a landslide.
ianimal - The debate wouldn't have changed a thing. There were some interesting polls done both caucus entrance & exit. I think the most telling is what R's thought were the most important issues. Economy, jobs, curtail spending were the tops, and terrorism and immigration were far lower.
Biggest winner of the night are "pollsters". Cruz really was noticeably ahead, and the D's were really as tight as it happened. The caucus format really gave Rubio a boost. When so many of the other R's get declared not viable, he picked up a lot of the slack in the moderates.
NH will be very interesting because the format is entirely different, the leaders are different, and demographics are different as well. What could be most interesting is cross over votes. The primaries after that are mostly a sneak peak towards Super Tues. That's the real telling point.
Peyton Manning for president. Donald Trump for Bronco's cheerleader, in a skirt. Hillary for warden to oversee Obama's buddies at Gitmo, plus lock up Bernie there as she would no doubt like to do. Today's politics being so bizarre, why not?
There are multiple examples of Obama compromising across the aisle; he was usually lambasted by both sides and then blamed by the Republicans. Can you say sequester? Can you say no public option in the ACA? Can you say Bush tax extensions? These are a few of the bigger ones. Yet he is vilified for cutting military spending when the Republicans sealed the sequester cuts to military --- twice. We know the ACA feelings, and he's a tax and spend entitlement king even after the tax cut extension that causing much of the debt (along with continued spending).
I will agree that Congress has been constipated on both sides but the Republicans have steadfastly refused any laxative to either help or credit Obama when he compromised their way against the wishes of his party. Tends to dull the luster of Presidential compromise.
Here's seven pages of them: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/?page=1
If you just google Obama compromise with GOP you will get the story behind what happens on some of the bigger ones.
"Dealing across the isle has been, and will be, the death of the republican party." It's death to everything. Thus you have the problem that spelled the death of Boehner, will hamstring and force Ryan into depression and guarantee that the last eight years will be the next eight years no matter who gets in. The difference is that Obama is a theoretical pragmatist who believes in the goodness of man. Hillary is another story and if it happens, it is totally your fault.
How can you lose after the first four years of Obama? How can you lose after 8 years of slow economic growth?
Like I said, IMO Jeb might have dented the log jam given his plans already reach across the aisle at times and his thoughtful demeanor is positive always looking for the win-win. IMO that's what we have to focus on versus our current win-lose mentality which has given us our lose-lose results.
GC,
If you think Cruz is establishment, then you don't know what establishment is. The GOP doesn't want Trump, but they REALLY don't want Cruz. That's all you need to know to know that Cruz is NOT establishment.
And yes, he's right of the party- hence his popularity. Ditto for Trump, altho he's not as far right as Cruz.
SD,
I suppose you would hold that view if all you looked at were examples of republicans holding up the works. There have been numerous times the democrats have done the exact same thing- usually by not letting something even come to the floor for a vote. But, being a democrat yourself, I understand you wouldn't see it that way.
And no, I'm not wasting time doing the research for your and posting it here. I, like you, have been paying attention to this stuff on a daily basis for 25 years. For you to see only the republicans causing problems, tells me all I need to know about the objectivity of your opinions. Perhaps one day you will finally learn the 2-party system has been playing you for a fool...
Actually, I'll post ONE: from Politifact, showing that INDEED BOTH PARTIES are "constipating" things.... good reading...
I tried to post the article here, and even truncated, it's too long. I didn't want to take out too much, so instead, here's the summary after cutting through all the bipartisan bullshit:
"...but experts agree that it takes two to tango. Both parties and chambers have played a role in creating the current legislative dysfunction. "
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/
I like how everyone is claiming this killed Trump's chances...
Iowa is a proportional delegation state. Cruz gets 8, Trump gets 7, Rubio gets 7...
So... Trump is 1 "point" behind Cruz in a race that awards 2,346 total points.
Looks like Trump took some counties that Santorum got in the last race... counties that should have been a clean sweep for Cruz.
Mark Mc. Don't know that anyone knowingly votes for gridlock, but when the populace is split, that's what you get, under our system.
For those hoping to not be frustrated, look for a presidential candidate seriously out-of-step with the majority, like Barry Goldwater was, or appeared to be, in 1964. That gave the Democrats the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress.
Could Cruz do that for the Democrats this year? Or Sanders for the Republicans? Too soon to say.
jd2 "Don't know that anyone knowingly votes for gridlock, but when the populace is split, that's what you get, under our system."
By design. A GOOD design.... if enough of the people (supposedly being represented by their elected officials) don't agree on something, then IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE. That's the WHOLE POINT.
"A GOOD design."
Yes I can see why you (JR) say that, and I can see the benefits. I am less enthusiastic about it though. Like with everything, there are pros and cons.
I don't think many are saying this squashed Trump's chances. The GOP in its infinite ability to shoot itself in the foot this year removed any super-delegates from Iowa and other states so your math is spot on and there will be no GOP delegate poaching. It's just that the bloom is off the rose and the self anointed winner came in second place. Personally I can't wait for the entertaining next chapter especially as New Hampshire wakes up to the Iowa effect.
I did think watching Maddow and O'Donnell simultaneously wet themselves was a bit over the top. Tittering over his defeat was just not professional.
"I suppose you would hold that view if all you looked at were examples of republicans holding up the works. There have been numerous times the democrats have done the exact same thing- usually by not letting something even come to the floor for a vote. But, being a democrat yourself, I understand you wouldn't see it that way."
Of course when I just said: "I will agree that Congress has been constipated on both sides" as in blocked, holding up the works, full of..... I think I agreed with you before you said I didn't. But we were talking Obama compromise and you said he didn't. I showed you that not only did he compromise but that the Republicans handed him his head on every compromise. So he caught crap from the Democrats for caving and the Republicans for acquiescing. Smart move.
Your article is rated half true and I don't have the time to do the research for you(r) to determine what part is true. Certainly the Republicans will fare worse than the Democrats. They have to, they rule the roost.
Yes, the founding fathers rigged the system so that even the minority could gum up the works. Laws were supposed to be really, really hard to pass so that we would have few and the ones we had we would think about, talk about, compromise about, a whole lot making them better or at least more agreeable to more people. Yet since the Republicans have taken hold of Congress, they have set a new low for the bar of getting anything done.
The Republicans did vote to repeal ObamaCare SIXTY times. ObamaCare is a Republican conservative idea initiated by your last Presidential nominee. ObamaCare compromises made during it passage, like dropping the public option, are generally conservative in origination. It is working, they can't prove a disaster except to say "its a disaster." And yet the beat-down goes on.
This is America, you can take 'my way or the highway' and stick it; it won't fly.
"This land was made for you and me."
Heard a pretty interesting point made today:
Cruz, the only candidate running AGAINST ETHANOL, is the candidate who won...
IN IOWA.
"This is America, you can take 'my way or the highway' and stick it; it won't fly. "
If only you liberals would practice what you preach....sigh....
Who are you backing now that obama is out after 2 terms google ? Hillary e-mailin 4 died Bengazi Clinton ? Or it don't matter as long as their not Republican.
Not sure Cruz is against ethanol per se, but he IS against the federal mandate, so yes, it IS interesting.
Of course, he "won" with a plurality, where 72% of people in the Republican caucus voted for someone else.
JR - Since "outsider" is the supposedly in thing, Cruz desperately wants to tell people that. But an outsider wouldn't even be a lawyer let alone a politician let alone a senator. There's a difference between intraparty bickering and being on the outside. He's just a different wing of the party. Yes, other parts of the party are mad over the shutdown. Win a nomination and that's all forgotten, he still gets plenty of RNC dollars and plenty of his own RNC wing are well behind him. If being angry at someone is all it takes then McCain and Romney were both "outsiders". McCain over campaign reform and Romney over being too moderate and D-like.
"Outsider" has zero credibility for Ted Cruz.
"Cruz, the only candidate running AGAINST ETHANOL, is the candidate who won... IN IOWA."
He won 28% of the Republican vote in a state that is typically even "bluer" than New Jersey. That doesn't rate very high on the "whoop de doo" scale (-;
ian,
your semantics aside, the point is, he won... HE, who is against the federal mandate for ethanol, WON, in a corn state. Winning by 1% or 20%, he won.
Me thinks no one died in any of Trump's real estate dealings ...... Behind any Democrats door lies a mountain of skeletons. What about Vince Foster's supposed " suicide " ?
""Outsider" has zero credibility for Ted Cruz."
As I said earlier when viewed as a game (which it is) Cruz is pretending to be an "outsider" to draw in folks on the "outsider" team. Other teams are the "give free stuff" team, the "I'll beat 'em with a stick" team, and the "I'm a woman, a Clinton, and running on the coattails of my husband" team.
The funny thing about all these teams, and this applies to every one of them, is the commonality of collecting "emotional" votes. Not "thinking" votes, emotional votes.
Again, I showed you the compromises Obama made, all seven pages of them. Some of them big ones. That's not my way or the highway. ObamaCare itself is a conservative idea with many compromises to the conservatives within.
Conservatives own the House, they own the Senate. Your McConnell is the Senate Majority lead, your Ryan is the Speaker of the House after conservatives trashed Boehner for not being mean enough. Wonder how long till Ryan bugs out.
Liberals should practice what I just preached? Give me a break. You are in denial and the conservatives are dysfunctional JR, sigh.
Conservatives own a good piece, if not the majority of the pieces on the game board and still can not get laws passed, can not get anything done. Progressives aren't the problem, it starts with the conservatives themselves being able to make decisions they can agree with. Otherwise it's shut down the government when you can't get your way. Cheer an armed takeover of a government installation because the protestors can't get free government land plus they want a previous conviction overturned --- it was justifiable arson apparently. Conservatives are bringing long guns to Chili's and Chipotle's as their sign of support for their beliefs. Your leading candidate lies, and then continually maligns Muslims, Mexicans, other minorities, and individuals while conservatives applaud it as "plain-speak" and p-c avoidance. I understand being frustrated that the press is against you, the government plots against you, the economy is rigged against you, etc. etc. etc. but you gotta admit, it's a bit whack-a-doodle out there.
Repeal ObamaCare; it's all your Congress knows how to do. Claim Executive Orders unconstitutional even though our guys use them all the time. George Washington used them. Yippppeee.
And defend yourself by saying, "well, liberals do it too." We may have you on the entertaining sin side of the ledger, but I think you got whack-a-doodle all sewed up right now.
Jeb Bush for President: he's got my Hillary vote
Who's in denial?
Harry Reid's Obstructionism
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles
And, for the record- I have never said the republicans AREN'T obstructionist; but I'm sick and tried of hearing the LIE that ONLY the republicans are the "wrench in the works" in Congress.
But- lemme guess- Reid's obstructionism is a GOOD thing, right?
For a much closer example of obstructionism, you only need look to our own governor, Chris Christie (yes, remember him" our governor-in-absentia") who has by now vetoed close to 500 bills passed by the NJ Legislature.
JR already summed it up, although from the opposite viewpoint when he posted:
"By design. A GOOD design.... if enough of the people (supposedly being represented by their elected officials) don't agree on something, then IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE. That's the WHOLE POINT."
So if enough of the people (supposedly being represented by their elected officials) DO agree on something, then it SHOULD BE DONE!
Making the point, IMO, that Christie has been the Number One Obstructionist in refusing to acknowledge the voice of the people. And yet he presents himself as a voice for compromise.
JerryG,
You're still not there yet.... the system has a trigger to override a veto... IF ENOUGH PEOPLE WANT IT. Again, by design. Apparently, not enough people want it.
And I'm no CC fan, I certainly don't want him anywhere near the White House, EVER!!!
"Of course when I just said: "I will agree that Congress has been constipated on both sides" as in blocked, holding up the works, full of..... I think I agreed with you before you said I didn't."
Yet when it comes to the metrics of compromise; Obama has and rather that seize the moment, conservatives time and time again threw it back in his face. Progressives are the minority; if you don't like the stoppages, then they should attempt to find middle ground. They rarely do as the output shows.
Again, who is in the majority and what production have they accomplished. Balls in your court to find the middle ground. You're on point.
A little interesting thing I heard by a reporter last night. In three precincts, the democrat vote was a tie. They flipped a coin to see who was the winner and Hillary won all three. If Sanders won all three, he would have won.
"So if enough of the people (supposedly being represented by their elected officials) DO agree on something, then it SHOULD BE DONE!"
No, that's called mob rule. The *only* thing that should apply to is common good stuff that does not differentiate by any particular trait. Common defense and the like.
The best solution (although control freaks hate the idea) is to find like-minded folks who agree through voluntary choice. That's why we have clubs, teams, homeowner associations and the like - all voluntary in nature. It's when you throw force into the mix - mob rule - that leads to, well, where we are today.
Old Gent- Thank god for the coin toss. What is scary is that 50% "half" of Democrats in the state of Iowa voted for an admittedly out of the closet socialists to run as, and hopefully be, President of the United States of America. To me that is bigger headlines than Trump losing to Cruz. On to NH.
"No, that's called mob rule."
No, it's not. Our system of govt was set up with many checks and balances to assure than mob rule does NOT happen.... except in the example of the GOVT (mob) ruling the people.
"The best solution (although control freaks hate the idea) is to find like-minded folks who agree through voluntary choice."
It's never going to happen, perhaps it's time to get over the utopian ideals. It's never happened, it's never going to happen. Our founders recognized that, hence our current system of government, as effed up as it is, it's arguably still the best the world has seen.
The problem with trying to override a veto in NJ is that it requires a two-thirds vote in both the State Assembly and the State Senate, whereas it only requires a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass a bill.
So if only 74% of the people (and, by extension, 74% of the Senate and Assembly) vote to override, the majority still does not have their voice heard. That 26% minority still wins, Christie still triumphs, and he can still go to New Hampshire and wherever appealing to those voters.
Of course, this presupposes that our elected representatives actually listen to the will of the people who elected them, and speak/vote as the majority of their constituents would want them to.
Oh, and Justintime, it's not called "mob rule," it's called majority rule aka democracy. I agree with JR, while it's not perfect, it's a good system to live under.
ianimal,
Thanks, don't know where my brain was at. I must be having a bad math day.
Still in all, with the CORRECT math, that 33% minority still wins, and the 67% majority loses.
Christie is still the poster child for obstructionist politics.
60% of the Republican vote in Iowa last night went for two Hispanics and an African-American, and 100% of the Democrat vote went for a couple of tired, old, decrepit white people.
-Rush Limbaugh
to quote GC in this thread, "I don't care who ya is, that's a funny joke rye chair... ;-)"
That's as good a joke as even with a record turnout, the sum total of all voters in Iowa was only 15%. A full 85% sat on their hands and said "poopadoodle".
"No, it's not. Our system of govt was set up with many checks and balances to assure than mob rule does NOT happen.... except in the example of the GOVT (mob) ruling the people."
It is mob rule the way it was described by the person whom I responded to. Otherwise we're in general agreement that it's those in power, seeking to stay in power, abusing that power to promise things to a desirous population without regard for the health or well being of our nation.
"It's never going to happen, perhaps it's time to get over the utopian ideals. It's never happened, it's never going to happen. Our founders recognized that, hence our current system of government, as effed up as it is, it's arguably still the best the world has seen."
JR - really? You know as well as I do that we are a Constitutional Republic run by representatives of the people. Those representatives are supposed to represent all of us, not just some, not individuals, not groups, but all of us. That is their responsibility. But what they do now is just divvy up the spoils of taxation so they can to redistribute it in ways to make *their* specific group happy. There is very little today geared toward general well being. In fact, as was posted earlier our representatives rarely care for the "other 50%"; now it's all about political affiliation. How is that representative of "all"?
And regarding "utopian ideals", if that's not a valid starting point for any position then what would you suggest we do? Screw doing anything generally considered "right" or "moral" and jump right to fighting each other to push our own personal ideals, closing our minds so that we never have to put ourselves in the shoes of another? Maybe say screw the other guy because he's different? Maybe even push hard, like *really* hard, for laws that are meant to control those who are different? Sure,it will NEVER be attained. I get that. But that's where I start and go from there. Maybe ask yourself where you start?
And of all people here, given your namesake, you should understand what the Founders really were after. It wasn't (from the Founders view, not those who followed) power, otherwise they would have just created another monarchy. It was a system of government configured to counteract human nature. It's that same human nature that's destroyed what the Founders created and has led us to where we are today: Centralized control over every aspect of our lives while those in power go about their merry way, doing as they please, making laws to spoil themselves and imprison the rest of us. All the arguments in the public domain about who should get the spoils from taxation (which, btw, was *extremely* limited by the Founders) should never have happened if we were able to keep what we were given at our country's founding.
Regardless, that's not really relevant. My comment was that Democracy (which WE ARE NOT and never have been, at least on paper) can never be anything more that the larger group (mob) exercising control over another group. It's one of those things that just is, without any explanation required. Instead, all everyone seems to want to do is justify it.
"It's that same human nature that's destroyed what the Founders created and has led us to where we are today: Centralized control over every aspect of our lives while those in power go about their merry way, doing as they please, making laws to spoil themselves and imprison the rest of us."
Perhaps that brings us back to some of the other words from the Founders...
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"A full 85% sat on their hands and said "poopadoodle"."
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but imo that's been their (govt's) plan all along.
Careful Mark, the "Right of Revolution" wasn't codified into law. Just because it shows up in the one document used to justify our country's founding doesn't mean that the people really have that right (the Founders were traitors after all, those filthy slime buckets). I mean, the people aren't even supposed to be allowed to own weapons, so how in the world could they exercise a Right of Revolution?
Sorry for the sarcasm, can't seem to help it at the moment ;-)
And regarding "utopian ideals", if that's not a valid starting point for any position then what would you suggest we do?
You're correct, JIT, that on most things we are far more in agreement than in disagreement. I'm just of the opinion that REALITY- as in HUMAN NATURE- will never allow a utopian society... so stop trying to achieve it. It's a waste of time (unfortunately). It can never happen on this planet as long as the human race exists. Therefore, we have to work with what we have, and learn from history to know what we got/are going to get, and react accordingly.
Unfortunately. But it's nothing new. It's been that way since the beginning of time, and it was that way when the founders created this country.
Mark/JIT,
That's the great thing about revolution... laws are irrelevant once it has begun.
JR, I hope you're not thinking I"m encouraging revolution? Hardly. But I will say that if all this emotional, entertainment, us vs them crap doesn't stop (the game we call Presidential elections) we may find ourselves there at some point, that is if "the man" doesn't squash it first ;-)
JIT, I've been saying that for years (well, for several years anyway... I'm not THAT old)
I just find it funny when people hold the opinion "you can't revolt! That's illegal!" Um... maybe someone needs to look up the definition of revolution.
As far as them quashing it, they'll have ONE chance, and that's before it gets started in earnest. WHEN it happens, if they can't stop it right then, all hell will break loose. But that's a whole 'nuther thread. :)
JerryG, it also takes 67% to overide a Presidential Veto, so no new news there. Also, the majority of Americans did not want Obamacare but that didn't stop it from passing.
Here's a tidbit from another article, a way to look at how gridlock can be a GOOD thing:
" The House of Representatives is a steering wheel; the presidency is an accelerator; the Senate is a brake. Shutdowns, gridlock, obstruction, mulish foot-stamping opposition to the president’s agenda: These are not defects in our system of government — they are why we have a Senate."
Of course, liberals today poo-poo the republican-caused gridlock, but I'm sure they had no problem with democrat-caused gridlock when a republican is president....
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430707/republican-party-conservatives-reform-ted-cruz-bob-dole
Since we're quoting Rush Limpbough...
"I don't like this idea that Marco Rubio is all the sudden being labeled as an establishment candidate... I don't see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative."
Seems old doctor-shopper-pill-head knows that nobody but Rubio stands a chance in the general election either. He must have had to choke down quite a bit of bile while spitting out those words, lol.
Yeah, a lot of people are scratching their head at that one, since you'd have to be a MORON to think Rubio is a "full-throated conservative".....
Each of his recent pivots have been towards the right and away from center; think that's why you might hear that. Of course, he's oft pundit-tized as being in the "establishment lane" too, a position he continually denies like Peter disowning Christ. A year ago, a very different story.
Certainly not full throated as defined by Cruz or Trump but then again, not sure a true conservative would even include them at that table.
"Certainly not full throated as defined by Cruz or Trump"
I understand Cruz, but how exactly is Trump defined as a full throated conservative? Certainly a full-throated capitalist (nothing wrong with that), just don't understand why people label Trump as a conservative. Being very wealthy doesn't mean you are conservative.
I don't see any substance to Trump whatsoever or know what/if he has any deeply held beliefs other than money and winning, which is fine but I'm waiting for substance and so far, don't see enough to vote for him.
"Certainly not full throated as defined by Cruz or Trump but then again, not sure a true conservative would even include them at that table."
Cruz is the only true conservative in the race. Rand was in that group too, too a lesser extent due to his libertarian principles... but he was still more of a conservative than everyone else except Cruz. Note we are discussing CONSERVATIVES, not Republicans....
Trump doesn't know what he is, he's just trying to win LOL. And if being a conservative helps him win, he'll do that (which I'm fine with, so long as he STAYS the conservative he won on)
None of us has a clue what Trump would be as president.
He has no record of performance in any public office.
What's in a word?
I read recently that in the English language, the traditional words to describe political positions, from left to right are....radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary.
Seems to me that compared to what went for conservative not long ago is rejected by those calling themselves conservative now. Is reactionary the better term? I guess no one wants to embrace that; sounds kind of negative.
What liberals think is conservative is in reality moderate. It's all part of the game. Making true conservatives "radicals." Of course, socialist Bernie isn't "radical" in any way....
so does anyone think Cruz is ineligible to be President due to being born in Canada? Anyone think a lawsuit will be filed like Trump is saying?
If so can you imagine if the Republican nominee is in court proving he's eligible to run while the Democrat nominee is in court proving she's not a criminal.
Illinois board declares Cruz a natural-born citizen:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/03/illinois-board-of-elections-declares-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
darwin -
Don't you know a person is a US citizen if at least one of the parents is a US citizen ......regardless of where they are born?????
If you were vacationing in Italy and your wife gave birth ........ is your child not a US citizen????
Why would you listen to any garbage Trump spews out????
And ..... Clinton is not a criminal!
Good grief!!
What conservatives think is liberal is in reality moderate. It's all part of the game. Making true liberals "radicals." Of course, fascist Donnie isn't "reactionary" in any way....
Funny how it works equally well both ways... the "inverse properties of politics", I guess you could say (-;
darwin -
Don't you know a person is a US citizen if at least one of the parents is a US citizen ......regardless of where they are born?????
If you were vacationing in Italy and your wife gave birth ........ is your child not a US citizen????
First your reading comprehension is beyond poor. I never said he was/wasn't I asked a question if anyone thinks he is not. And yes I know that. but being a US citizen is/ different than being a Natural Born Citizen. It has never gone before the Supreme court who has the final rule on the matter so it is a realist question to ask. Yes JR, 1 state has declared him but if any of the other 49 don't then there will be a lawsuit and the case would have to go up to the Supreme Court. 1 lawsuit in TX has already been filed.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/natural-born-issue-ted-cruz-not-settled-not-going-away-n499226
and I wouldn't keep your head in the sand for too much longer about HRC
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/17/hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation-keeps-moving-forward.html
I posted it in the last thread:
Socialist--------Liberal----------Moderate-------Conservative
Bernie--Obama--Hillary----------Rubio------Trump-----Cruz
I think it'd be pretty difficult to argue that with a straight face, unless you're in denial.
There are two discrete conditions to the left of moderate, while only one to the right. I think that is a product of your own personal bias.
From Wikipedia: "A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society."
I believe both Cruise and Trump fit this description, which delves further right than mere "conservative". "Make America great again"? Reactionary to a tee...
Funny how the world seems to change ... people who got to know me in my undergraduate college years (1968-72) considered me a conservative.
Now people think of me as liberal. Well, compared to most of Hackettstown, I suppose I am, by this area's standards. By South Jersey and Baltimore standards, I'm very conservative.
I'm the same guy, don't feel like I've really changed at all ...just a bit more well read and more "well rounded" around the waistline (-;
hmmm.... "fundamentally transform America"...... yes, sounds pretty reactionary to me.
Not "reactionary" at all... it would be considered extreme left-wing, or "radical", using the widely-accepted linear political spectrum.
A left-winger would never want to return to a previous political state, hence the term "progressive"... they want to create "new and better" political states.
Please. I actually don't think your left-wing at all, I have a feeling your one of those "I'm smarter than everyone because I'm neither right nor left, and I have fun ridiculing EVERYONE to show them how smart I am" people.
And that's ok. So long as we got that straight.
EVERY election is "reactionary"- EVERY election is a REACTION to what came before. Every. Single. One. EVER.
"A left-winger would never want to return to a previous political state"
Unless they've had 8 years of a republican administration.
Calling it "forward progress" to swing back to the left is just as invalid as calling it forward progress when the pendulum swings right; because that's all it is: pendulum. As smart as you are, I thought you would have figured that out by now. Oh well.
darwin-
My reading comprehension is fine, thank-you. If you bothered to read up on the issue, you would find that the legal definition of a natural born citizen includes those born in the US and those born abroad of one or more parents who are US citizens---- as opposed to a person who is not a citizen under these requirements and is therefore an alien who would have to go through a naturalization process.
The same accusations were attempted towards John McCain and George Romney.
The legal system declared them citizens.
All this nonsense is a cheap attempt from a disgruntled candidate who lost Iowa.
I agree that Cruz is a natural-born citizen, but I'm not so sure there is actually a "legal definition" of "natural-born" we can turn to. Where is it?
(Maybe folks born via cesarean-section are excluded, LOL)
I'd do away with that dumb out-dated rule.
My dad fled Soviet tyranny and came to this country in his 30s, did everything the right way and became a citizen ... he certainly gave the GOP enough of his hard-earned money ... at least we got to visit the White House as a nice "thank you."
why shouldn't somebody like him have a chance to become president?
He certainly appreciated being an American more than a lot of other people l knew.
Have to disagree with you, JR. A radical/liberal often favors things that never were tried before, e.g. single-payer universal health care, gay marriage, whereas a conservative/reactionary looks more to the perceived old days for guidance, e.g. a Republic favored by the likes of Jefferson.
"If you bothered to read up on the issue, you would find that the legal definition of a natural born citizen includes those born in the US and those born abroad of one or more parents who are US citizens"
Actually if you have read up on the definition you would see there is no clear answer. Hence the debate. If there was a CLEAR LEGAL DEFINTION we would not be talking about it
"The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at the moment of birth", regardless of place of birth, are also natural born citizens, but the matter remains unsettled"
"The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen"
"Alan Grayson, a Democratic Member of Congress from Florida, does not believe Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and stated he intends to file a lawsuit should Cruz be the Republican nominee"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Again I am not even arguing that he isn't eligible, I believe he is. My point is if he becomes the nominee there most likely will be lawsuits filed. Add that to the potential criminal cases HRC faces and this election could become the biggest sh1t show ever. Not exactly what we Americans would want.
"All this nonsense is a cheap attempt from a disgruntled candidate who lost Iowa"
this came up well before Trump lost Iowa.... oh and it case it is unclear I am NOT a Trump supporter either
"Please. I actually don't think your left-wing at all, I have a feeling your one of those "I'm smarter than everyone because I'm neither right nor left, and I have fun ridiculing EVERYONE to show them how smart I am" people."
LOL, no, I'm not left-wing at all, nor have I ever claimed to be. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal in a relatively moderate kind of way. I don't really care for extremists on either end of the spectrum and I can certainly find fault with both. If, in your narrow viewpoint, that constitutes some kind of intellectual superiority complex on my part, I think it is more reflective of YOUR need for there to be black and white, right and left, right and wrong. Every question has only two possible answers. And to echo your sentiment.. that's ok. We both know where we stand.
But I'm not sure why you feel the need to redefine accepted political terms. Reactionary = right. Radical = left. Defined terms and points of reference so everyone is on the same page in a discussion. But you are so smart and forward thinking that now Obama is a reactionary, simply because you don't like the tenor of the word? And using a different definition of the word reaction to "prove" your point? Whatever... I suppose a person can't truly be conservative if he isn't a conservationist, lol.
Even after 8 years of Republican rule, why would a true progressive want to revert to a past political state that he knows was imperfect? Wouldn't he want to "progress" further? Aren't there more injustices to be righted all the time (in the mind of the radical leftist)? To think that a progressive would ever be satisfied kind of indicates a lack of understanding of the species.
It's all supposed to be about doing the right thing ... if something isn't working, we try and fix it, we try to improve it.
There was a time that the internet did not exist ... is it radical/liberal that we're all using it now?
We never sent a man to the moon until 1969.
Sometimes we need to try new things ... wisdom is in knowing when and how.
John McCain's lawsuit was he was born in civilian hospital in Panama. Since it was proven he was born on a base which was considered US ground it overruled. But I wouldn't say it never got anywhere. it went to the United States District Court
George Romney was never the nominee and dropped out of the race before any lawsuit was filed.
There has been no case about a nominee born to US parents on foreign soil. So we have no rulings
Again no clear definition which you claim there is
Trump absolutely stoked the fire on this issue when his numbers starting dwindling a bit before Iowa. I believe Trump was quoted in part saying "...a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly..."
Many people took the bait.
Trump should file a lawsuit if it's such a big deal...but he won't...because it's not.
So now Trump apparently wants a "do-over" in Iowa. He must equate politics to finance/business, and thinks his do-over idea is like declaring bankruptcy and he gets to start again...and again...and again.
How many do-overs will it take?
He's acting like a petulant child who loses a coin toss and then wants best two out of three...three out of five...and so on.
Cruz held Canadian citizenship until 2014 as dual citizenship. This is a little different from Obama or McCain. Does not exactly help Rafael's cause.
Cruz's Canadian upbringing was not a sojourn. He lived there as a Socialist for the first four years of his life never working a day. Cruz's father was not kidding around, he may have became a Canadian citizen. Both of Cruz's parents are on Canadian voting lists. And if they messed around with this, there's that pesky Canadian Oath of Allegiance that pretty well would blow them out of the water.
The lawsuits have started.
http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate-us-united-states-citizen-413530
"I understand Cruz, but how exactly is Trump defined as a full throated conservative?"
You're right. Good point, I stand corrected. Trump is a fascist. At least that's how he runs his business.
Although it is funny that two of the three top Republican candidates are Hispanic yet they can't pull the Hispanic vote. I can understand why they don't like the Canadian, but the other guy?
Trump does not need an Iowa do-over, he needs a bail out......
darwin -
You are wrong about McCain -- it had nothing to do with being born on a US base.
Since you have searched unsuccessfully for clarity on the topic of what a natural born citizen is, perhaps you might want to read this:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen
JerryG -- you are so right about Trump. What a cry-baby child he is!
A law review is not law. A law professor can agrue its definition but until they agrue it in a court of law then there is no clear answer. And that is my only point. Someone will try to agrue it in court
And yes the whole agreement against McCain was he was born on foreign soil. But bases are considered US soil regardless what country they are in
@sd - despite your teaser, nowhere in that article does it say a lawsuit has been filed. You tricked me into clicking! haha
Sorry. Not hard to find: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-lawsuit-birth-challenge
You challenge *MY* reading comprehension?
I never said a law review is law. However, that article spells out facts.
Secondly, you are wrong that McCain was approved to run because he was on a US base.
The Senate declared McCain is a natural born citizen under Article 11 Section 1 of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with him being on what was considered US soil.
Like Trump really cares about Ben, he's just using the mishap as an excuse to try and mend his wounded ego and to rile Cruz.
Iowa is just the beginning, not the "all tells all." Coming in second is a fantastic start..heck Rubio was elated to get third place. What does this guy want? He is a big baby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html
I'm getting bored arguing with you. McCain had everything to do with him being born on a base which was us soil
darwin -
So then don't argue!! The link I posted above states the Senate ruling.
S.Res.511 spells it out -- McCain was declared a natural born citizen under Article 11 Section 1 of the Constitution. Whether he was born on *US soil* or not was *not* the deciding factor.
https://www.opencongress.org/bill/sres511-110/show
Sadly, U.S. politics has been so polarized and partisan the last decade.
I remember a time the parties would agree to work out bi-partisan legislation and make compromises, making sure essential things would get done.
Democrats cooperated with Reagan on important things and Republicans did the same with Clinton --- that's how they managed to balance the budget, a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, in a manner that was not too "extreme" for either side.
I had hopes Trump would be that kind of leader, since he doesn't "owe any favors" to the GOP power structure, but recent events have shown me he just doesn't have what it takes to be president ... just too ego driven and just too much of a demagogue.
Rubio will have to separate himself from the rest of the pack policy wise, to get that Hispanic vote --- right now he appears to be the Cuban version of an "Uncle Tom" to them. They look at him as too far removed from them, "not one of us."
All ass-umptions on Cruz's part and CNN's part pertaining to Ben. I dont want a leader who acts on assumptions and doesn't do fact checking before reacting.
In my opinion none of these guys are trustworthy.. except for Carson. However I'm not sure if he has the assertiveness which is essential to run this country.
I will probably not even vote at this point.
From your own link
Their last rationale:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Calendar No. 715
Yes, history matters, JR.
Although Darwin says there are no cases of candidates not being born on US soil, there were.
George Romney was running - it doesn't matter that he was not a nominee.
Let's not forget Barry Goldwater who was born on Arizona Territory.
That was not the definitive reason, Darwin. If it were, it would not have been necessary to even state the Article's content. Whether or not he was born on US "soil" was not the reason he was cleared as a citizen -- it was the Article. There is no statement about being born on a military base in the Article itself.
And the summary itself states that he is a natural born citizen under Article 11 Section 1
Darwin and Happiest you two are acting just like the candidates that you've complained about (egos involved?). Both points have been made over and over, but I guess whoever gets the last word is the winner?
Positive why would you not even vote at this point for something that you clearly are passionate about. You can always write in your vote.
"History matters" - I'll try to remember you said that when I try to TEACH YOU something from it, so as not to repeat it again. :)
@Andy - good point. I've been thinking about the lack of compromise and how that may be the one thing I can point to as Trump's strength - that he can make a deal. I am so sick of the two party bickering and the country being split pretty much 50/50 - it's time for a change. One way is to do this is to make deals with the other side.
I know there is a camp of people that believe in NO compromise and you need to bring others to your opinion - which is how they define leadership.
I'm not smart enough to know the right answer - it's usually somewhere in the middle though. You probably need a bit a both - compromise and leadership.
Gun to my head to pick one, I'd lead toward compromise because I still remember my 7th grade history teacher explaining that is what politicians are supposed to do :). That no side gets 100% of what it wants and I can imagine the founders NOT WANTING one side to get 100% - since that's the type of system they were leaving behind.
What are you shouting about, JR?
Just what is it you want to TEACH ME ????
wait ....... do you really matter? You're old - and maybe almost 6 feet under too ... lol
I'm old? Since when? Oh, wait- I forgot- teenagers consider anyone out of their 20's "old". My bad.
I agree, compromise is important as is sticking to your guns. The art is to know which one to choose and when to choose it. Likewise, politicians are supposed to listen to the people, take advantage of new information and, upon occasion, change their mind. While Trump over history has pivoted on most issues, today he is steadfast that he will not change his mind….ever. His deals focus on the win-lose. Personally I like a person who seeks the win-win where all stakeholders come away satisfied. That’s how long-term working relationships and future deals are established.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz…. He’s mean, he’s nasty, and he likes dirty tricks. Whether its use of the poison pill in Congress that he’s so proud of producing or his recent rigging of the Iowa caucuses, the man likes to deal dirty. Remind you of anyone? Is he Tricky Dick 2 or maybe he’s just Little Dick? So what do we really know about Ted?
Rafael Jr. knows Socialism, he was one until he gave up his Canadian citizenship in 2014. His father became a Canadian citizen for a while too until he gave up his oil support company and returned to the U.S. to become an Evangelical Minister. Today he believes you govern by biblical principle. sha44ss will be happy.
Rafael Jr. knows Communism, Rafael Sr. was one for a while in Cuba today saying he didn’t know Castro was a Communist. It's a rags to riches story. Rafael Sr. fled Cuba with only $100 after the family attorney bought a passport for him. Gee, I don’t have a family attorney that would do that. After he was safe in America and Baptiste was gone, Raf Sr. turned against Castro. Timely.
That that sums what we know: Ted’s a Little Dick Canadian Socialist Communist Dirty Trickster whose father teaches that you govern via the principles of the bible. Church and State as one. Super.
Truth indeed is stranger than fiction.
4catmom,
I agree. A waste and boring, people who have urges to write their thoughts but have nothing to say. I prefer the cooking threads, where I might learn something useful.
Amen to that.
I had hopes for Trump. He's talked about how international trade deals have killed the middle class and that he would "bring the jobs back." None of these other Republicans, who are beholden to the guys who are outsourcing jobs because they get campaign $$$ from them, have been talking about that.
Don't know how Trump can "bring the jobs back" from overseas without imposing some regulations and making government "bigger." Maybe he can make deals and convince companies they are better off keeping the jobs at home.
That building a wall business to keep immigrants out? Whazzup with that? I'd rather see that money spent repairing our aging roads and bridges ... that would provide employment for a lot of people, stimulate the economy, and save lives.
Trump just needs to stop treating this campaign like it's some damn reality TV show and get serious about what he's doing. He can still win, but as they say in sports, he's got to make some halftime adjustments. He needs to apologize to Megyn Kelly and put that episode behind him, for one thing. Reasonable people do change their minds, so why are politicians so afraid to admit that? What's wrong with apologizing to somebody? I respect someone who can do that.
Why do these pols act like children?
Because they are all poopadoodle, I suppose.
What makes things different today is you let everything hang out. Even when it comes to clothing. We used to have more discussion and live and let live even thought we all knew what each others views were. Lord knows, I was always different but I was still had friends and socialized. It was just a more respectful time. Listen to the language used in public today and in schools. You would get a dirty look in the old days and be ostracized for using such language. Today, with the Government having so much control over our lives it has become a fighting match over who controls the spoils. The Me, Me society. God forbid, we ever have to defend ourselves again. Just saying.
I agree. A waste and boring, people who have urges to write their thoughts but have nothing to say. I prefer the cooking threads, where I might learn something useful
yet you seem to always pop up on other threads. But I forgot according to you we should not talk about religion or politics because it might agitate many people
darwin -- so now you're on Danny's case?
positive - I think you were right when you mentioned his ego.
Not on anyone's case just pointing out if you don't want to discuss a topic then you can easily stay of that thread. But kind of lame to come on and tell others what they should and should not talk about
Crap I got pulled into your vortex again I got to get out of here
"Meanwhile, it is starting to look like Rubio vs. Clinton, not to get back on topic."
Nah, jury is still a long ways out... while Trump does appear to be starting a bit of an implosion, Cruz is still around... we'll have a much better idea after the first several primaries. Iowa doesn't mean anything (just ask Huckabee & Santorum)....
"if you don't want to discuss a topic then you can easily stay of [*off] that thread" ---Darwin
So follow your own advise, Darwin!!
I didn't hear of any tornados in Hackettstown either .......LOL
Despite the "no I'm not getting out" that Carson was yelling from the rooftops over the Iowa primary "debacle"...
He's cutting about half of his staff, reduced salaries, and might even start flying on commercial (gasp!) instead of private jets... not signs of confidence for someone supposedly "not going anywhere" LOL
??? I'm so confused
"I didn't hear of any tornados in Hackettstown either .......LOL"
man I am in deep in the Benjy vortex now cause I have no clue what this line is suppose to mean. but i'm glad you are entertaining yourself.
So what will it whittle down to? Carson, Christie, and the lowest polling candidates out? Just want to know.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio.
And for those of you considering voting for Trump: Jimmy Carter and Harry Reid have endorsed him..... you might want to re-examine the direction Trump is going lately....
Jeb spent $15mill in Iowa and got 5k votes. he's going to run out of funds soon so he has about 2 states left before he realizes he has no shot. my guess is after SC he is out. Carson and Fiorina will last a little longer. Whoever does worse between Kasich and Christie in NH will probably drop out.
But amazingly Jim Gilmore who got 12 votes in Iowa is still in it. too bad no one else but him knows that.
my guess after March 1st mega Primary day we will be down to Trump Cruz Rubio Carson
Did you see my post above? Carson doesn't have the gas- he's laying off half his staff, and cutting the rest's salaries. I personally thin he WAS out in Iowa, then saw he could get some gas out of the debacle, so changed his mind and stayed in.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/02/cnn-not-cruz-staff-responsible-for-ben-carson-campaign-suspension-rumor/
BrotherDog Get a quad-copter, more safe, more maneuverable, loaded with high technology, but must be registered with the FAA. Sorry, that's another thread.
Ha thanks for the rescue guys.
But JR my guesses are based on funds the candidates have to run. As of 1/31:
Carson: 54mill
Bush: 32mill
Christie: 7.2mill
Fiorina: 11.3mill
Kasich: 7.6mill
So that's why I'm guessing Carson will be the 4th one standing. They usually drop out once the funds dry up
Cruz has raised another $3M since winning Iowa... don't know what that brings his total to
I found $89M?
That 7.2 mill Christie has got could certainly do a lot more good if it got spent here in Jersey.
Carson & Bush both aren't going anywhere until after Super Tues. They both have enough $ that it doesn't pay to not be in it when such a huge amount of delegates gets decided. Carson's non-traditional social media campaign is likely to continue all the way to the convention. Just because it doesn't really cost him anything to do. Jeb's future depends on what happens after Super Tues. If it's got some delegates to play with he's likely to pick up some money even if he won't win a nomination. He may well want to trade his position for political favor - throwing his support to Rubio could make it interesting for the others.
Christie & Kasich are both in it for NH. They've spent the effort there vs Iowa, and have at least some market share. One of the two is likely to survive to go on to Super Tues. The other probably not. Even then both would have to have a stellar Super Tues to last after that.
Fiorina is already in real danger even with Romney in nearby MA trying to help. She just needs another "not on the map" showing to realize it. Out before Super Tues.
Some interesting backstory on Cruz....
"In his first major leadership role, however, he developed economic policy as the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning.
At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.
Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.
Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC."
https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-no-one-seems-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-past/
I agree with you on this one JR. Matter of fact, some guy named mistergoogle said on HL in 2012: “Check out Cruz (r) from Texas. Could the Tea Party be maturing and actually vet a candidate with a brain? No experience in politics, massive experience in law, smart savvy guy and OMG ---- he's nice.... Must be an aberration....:>) And “but they are a mirror of the fractured Republican party caught between its ideals, the radical right, and the looney tunes tea party (who actually have a great candidate in Texas now by the name of Cruz).”
Unfortunately I was proved wrong and your comparison to Nixon seems apt. I think Cruz’s admission of the poison pill speaks volumes. Hey, a poison pill is a valid, yet sneaky, way to get things done but like waterboarding, the cardinal rule is don’t get caught doing it. Cruz not only got caught be he defends and applauds its use. Sure, the Canada thing is funny mostly because of the suddenly MIA birthers on the issue, but his back handed use of a dirty trick to get his way says a lot about the man. Doesn’t help that he continued his dirty tactics in Iowa.
Ted has built a great resume with a variety of public service roles. He is a smart guy in the legal and political professions. His beginning was an awesome display of bipartisan support. Yet in Congress nobody likes Cruz, he can’t even get partisan support, and that too speaks volumes. Sure you can shout outsider, anti-establishment, etc. but face it: they aren’t saying tough but fair, they are saying he’s a mean, nasty dude that no one wants to work with much less support. I think in his haste to run for the White House, Ted’s inexperience with the big game led him to short cut his approach in Congress, he showed his backup mode, and it’s just not nice nor productive. Send him back to the minors.
90-year old Barbara Bush is back!!! Got to admit, she summed up Jeb to a T. America's Grandma still has it and still sounds like the lady you would least want to tick off. I guess America's Iron Grandma would be a better fit :>) Gotta love her. The coolest thing about the Bush's is that at the heart of it, they are just a family of folks like yours and mine. Shrub is also working with a PAC putting out a Jeb ad in SC. Jeb found out about it supposedly after the fact, or at least that's his cover story.....
strangerdanger - Do you think that Jeb's family refs will rebuild their dynasty? Imo, no dynasty is electable nor should be elected as the politician class of the USA, Bush and Clinton included. We need someone new. Trump is so far out arrogant that he would probably usurp our laws even more than Obama has, and he cannot be trusted, plus he already has way too much power (big money tends to buy that). Who does that leave? Please don't tell me it is Christie, who should never be forgiven for that bear hug of Obama which probably helped him win the 2012 general election.
No, I don't think family refs count for much nor do I think Jeb cares about dynasty. I just think Jeb, based on his own merits and accomplishments, is a good man and a good political leader. What I like best is not only his demeanor but the fact that his plans more or less offer something to everyone. Not everything to one side or the other, but something for everyone. Almost like he's his own man and has put a lot of thought into it.
Beyond Paul (and with a huge grain of salt of the full libertarian tilt) and Kasich, I don't think there's much there in the GOP for me except ideology.
strangerdanger - Sorry, I cannot vote for a third politician from the same family, as it reeks of reversion to feudalism. If it is not Jeb, who would be your choice?
"Sure you can shout outsider, anti-establishment, etc. but face it: they aren’t saying tough but fair, they are saying he’s a mean, nasty dude that no one wants to work with much less support. "
...say the mean, nasty dudes ruling congress. You have to consider the source with this stuff.... It's like a bully crying because the nice kid punched him back.
Danny this like the 3rd time you mentioned that hug Christie gave Obama and act like it was the reason Obama won the reelection. Come on that is laughable. You think anyone really cared and changed their vote because of that hug?
Plus our state was hurting and needed help after Sandy. I appreciated Christie putting his differences aside to make sure he did what was best for our state. Wish he did more of that. Now he is too busy doing what he thinks will get him votes in other states he couldn't care less about NJ.
Darwin - Yes. Christie helped Obama, a few days before the 2012 general election, though he had ample resources to handle the Sandy crisis and had not even started to use them at that point. It was a stupid political move, unnecessary, and showing Christie's lack of principles in hopes for a bipartisan position in Obama's cabinet. So that may be the 4th time I have said this.
How exactly did it help? Obama won NJ by 700k votes so did that hug change 700k people's minds? Well considering NJ is historically a blue state, probably not. But even if by Miricle it did that's only 14 electoral votes. Mitt lost by 122 electoral votes so please tell me what other states had that many undecided voters a few days before the election that the hug seen round the world was able to change their votes. Come on lets be serious.
It makes for a nice dig on Christie that he hug Obama and for a nice video to show in campaign commercials but it had zero effect on the actual election
Darwin - Ever heard of the internet? That bear hug went viral all over the country, as Christie rightly anticipated, and even though NJ is hopelessly blue, other areas of the USA were affected by outsider, misdirected sympathy, so it helped Obama in the election. Christie tried to play it politically, but he did not get his intended result, with the Obama machine being a closed system, so he ran for president instead. That's the 5th time, if you still want to keep count.
I'm waiting for baby Darwin to complain about the vortex he's stuck in ......
ha-ha
No I've never heard of the Internet. Tell me more about it, it sounds magical
Again Obama won by 122 electoral votes which means millions and millions Americans in multiple states had to be so moved by that hug that they changed their votes right before the election. That is one powerful hug.
Darwin and Happiest Girl need to get married already, they are obviously in love with each other!
DannyC: Hillary. In case you missed it, I am a liberal :>)
Everyone hates NJ, I don't see how Christie affects anything outside the state.
JR: sure he's a teddy bear. This is from a Dallas New which probably leans center-left. It's editorial dated 3/15 talking about his shenanigans so far in Congress but before he really settled into his run for the White House: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20150323-editorial-ted-cruz-can-obstruct-but-can-he-lead.ece
Most would say Cruz has done more destruction than progress to both parties and therefore the people while in Congress so far. Now that may be skippy for you but I had hoped for more given his career history up to the point he stepped on the stage leading to President.
It's hard to find anyone with anything good to say about Cruz lately. And the Iowa dirty tricks keep mounting up.
JR: what good has Cruz done while in Congress?
SD,
You still think the Iowa thing was caused by Cruz??? Wow, you are less informed than I thought....
...or more blind than I thought, not sure which
Oh Trump thread, please inform me exactly how Cruz has engaged in dirty tricks?
Speaking of hugs....
What the hell was that idiot Rachael Maddow doing after the debate ended, when she got up on stage and hugged a surprised Col. Sanders and then Hilarious??
JoeBee Last time Rachael Maddow did a laughable stunt was after Chris Matthew's "thrill up my leg" remark when she talked about her vibrator - on international cable TV.
The title of this article just makes me giggle. And here I thought it was just me that felt that way
http://www.mediaite.com/weird/neurologist-analyzes-why-cruzs-strange-smile-disturbs-and-unsettles/
I do not like Ted's left side hairline. He needs to get uncle Joe's plugs, hopefully better installed. Otherwise, he is one nasty contender, almost as narcissistic as Trump.
Totally agree Danny and to think I liked him in the beginning. Like Carson said "don't judge by what they say, judge by their fruit." Something to that effect....
Tommorrow night will be epic cat fight.
Must chug beer on every Reagan mention.
That was a pretty cat fight last night. Uncle Bernie said that each family would save about $5,500 a year if we went to a single payer system (Medicare for all). I think we head that story before with the Obamacare.
Not gonna vote for a man who wears high healed booties - not gonna do it...wouldn't be right.
Bush 41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z851sZXYq5g
kb2755,
You do realize that the ACA is NOT a single payer system, right? It is a marketplace, chock full of many different insurance companies, all selling their own product line, with prices that vary from state to state.
"Not gonna vote for a man (Rubio) who wears high healed booties - not gonna do it...wouldn't be right."
Man? What man? I see a college frat boy, all dressed up like he's trying to be serious.
Yes I do Jerry, Obama said that the average family would be saving approximately $3,500 per year if it were to be passed. My deductible went from $1,000 a year to $3,200 for my family and 80/20 for anything above that until you reached $13,200. Where's my $3,500 in savings? The ACA did help many people that did not have any prior insurance but to say most families would be saving $3,500 was pure hogwash.
Sorry kb2755, misunderstood your post..I should stay off of here until I finish my first cup of coffee.
In fact, I am 62 and remain uninsured. The only insurance I could afford (with subsidy) would still cost me $300/month ($3,600/year) with a $2,400 deductible to be satisfied BEFORE I could even file a claim, and even then I'd still have a 50% co-pay. Please explain to me the value in having to spend $6,000 each year before I could begin to get any benefit.
A real single-payer system already exists for everyone over 65 - Medicare. The best way to accomplish universal coverage would have been to expand Medicare to cover all ages, instead of turning this into a free-for-all for the for-profit insurance carriers.
Single payer still wouldn't work in your favor JerryG. Simply taking total healthcare expenditures and dividing by population results in more than what the ACA costs you today:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per-capita/
"Definitions
Health Spending Per Capita includes spending for all privately and publicly funded personal health care services and products (hospital care, physician services, nursing home care, prescription drugs, etc.) by state of residence (aggregate spending divided by population). Hospital spending is included and reflects the total net revenue (gross charges less contractual adjustments, bad debts, and charity care). Costs such as insurance program administration, research, and construction expenses are not included in this total."
Here in NJ we spend $7,583 per person, which apparently does not include the roughly 10% mandatory insurance administrative costs.
IMO the problem had been addressed the wrong way all along. *Forcing* coverage without addressing costs was by far the wrong way to go. One guess who was all for the ACA? The healthcare industry. That alone should have raised all sorts of red flags!
We need to discuss why costs are so high and why "insurance" includes coverage for predictable and routine services.
Is the argument against Obamacare that it's implemented badly or that people don't believe everyone should have health insurance? We can all legitimately argue on the implementation, but isn't everyone having health insurance a good idea?
"We need to discuss why costs are so high and why "insurance" includes coverage for predictable and routine services."
Come on... don't you want to *expand* this idea? Since we're forced to buy auto insurance too, I say we get free oil changes, brakes, and tires for life... upgrade your stereo with just a co-pay!
I'm sure that wouldn't raise insurance rates... right?
Depends who you ask brown bear2. Most of the arguments for or against the ACA were/are too emotional IMO.
I'm not sure why anyone would be against everyone staying healthy. Good health means happy, productive people. The main issue I see always comes down to forcing people in some way instead of creating a system of voluntary choice. Most times everyone agrees on a goal but disagree with how to get there.
OK, since this is a big Republican plank, I guess ObamaCare fits the thread.
First, the Obama savings claim was $2,500 not $3,500. It is in writing qualified as a "best guess" not a guarantee. Although misstated by Obama many times making it sound like a premium reduction, it was NOT a reduction in premium but a reduction for all medical costs including the cost savings for new services not previously covered before ObamaCare that are now covered. It even includes the "savings" from the reduction in insurance inflation which ObamaCare can claim it's provided for three years running. You would probably need a supercomputer or two to run the math but some say 2,300 has been achieved.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/misleading-on-premiums/
Most say mostly false, at best highly misleading.
KB, I feel for your situation. Most have a choice of plans and most did not see a 220% jump in deductible unless they chose it. If you are covered via your company, doubtful that ObamaCare is the primary cause for the changes. Many HLers have seen lower inflationary increases in company provided insurance than they have seen in many years before ObamaCare. And the things that are covered has been expanded.
If you bought via the NJ Exchange, part of the credit goes to Christie who defaulted to the federal plan being obstinate while avoiding work on behalf of NJ insurance consumers. NY where they did the work to set up a NY exchange saw major decreases in prices. I will say the Federal NJ exchange has gotten much better, I hope some of that improvement will be in competitive prices.
JerryG: I wish you well and good health. Without knowing your specifics I can not suggest alternatives but a similar plan at $321 a month has a $1,500 deductible for a 62-yr old single non-smoker with yearly income of 40K. At $664 per month, zero deductible.
Here's the point, health insurance is a gamble, a roll of the dice. A friend stood up, fainted due to low blood sugar, and $20,000 of tests later, came home. The tests were necessary precautions, but nothing else was done. $6,000 looks like a deal to him.
And remaining uninsured is yet another gamble especially if you have assets.
Not sure that ObamaCare beyond charging you for the gamble of not being insured jacked your potential insurance prices up. Quite the opposite, for company plans the rate of increase has decreased for a few years. Obviously an uninsured person with pre-existing condition will pay less, younger folks more. For those buying insurance of their own, it's a mixed bag. You are getting more for your dollar, but if you feel you don't need it, you're paying more. 80% of the folks rolling their own will get subsidies so will be paying less. That leaves less than 20% paying more.
But for most of us: "Employer-sponsored premiums did go up slightly due to the law from 2010 to 2011 (a 1 percent to 3 percent increase, according to experts), because of added benefits, such as coverage for dependents up to age 26, free preventive care and an increase in caps on coverage. Overall, premiums for family plans jumped 9 percent that year, with the bulk of that due to higher medical costs, not, as critics claimed, the health care law. Since then, premium growth has been 4 percent on average for 2012 and 2013, modest growth rates historically."
Lots of debunked myths here. It's like a Republican response :>) http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/
I worked in the healthcare industry for 20+ years in middle management, specifically in hospitals.
The core problem long before the ACA was always how to provide people with healthcare. Period. It took our politicians on both sides of the aisle to bastardize that into how to provide insurance...two different issues. Basic preventative healthcare could be provided (I remember when most NJ hospitals used to have clinics for people who couldn't afford to pay on their own) for a lot less than the administrative costs of the various insurance companies. Insurance companies don't function out of some altruistic desire to make people healthy, they function to turn a profit.
I am blessed with fairly good health. I visit my doctor every six months for my hypertension, and my prescription (generic) costs me $10 for a three month supply at Walmart. Total expenditure for a year is under $300. I'll pay that, and pay the penalty for not being insured, and still be well ahead of the game.
Now, as strangerdanger pointed out above, if Christie hadn't been so obstinate my potential premium might have been less. Also, thanks to Christie, you cannot purchase catastrophic-care-only insurance in NJ, the one thing I would pay for.
Bernie Sanders raised the issue of socialism. Is his support from college students just based on the promise of free tuition? Or what their professors are promoting about the benefits of socialism? Maybe it would be productive if we discussed this in a scholarly, world historic way, to ultimately dismiss it as a viable alternative to capitalism. Let's get it over with, lest it be another part of Obama's legacy.
I think single payer is in the nation's future ... a lot of support among young folk, but the status quo is fighting it to the death ... insurance is a "big bucks" cash cow for wealthy CEO's who help fund political campaigns.
What we have is the best we can do -- for now.
Obama at the get-go said he wanted to "fundamentally change America", and he is not done yet. On ACA, like uncle Joe said, "Big f*cking deal!" What Obama does during his last months in office is what counts. I am cautious about that threat, and basing my choices on who addresses it the most effectively.
I think that Sanders support from the young vote is about a lot more than making college affordable. He is bringing up things like the wealth gap and climate change. Things that will affect their generation going forward. Now, a lot of his ideas for fixing these issues are not feasible, but at least he is discussing them. As a young, undecided independent I would love to hear some of the other candidates at least address some of these issues. It is insulting to just assume the young vote is only voting on the college issue.
Mommyingreen Thought provoking comments but the big question is when will the most personal fouls and cheap shots be scored: tonight's debate or the superbowl :>)
Bernie is as far left as Cruz is right. As such he represents the heart of the Democratic Party and the younger idealistic set has latched on. Having lived the Get Clean for Gene debacle of the 70's, I am a bit more pragmatic today and would really like the win versus an idealistic loss.
Plus Bernie is expensive and a bit scary. First, I love Bernie as a Senator, he keeps us all honest. But President Bernie's free college just makes State Education public education grades 13 to 17. There's something to say for competition even in education. Bernie Bank Buster and Wall Street Killer could swing that pendulum way too far; sure there's issues but we are the strongest economic financial engine in the world. And sure we bailed the banks, but they paid us back quickly. Yes people should have gone to jail, some banks need to be busted, but evolution not revolution. And Bernie as commander in chief --- ok, that's just scary. Now back on topic, Bernie Health Care first off destroys the Health Insurance Industry. That's a pretty big disruption. Second it puts Health Care under government control and not sure who we should fear most at the helm, liberals or conservatives. Better to keep both away. Now Bernie says we will save money via single payer or government control. Well no doubt we do away with the insurance marketing and administrative costs. This gives Medicare a cost advantage today and Medicare is pretty efficient on top of that. But at what cost? All those jobs. Government control. Not sure we are ready for that and most certain he can't get it done anyway so it's a non starter and a waste of time trying.
So there we are. We have mandated insurance, we should work the kinks out and make the plan better and as JIT says:: let's spend our time working on the out of line costs. It's time to quit kvetching over the process and move on to the problems.
Bernie wants to revolutionize the process, one of many revolutions he is recommending. Ain't gonna happen. McGovern lost 49 states.
Whoa -- Rubio got raked over the coals.
And the first part ended with collective booing at Trump.
Christie kicked his butt and Jeb gave Trump a run for his money. I wish they would've given Ben more air time. Kasick made sense to me tonight.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what does water boarding mean?
MommyinGreen - you are correct its more then free college for everyone that attracts the young people. It's also the free pot for everyone.
Free pot, CBB... or affordable pot? $100 an eighth is outrageous, even for funky purple skunky kind, lol.
positive - Water boarding is a form of torture involving repeated drowning and resuscitation. Apparently not too different from watching political debates.
Thanks GC, that's pretty disturbing. I think I need to be resuscitated after watching this debate...
"Water boarding is a form of torture involving repeated drowning and resuscitation. "
Incorrect. It's SIMULATED drowning.... the victim feels like they are drowning, but they are not, and don't lose consciousness. It's causes no physical harm. I'm sure it's not pleasant. Our own troops are water board in their escape and resistance training.
Restrain the interrogation subject on a board. Incline the board about 15-20 degrees so that the feet are above the head. Optionally, put a damp cloth over the face to keep the water clinging to the face (Khmer Rouge technique), or put plastic wrap over the mouth but not the eyes or nose to prevent water from escaping the throat and sinuses (CIA technique). Pour water onto the inclined face so that the water runs into the upturned mouth and nose. The water stays in the head, filling the throat, mouth, and sinuses with water. The lungs don't fill up with water so your prisoner doesn't asphyxiate, but they *do* feel their entire upper respiratory system from sinuses to trachea filled with water, "simulating drowning". You're drowning your subject from the inside, filling their head and neck. The lungs stay out of the water, keeping oxygen in the blood and prolonging the glubbing. "His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."
Trump's statements during and after the debate about eminent domain highlight how he cannot be trusted to work in the interests of the USA as president. A parking lot, golf course or hotel real estate may be more important to him at critical junctures. A tiger's stripes do not change.
JR, all you had to say was that it's torture that doesn't result in death. You made it sound as if it's a kind, humane way to treat people lol.
There are endless amounts of real estate and utilities that would not exist without eminent domain. It's a really dumb argument. I thought this was the best debate yet, RoboRubio squashed. Proof he is worthless political hack. Cruz came out battered too. Bush was the usual panze. Kasich has no chance regardless if the media thinks he did well. Christie did extremely well and hopefully will still be in the race following NH, helps trump big time. That about sums it up.
"There are endless amounts of real estate and utilities that would not exist without eminent domain."
That doesn't make the process fundamentally wrong. It's an unfortunate necessary evil, and should be viewed that way and not accepted as perfectly acceptable. Besides, who's to say what other "endless amounts" of this or that would exist if done differently?
And I always wonder how much compensation is paid to those from whom property is taken, always for the "greater good". IMO whatever compensation is paid should be at least double current market value (multiples more if eminent domain is used for commercial enterprises) to ensure those doing the taking are doing so for good reason.
Danny C, The goverment already has the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court already decided it, thanks to a parting gift from Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.
They can take your property and give it to someone else to up grade. This happened as lawyer's expanded the clause," For the common good" It is just another bite out of freedom and the pride of ownership.
No doubt jt. Point is that it's a necessity. I'm sure there are plenty who have been screwed. And I would hope there is a decent payout for these cases, I'm sure there are a good amount that were a positive too
Old Gent,
Understood and respected point. But do we want to put a person into power who has already usurped it for personal gain? Hope you and others have something valuable on your land and do not have it taken away by the government at below market value.
More then likely the winners were politicians that bought property that they knew was likely to be taken over that were the winners. People scheme all the time.
"JR, all you had to say was that it's torture that doesn't result in death. You made it sound as if it's a kind, humane way to treat people lol."
I think it's been shown that waterboarding islamic terrorists has indeed "worked"- given us information that allowed us to stop other attacks. So I'm ok with that. Would you prefer we just shot them all on site? I'd be ok with that as well. What I am NOT ok with is keeping them in prison for years, paying for them, and then letting them out to do more damage (thanks a lot, Obama)
If I remember correctly, the case decided was that they could take the property so the town could make more money in taxes on that property. Quite a stretch for the common good IMO
Old Gent,
I fear that Trump would give the town(s) a small fortune, while making a "HUGE" fortune for himself, per his previous deals, at the original owners' expense. Worse yet, this might impair his judgments on other issues of national importance.
So what was the parting gift O'Conner left us, Old Gent? Sounds like someone gots a lonely heart.
Seems to me that the boys did not come loaded for bear last night and therefore Trump wins by default. The only deciding factor will be the huge undecided vote which I guess is why no one really went on the Trump attack instead choosing to cut the weakest fatted prey from the pack. So they all jumped on Rubio.
Meanwhile I think Carly was the only one left out giving us all a new visual definition for the term bxtch slap. Man, you got Carly'd.
We sentenced Japanese waterboard-ers to long terms for this after WWII. We just want it to be OK for us. Like I have said, the prime direction in enhanced interrogation is don't get caught. Once the cat is out of the bag, confess and don't do it again. I am sure we can find numerous other medieval techniques to use.
All recent Presidents and there friends are rich at our expense.
President Truman and his wife got in his own car and drove home to MO, after leaving the White house.
O'Conner voted on this case in 2005; I think she dissented voting for the homeowner. Was that the parting gift?
I think the Don's Health Plans or lack thereof are laughable. He seems to be stepping back from Universal Health Care to a potpourri of things like FSA expansion (that's your money for tax free health care, not insurance). He wants to get rid of state lines for insurance which is saying it's up to the Fed to set national insurance guidelines. Somehow this makes insurance more competitive and somehow many Republicans believe that removing state regulations to be able to sell national insurance across state lines magically makes it more competitive . Other times he is for Government Universal Health Care like the Canadian or Scottish systems. But lately he says get rid of ObamaCare but make sure those dying on the streets are taken care of because that's just wrong. Hey Don, might it be better to not have them dying on the streets to begin with? Isn't that a tad too late for the saving? Or what's the plan to take care of them when found dying on the street? Big front loader and a trip to the Soylent Green factory?
The Don's lack of plans and his constituency's ability to support the void is amazing.
The Donald is torn between being a human being with empathy for his fellow man, or being a Republican. LOL
Actually, I think removing all this state regulation of insurance, and enabling people to purchase plans from other states WILL make it competitive and more affordable.
I've always believed state control of insurance has been an impediment to affordable care for all. Insurance companies in a given state can act in collusion, when they know they won't get competition from out-of-state.
You got it SD.
I enjoy how Donald has you so busy looking for details and the fact that he is leading with out them. It just shows the times we are living in. Party allegiance is on the wain because there is very little difference in them. It has become whats in it for me, instead of what is best for the country.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
John Quincy Adams
I have always done that and sleep well.
There are other canadates for President, you know.
http://2016.libertarian-party.org/#Declared-Libertarian-Candidates
"The Donald is torn between being a human being with empathy for his fellow man, or being a Republican. LOL"
That's pretty harsh Andy, I hope you're just exagerrating a bit. If not I'd say take a long look in a mirror because very few of us are without fault, no matter the letter of our political affiliation...
"The Donald is torn between being a human being with empathy for his fellow man, or being a Republican. LOL"
And there lies the the problem with our electoral system: the voters aren't intelligent enough to be trusted with it. But it's always been so.
And so it begins, the first trump victory! I can see a trump vs sanders vs Bloomberg race. Imagine that.
I would love to see Trump win.
He is not being controlled by Wallstreet or special interest groups. He's not looking to build a legacy (he already has), and he's not looking to get rich (he already is).
It would be refreshing to have a president who truly wants the best for American citizens.
I would love to see Trump win for the fact that he is an absolute sociopath and responds to the pulse of the electorate as of wrote
Skippy 
RAS I don't care for any of the candidates this year, but I must admit that I am *really* enjoying seeing all the mainstream politicians squirming about the possibility of either a Trump or Sanders Presidency. Let 'em squirm!
Maybe (probably not though) they'll get it through their thick heads that something has to give, preferably in a good way but that's not likely either given the nature of power.
The establishment is terrible and hopefully there done for after this election. Maybe just maybe, this time, they won't be able to buy the election. That is one if the best things about what's happening here.
yankeefan Yes, the polar vortex is back in town as we swing to the polar hard right, swing to the polar hard left with the rest of us caught in the crossfire. Nationalism versus Socialism, the fascist versus the communist, the angry shouting clown versus the angry shouting grandpa.
Here's hoping for some other alternatives. Lord help us if New Hampshire is right.
"The establishment is terrible and hopefully there done for after this election. Maybe just maybe, this time, they won't be able to buy the election. That is one if the best things about what's happening here." Gee, that's what they said during Obama's run to the White House. Did you like that outcome?
"So sick of politically correct America" What is Politically Correct America and how does vulgar ad hominem and demeaning put downs correct Politically Correct?
If Trump wins do we get new moderator rules of conduct? Cuz I gots some real good plain-talking direct-speak saved up :>)
Thats like the joker calling out the clown lol
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q
I'm pretty sure trump cut down Clinton in the process over the sexism crap that happened a month or two back. Helped pave the way for Bernie
Forcefed4door -
Paving - In a bigger picture, did George W. Bush pave the way for Barak Obama? Now has Obama paved the way for BOTH Donald Trump AND Bernie Sanders? Not to ignore the inept, gutless establishment congress during Obama's reign.
Now it's onward to South Carolina, a not very depressed state. They are right to work state. They have these Company's in it. http://www.businessclimate.com/south-carolina-top-employers.
The question being.can Bernie cut in to the Black vote and can Trump cut into the RINO'S. Interesting.
Exsqueeze me DannyC: did you miss the 60% Tea Party control of the GOP-controlled Congress? Anti-establishment enough for you? These folks can't legislate themselves much less the country.
Or how about the 70% with less than 8 years experience, 15% which have no experience, Senators too.
I would say we've got a good picture of what anti-establishment can produce.
IMO the House is a good place for the inexperienced, the Senate and the Presidency is not. Perhaps it can work, most often it does not.
Perhaps Trump is the firm no-nonsense strictly-business hand on the wheel that we need. Or perhaps he is the carnival ringmaster for a bunch of apprentices. Based on his demeanor, track record and plans, I say bring in the clowns.
My co-worker one cube over is going to see Trump speak at Clemson tonight. She seems pretty excited about it.
OG: I think Trump will pretty much rule the South except perhaps in some of the richer states.
You're right on Bernie; if he starts pulling the minority(s) vote, it's over for Hillary unless somehow she cracks this millennial malaise. Being authentic has never been her strong suit.
Yet SC is not an economic powerhouse, it's really a factory state. From Business Insider for the fourth Q 2015: At number 35, 15 from the bottom "South Carolins's 2014 GDP per capita of $36,125 was the third lowest among the states and DC, and the state's $758 weekly wage was the 12th lowest." There job creation has recently been in the top ten, but like NJ, much of that is because they lagged the country with some pretty high unemployment until mid 2015. Remember factory states are like the canary in the coal mine, if consumer activity falls, they are the first to fire. Especially in a right-to-fire state like SC.
That bodes well for Trump and good for Hillary only if she holds the minority vote and they forgive Bill for his transgressions last time. If folks start believing that Bernie can actually deliver anything he has never delivered in his 25 years in Congress.
Bernie beat Hillary by 22 points. But Hillary leaves NH with 2 MORE DELEGATES than Bernie. Now that's some kind of (bullshit) election system. It's the superdelegates- yet another invention to allow the elections to be heavily weighted if not downright fixed. (like gerrymandering also is)
Both party's are BS. The powers to be have all the bases covered. There organizations. Thats politics .
Clemson had a fantastic football team. They're doing something right down there.
Glad somebody mentioned gerrymandering, such a poopadoodle practice.
A shame that some counties are so predictable, that gerrymandering gets done in the first place. Warren is one such county. Even if Scrooge himself ran for freeholder in this county with the R behind his name, he would have no trouble winning.
here's some reading for SD: on Cruz's "universal unpopularity"
"Think of it this way: Is it possible for an intellectually conservative member to be liked by fellow senators? Of course. As long as he stays in the corner and keeps his conservatism to himself. He can even vote his conscience as long as it doesn’t alter the outcome. They might even allow him to hold some policy briefings and draft some white papers about reform conservatism. That is where the conservatism of most elected conservatives ends; but it’s where Ted Cruz’s begins. Cruz understood from day one that as a senator you are not just a vote but a voice for a cause and can use legitimate tools to leverage against harmful policies."
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/cruz-demonstrates-why-senators-hate-him#sthash.gxYj5sPa.dpuf
strangerdanger - I should not have used the word "establishment" with congress. They are all inept, and what is the "tea party" today, being the most vocal about fighting Obama's policies and doing nothing? Meanwhile, what did Bernie offer Al Sharpton this morning? An AG or FCC spot? A whole new meaning to BS: Bizarre Sideshow.
Would be great to define "conservative" and "progressive" in the context of this race.
Conservative = small government = fewer handouts= big business has few restrictions= more power=more money for shareholders? Is that fiscally responsible for the average American family? As someone said up above, that's expecting returns even when they aren't earned.
Progressive= bigger government= status quo on handouts= more restrictions and less power for Wall St= what?
And then throw military spending and foreign policy in there, where does that fit?
Looking for input on this.
And been wondering for some time where mistergoogle went. Now I think maybe he's strangerdanger?
hktownie both parties are for spending - the difference is on what to spend on. defense or entitlement programs.
the problem is that the argument has been formed for us by the media and they try to force us into picking sides. when the solutions (imo) come from both sides. we obviously need a strong military, but there are also people that need help with basic needs. we need business creating jobs, but we also need an educated population to fill those jobs.
I'm coming to the conclusion that I lean right on the federal level, but lean left on the state and local level. normally, I would vote for Cruz but I'm not sure he'll blow things up enough. I am angry.
brown bear2 -
Reagan proposed the same approach: small federal government, with local control over individual life matters, and it worked very well, a model for future success and freedom. Many people have forgotten about this paradigm, or are not old enough to be familiar with its benefits, having been sucked into socialist false promises and raised in the "gimme" culture...and of course, the media.
SD Jobs are Jobs today.It is a cheaper cost of living state People don't look to tomorrow like you and I, and many on H L.. This is the Me and Now generations. They are just caught up in the moment. They now expect the Government to have there back. The man in the street interviews are scary. Some that do see the trouble there in, give up or jump out the window, or take to drugs. There is a lot of desperation out there. Like I have said before. I just look for ways to survive.
"Reagan proposed the same approach: small federal government, with local control over individual life matters."
After all:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The Federal government is far too big and over-reaching. That isn't to say that states are allowed to do *anything* the Federal government isn't allowed to do (i.e. control all "life matters"), as they are still bound by Constitutional limitations (via the Incorporation Doctrine of the Bill of Rights).
This should be very scary for anyone who thinks it's impossible for Trump to win.... I realize NH is only one state, but if this is a national trend, I don't see how anyone can beat him, in the primary or in the general. Sounds to me like the left is bleeding voters... LOT of crossover going into the Trump run, and as the GOP candidates drop out (bye bye Fiorina, bye bye Christie), at least some of those votes will be going to Trump- who doesn't really need anymore, according to many polls.....
"The exit polls were right. Trump won men. He won women. He won every age group. He won every ideology: liberal, conservative, moderate, Libertarian. He won among people who had gone to college and people who hadn't. Every group Trump won a majority of voters." -Rush Limbaugh reporting today
Mark Mc -
Yes - The states, particularly NJ, often overstep their bounds on regulations, and should be curtailed at much as the feds. Many examples of businesses who have suffered, gone under, or left the state, taking jobs with them. Recently, under Christie's watch, btw.
Reagan did not shrink the govt, he grew it. Trickle down did not work, Bush had to raise taxes to cover the loss.
He may have been the great uniter and the Wall did come down on his watch but he did not accomplish his dream of smaller government.
OG: SC unemployment is not that low.
"Sounds to me like the left is bleeding voters... LOT of crossover going into the Trump run"
Who is more "energized"? I think in NH there were a lot more R votes in total than there were D votes.
Would be interesting to see the comparison in Iowa too, but the Dems won't release the numbers (to protect Hillary's narrow "win").
Mark, I think the R total vote was somewhat higher - About 280K to 250K.
Trump won, but 65% of the Republican vote went to others.
For what it's worth, Sanders received 1.5 votes for every one vote for Trump.
strangerdanger - You owe us some proof of your assertions that Reagan did not shrink government and that trickle down did not work. We are all not as naïve as you might think. Do you like Trump or Sanders? Let me guess. I like neither of them.
Of course trickle down did not work -- if it did, Clinton and Obama would not have gotten elected.
Love it when people try to revise historical facts. Go tell those people in places like Baltimore that trickle down works..
Bottom line, the magic number in November will be 65 million --- the number of votes Obama got last time. That's the people you'll need to convince that trickle down works.
Andy Loigu -
Baltimore started to fail under Clinton with Barney Frank's legislation, leading up to the housing collapse during the 2008 crisis. Historical fact?
Some of us made better real estate deals during that period. I lost my share to my ex-wife, but that's OK, it put two kids through college with room, board and cars.
the thing about people complaining about today's 'me' culture and how great Reagan was is that, to my recollection, the 1980's were definitely a 'me first' time in history, rampant corporate excesses with an extreme focus on materialism and OMG the clothes. i certainly don't want a return to that.
I'm all for small government and low taxes, but what's missing from conservatism (in the media at least) is the acknowledgement that everyone can NOT pull themselves up by their boot straps without some assistance. How can you be anti-abortion without also speaking on how you plan on assisting single mothers/teenage parents w/ childcare/shelter/healthcare etc. so it's easier for them to decide to keep their babies?
So if approximately 18% of total DNC electoral votes available for winning the nomination are from superdelegates (meaning the votes are not influenced by the popular vote), and so far 96% of those superdelagates who've already committed themselves are for Hillary, what does that really say about the primary election process?
It's a joke, that's what. I can't stand this complete farce we call politics. The word "Rigged" doesn't even come close.
Andy - I think poopadoodle is by far too gentle a word. Sadly, I can't really say the word I think should be used!
GC - how's that social contract thingy working out for us here? ;-)
(pic from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016)
JIT has seen the light.
https://www.gop.com/the-official-guide-to-the-2016-republican-nominating-process/
A political party should be able to nominate its candidate anyway it wants. All by primaries, okay. Convention with no primaries, okay also. A mix of both, sure. We've had all of these versions in the past.
If you don't like the resulting candidates, don't vote for them.
The point is whether or not it matters jd2. The more controls on the system the less it matters who we vote for, period. It's "rigged", maybe not yet fully but certainly enough to influence if not directly determine an outcome desired by those running the show.
Some might be OK with the constant obfuscation of the truth, and that's OK if you're actually aware of it, accept it, and think that it is a perfectly valid way to conduct the implementation of our "social contract". I'm not OK with it, and I suspect that there are a great many others who are not OK with it, even if they don't present it the way I do. My suspicion is that the vast majority don't understand it at all and actually think they are making a difference when they vote.
If the trend is that public influence in the process has been waning year after year, tell me what trend does one have to be shown to finally get how ridiculous this all is? (recall all the clamor about the "popular vote" not mattering in past elections).
No way that can I vote for Trump, Sanders, Bush or Clinton. The first two on sanity issues, the last two on anti-dynasty issues..
Thank you Donald, and Bernie for putting a little light, on how Washington works. (MONEY)
It took two outsiders to do it. "Strange things are happening".
I certainly agree there are lots of objectionable aspects to our election system; too many to list. Just one example is that all of us who vote in the general election for president in New Jersey have to be aware that our vote doesn't much matter to anyone since our state is not "in play".
I don't see the system as being rigged though.
Six left on the republican side now: Trump, Kucinich, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Carson. At least there will not be a split debate next time. Anyone you folks can support?
JIt and OG seem amazed to discover they were not living in a true democracy.
Next they will be pointing to their discovery that all men are not created equal.
Baltimore's problems go way, way before Bill Clinton.
The city was losing jobs and white people to the suburbs going back to the 1950s.
Going back to the 19th century, tens of thousands of southern blacks arrived in Baltimore after the Civil War but had trouble finding work.
Racial integration was underway and could not be undone, and after WWII in the wake of the aid and hard work provided by the war efforts of the African American community, official justifications for segregation sounded hollow, but Baltimore is below the Mason-Dixon line and the clock ticks slowly in Baltimore.
Encouraging the creation of diverse, multiracial neighborhoods has proved difficult.
Yeah, tell me more about trickle down economics.
In the late 70s and early 80s the harbor area underwent a major renovation and became a tourist attraction, but that is mainly a playground for people who are well off.
Baltimore started to fail under Clinton?
NO SD I was aware of Caesars world for 69 years. since I accepted Christ as my savior. Thats why you don't see me get excited. I just have to participate in this world to survive. Better things are coming in my world. Caesars world is not very reliable.
kb2755 -
You are right, it is Kacich, displaying how uninformed I am, and he might be a real contender. But again, with only six left in the republican race, who do you support, if any? Just curious.
I'm for Kacich, but he won't win. Too caring, too moderate, too experienced, and not arrogant enough, by GOP standards.
I agree Andy, he is my favorite and has a lot of experience. Kasich was the Chaiman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years and served on the Armed Forces Committee for 18 years. He knows his way around the Hill and has shown he can work across the table to get a deal done. He has also done a decent job as Governor of Ohio in my opinion. That being said, his chances are not good this time around.
"I don't see the system as being rigged though."
Then, a lot to learn you still have, young Jedi.
LOL of course you liberals hope Kasich makes it... he's a borderline liberal himself. The GOP would LOVE to nominate Kasich. I think you can see by the primary and polling so far, the country's conservatives disagree with you. And let's not forget NH has always been an anomaly- a bit weird- I will be surprised if Kasich fares as well again in any other state primary (except maybe Ohio).
Oh- and just because the majority of conservatives disagree with you doesn't make them wrong- it just might make YOU wrong....
The map is flexible..... "Don't nominate _______ they said. They're too _______ they said."
Trump - Crazy
Cruz - Conservative
Rubio - Moderate (no, "moderate" is not automatically a good thing)
Hillary - Criminal
Sanders - Socialist
...but, judging by current results and numbers... it's quite possible we will have President Trump. After super tuesday, we should have a much clearer picture.
"JIt and OG seem amazed to discover they were not living in a true democracy.
Next they will be pointing to their discovery that all men are not created equal."
I'm not surprised to see a misleading and manipulative response from you. "Reversion to the mean" has multiple meanings, and you cover all of them ;-)
You know as well as I do that the *only* democratic component of our political system is voting for the representatives whom we think will work in our best interest. I have to laugh because here I am pointing out that 18% of the primary "vote" isn't democratically achieved and you insinuate - no, flat out state - that I don't understand how the process is supposed to work? With 18% of the vote controlled by the DNC a good number of elections can be easily swung in the direction those in control of the party want, wouldn't you agree? There's nothing democratic about that!
Ah, never mind. Explaining this to a master-manipulator himself who likes this kind of obfuscation is like pissing into the wind. Carry on HH/mg/sd/MM (your new moniker of MasterManipulator now included ;-))
"Ah, never mind. Explaining this to a master-manipulator himself who likes this kind of obfuscation is like pissing into the wind. Carry on HH/mg/sd/MM (your new moniker of MasterManipulator now included ;-))"
Oh, SNAP!
JIT: you are a very serious one repeating that same old tired mantra after some ruffed feathers. You got me stumped where I tried to manipulate you in that last thread. Can you point it out?
I was surprised that you expected a pure democracy from our election process. Hasn't been one yet.
At the core, Presidential elections have not been "democratic" since the invention of the electoral college by the founding fathers. The "game" is rigged on purpose by the Constitution. At the primary voting process level, there's little democratic about the peer pressure of the caucus vote or worse yet, the coin toss vote. Or winner take all primary states where delegates ignore the proportional vote and go 100% for the winner no matter how close the vote tally. Or states where independents can vote for any party including issuing a poison pill to split the vote from the leader from even the party they would never vote for. It's a rough game but those are the rules they play by.
There is nothing that says the Democrats or Republicans have to be a pure democracy as an organization. Was surprised you expected such. At the party level, the party sets it's own rules, it's own platform, and expects joiners to adhere in return for party privileges. Often a candidate's platform will drive party platform change but often the candidate will pivot to or towards a party plank or two as well. Sanders was well aware of the game before he made his choices. He could have been in the socialist party or an independent. But choose he did and he knows the rules of the game. One of the reasons he plays D is money. Both parties have raised over 250 million in this cycle so far and ultimately, guess who benefits -- the candidate. Membership has privileges.
Republicans made a number of changes to their primary process based on the 2008 Presidential debacle. Unfortunately I think a number of these favored a Trump-like candidate. Unintended consequences I guess.
Both parties have Superdelegates. The Democrates are not as you say "controlled by the DNC" per se. About 60% of them are DNC members, the rest are Democratic Senators, Governors, and Representatives. None of them have to do what the DNC tells them. The politicians may have less reason than the DNC members. Proof is that Sanders wouldn't have the 44 votes committed that he does if the DNC was calling all the shots. And they can change they mind right up until they vote so committed is a tenuous term.
Republicans have 3 Superdelegates per state and to be honest I don't know (or care) what percentage of the total that is, the make-up and the voting procedure. I am guessing it's just as strange a game.
So starting at the top with the electoral college invented by the founding fathers right though to the different state processes for candidate selection, our Presidential selection process is not a pure democracy. And these private organizations known as parties have no Constitutional reason to be a pure democracy. Yes, it is a game. Rigged? Not the way you are thinking, there is no puppet master or cabal. There's and ever changing sea of factions and power brokers jockeying for position as all times. It is a game for sure. Think they call it hardball.
Myself. I say do away with the electoral college. That day has passed. Make all state primaries proportional and delete the ability for independents to vote. Add more voter referendums at the Federal level to put the popular vote into legislative action. We have the internet now, we can vote instantaneously. That would make us more democratic but never a pure democracy as desired for good reasons. Make the party process a pure democracy? After this last cycle, I am not sure that's the best thing.
The founding fathers set up our constitution-based federal republic not to be a pure democracy for some pretty good reasons. Control by power brokers needs to be curtailed but IMO opening up to ungoverned mob control just gives the opportunity for another type of popularity-based power broker to control the herd. Perchance a more dangerous one at that.
Just my two cents.
Definition of ad hominem:
"Explaining this to a master-manipulator himself who likes this kind of obfuscation is like pissing into the wind. Carry on HH/mg/sd/MM (your new moniker of MasterManipulator now included ;-))"
Oh wait, you added the ;-)
"delete the ability for independents to vote"
Um, what do you see that accomplishing? I assume it's got something to do with "not allowing people not registered with a particular party" to "water down" the results of other parties, or some such nonsense?
"Make the party process a pure democracy? After this last cycle, I am not sure that's the best thing."
LOL only because you aren't agreeing with the outcome. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you WERE agreeing with the outcome...
Today's definition of moderate --- border line liberal.
Not border line conservative?
Interesting.
I like the electoral college ( Representative)
I like 2 senators from each state ( for Unity)
I like congress men being proportional ( searching Idea's).
I don't like party's allowing non members to vote (divisive)
I don't like party's allowing winners to take all. ( divisive)
Independents should have there own party.( Put up a candidate or vote in general)
I have nothing to say in these matters, but it would be more honest, with less room for scheming.There is enougf of that done with gerrymandering. IMHO
Moderate: a person open-minded enough to realize that conservatives and liberals are BOTH full of shit (-;
"Moderate: a person open-minded enough to realize that REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS are BOTH full of shit (-; "
Fixed that for ya ;)
Nothing wrong with being a conservative or a liberal: those are PRINCIPLES, not parties, and are just as valid as "moderate" principles. There's nothing superior about being a moderate, it's just a different set of principles. Or a lack of, or perhaps indifference to, principles ;)
Moderate: A person that wets his finger and put in the air, to see what way the wind is blowing so he /she can run down wind.
"Nothing wrong with being a conservative or a liberal: those are PRINCIPLES, not parties, and are just as valid as "moderate" principles. There's nothing superior about being a moderate, it's just a different set of principles."
"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude... at least it's an ethos." Is that the point you're trying to make? All principles are equally valid?
No, I'm saying principles are not necessarily political platforms.
Maybe they SHOULD be....
Conservative does NOT neccesarily = republican, and as I have seen in this election, liberal does not necessarily = democrat....
When a political party (or a politician) changes it's principles for the sole purpose of staying in power, staying on their own gravy train, they cease to be principles. They become bullshit. "I'll be anything you want me to be, just please let me keep riding the gravy train!"
Spin it HH/mg/sd/MM, we're all used to it by now.
What's really odd is that you're trying to spin this by agreeing with the entire point I was trying to make. You started out by commenting how surprised I was that we aren't a true democracy but when if you look higher up *in this thread* (and this having been my positions since day one on HL) I mention the exact opposite:
"You know as well as I do that we are a Constitutional Republic run by representatives of the people. Those representatives are supposed to represent all of us, not just some, not individuals, not groups, but all of us."
...and then describe the type of malfeasance that I regularly state is part of our problem. It sounds as if you not only accept it as inevitable that people are dirt bags and slime buckets, always angling to take advantage of those weaker than they are, but also agree that's the only way it could be.
Strange days these are, very strange indeed...
I look at the poopadoodle world as such ...
you have liberal and extreme liberal,
conservative and extreme conservative,
and then your sensible people, the moderates, who work out compromises on things, rather than being at loggerheads getting nothing done.
"and then your sensible people, the moderates, who work out compromises on things, rather than being at loggerheads getting nothing done."
And, once again- the "loggerheads" who think being "moderate" is somehow being superior, or "more correct".... it's just as big a stain on our political dogma than any other point of view.
Moderation is not always a good thing. Just because 2 sides don't agree on something does NOT mean you "meet in the middle" and call it a day. Obamacare is a POS, and we knew it would be. We all agree the healthcare system is a disaster (even tho we still have the best quality care in the world), but "just passing something", and "something is better than nothing" are not intelligent strategies- they are taxpayer-dollar-wasting bull. We all agree when something is broken you try to fix it, but you don't fix a flat tire by installing a bald one. THAT is you "moderation" you so love in today's government. Congratulations.
Chamberlain's "moderation" worked quite well in the years leading up to WWII. LOL
"We can't elect Churchill- he's a conservative, he's war monger"......."Oh, Winston, SAVE US!!!!!!!"
Sometimes "getting nothing done" IS better than "doing ANYTHING." Whenever I hear one side of the government is threatening a shutdown (which rarely happens), I get all giddy.... the less the jerks "work", the better for our country! LOL
JIT: I would say "misleading and manipulative," "obfuscation," and "mean," but that would be silly :>)
In those brief 30 words that have elicited hundreds from you, I noted my surprise at what seemed to be your discovery that we were not a pure democracy in terms of the selection process to become President. Recognizing we are a representative government really does not change that. Given that the game is rigged by the Constitution, the fact that private organizations are private and choose not to be democracies seems obvious.
Sure, I think there is much wrong and much room for improvements and would toss in gerrymandering and a few other things to fix. It just was not news. Probably wasn't really for you either, but you did make it sound like a discovery that shocked you. I would never suggest a pure democracy however. I think the founding fathers were right on that one.
As to believing that it is "inevitable that people are dirt bags and slime buckets...." again not sure how you arrived at that. Perhaps you can embellish. However, when you look at how the founding fathers structured the Congress you see that the lower house is the People's House, the Senate is not. Our founders also "rigged" the law making game against a pure democracy governing the ability for the mob to rush from judgment to legislation and where a minority could gum up the works for the majority.
Hope that helps.
You wrote a lot. You did not answer the question.
DannyC: Didn't respond to your earlier request, here you go. Although I will note you never substantiated your claim that Reagan shrank the government.
First, we look at spending but will "spin" to who increased the budget by percent. I say spin because percent increase does not amount to real dollars.
http://www.businessinsider.com/one-more-must-see-chart-on-government-spending-under-obama-and-reagan-2012-1
Just a point of reference.
I am judging size of government by people. Here are charts showing Reagan grew the Federal. They also add state and local and show a drop for Reagan. But I call that bogus given that Reagan shrank the funding and the states have Constitutional laws demanding zero-based budgeting. They couldn't, by law, maintain size given the funding cuts. As the piece notes, this was beyond Regan's control.
http://angrybearblog.com/2007/06/comparing-presidents-size-of-government.html
If you just google "did Reagan shrink the government" plenty more to chew on.
Speculation is that Obama has so divided the nation that the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum have taken over the hearts and minds of normally sensible voters. BS = Bizarre Sideshow.
OG: prove it....:>)
DannyC: here's a weird one.
New Hampshire has 3.1% unemployment, nationwide about 5%
Median income: $66,500, nationwide about $53,000
Diversity: 90% white, nationwide 62%
Median home value: $240,000, nationwide 177,000
People below poverty: 8.7%, nationwide 15.4%
Crime is low, homicide low, etc. etc. etc.
And these folks are pissed off at the status quo of the establishment? That's one hacked off America. Go figure.
No one shrunk Government in my lifetime, If they did, they would never get elected. It's human nature. We need one another and were created that way. We fight over equality and culture but the leaders get the most. Thats why life is not fair, causing wars IMO.
Anyone who says he will shrink the government is giving you a bunch of bull.
They hate the government but they want to BE the government.
Trump has been all over the map with stuff he's said over the years, but if he does find himself living in the White House, he'll have a rough time working with congress. Historically "outsider" presidents do not work well with congress even if they are of the same political party ... you have lots of career politicians in the legislature who don't want someone coming into their little world telling them what to do.
As Howard Cosell used to say, "just telling it LIKE IT IS."
Old Gent says "No one shrunk Government in my lifetime". What "shrunk government" actually means to him is unknown so I'll pick one important measure and run with it - the number of Federal employees as measured by the U.S. Office of Personal Management. We will exclude the military and look only at civilian employees comparing the number at the start and end of their term. You may notice a strange pattern in these numbers (HINT: the "small government" Republicans generally INCREASE the number of Federal employees and Democrats generally reduce it with Geroge H. W. Bush being the exception).
At the end of President Carter's term there were 8,000 FEWER Federal employees.
For President Reagan's term there were 238,000 MORE federal employees.
For George H. W. Bush's term there were 30,000 FEWER
For Bill Clinton's term there were 380,000 FEWER
For George W. Bush there were 53,000 MORE
RAD Appreciating your research on fed employees during previous administrations, but SO WHAT? What will Trump or Sanders do? How does this affect foreign policy, national security, employment and other issues to be addressed by the candidates? Let's get into present realities, please.
To clarify myself. I am referring to governments involvement in our life, not the size. Regardless of the size, 20 trillion debit is not a pretty result for all of us.
The Iraq War and the bailouts played a big part in that.
Although I sound "liberal" on this thread, if I had the authority ... I'd analyze every salary over 100 grand on the public payroll, as to whether that person is worth that kind of money or not.
That's one way to start cutting it down.
I've heard enough shouting and "look at me" crap, let's start working on some solutions.
As for the government being involved in our lives. In some cases it is not necessary, but in others it is ... do you want a world with no police, no teachers?
Do you want CEOs of insurance companies colluding so we all have to pay higher premiums? There's always "special interests" the government, of either party, has to regulate when things get impossible for the average not-connected working person.
Also, regarding how we got into deficit after Clinton had left office with a surplus, about the same time we got into that lengthy war in Iraq, Bush put in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
They stayed in place a long time, while we were at war (yeah, people really were willing to sacrifice, weren't they?) and those tax cuts were in place for a long time during the Obama administration (the president isn't as powerful as we sometimes think he is) ...and we had a period of high unemployment nationwide after the crash, lots of unemployment checks being distributed ...now the employment picture looks better, except for good old NJ ... meanwhile, the interest on all that debt just kept growing ...
all in all ... lots of poopadoodle.
The only way to seriously cut into debt is a combination of spending cuts and tax increases ... which would take a lot of compromise, liberals and conservatives meeting half way.
Andy brings up some good point; the Bush Tax Cuts led to the rich grabbing a bigger slice of the American wealth pie while contributing directly to the deficit and debt. Top that off by Obama waving the olive branch to Republicans and extending the cuts only to get slammed by both parties for doing it. Heck, they voted for the sequester twice basically and then blamed him for that too.
Since we are in an election year and since past is prologue, here’s an interesting numerical view of the economic report card by President. Note DannyC that economically, Reagan was pretty good. However, the inflation rate indicates that the Fed was probably printing money during Reagan, and the deficit and debts further falsely fueled the economic expansion through his military and government expansion. But given the high unemployment he was handed and the fact the wall did come down, not bad. Got plain lucky on that last one since he did not have a clue that the Russians were at their own economic wall.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Clinton rules, Bush II sucks pond water, Reagan pretty good, and IMO Obama did OK getting the worst hand dealt since The Great Depression and WWII combined. Not a stellar recovery and, boy oh boy, is improvement rocky and slow. Frankly we all know his lack of leadership has let the country down.
Current candidate's issue is that we are still in slow shaky growth. If we were playing poker, I would say we still have a pretty good hand but we have run out of wild cards. There’s still money to spend on good works but we are pretty much tap city for any special spending stimulus, fed interest games or tax reductions. I don’t care what the candidates are promising, we are at our own wall.
IMO, the future will be won the way Clinton did it (and certainly not saying Hillary is Bill in this regard). That is first working across the aisle to bring in additional revenue by removing the Bush tax cuts. We all need to chip in for the good of the country, some more than other. Second, any expenditures should be targeted at infrastructure, the lower/middle classes, and new investments guaranteed to increase GDP within 4 years. Deficits should be reduced and once the GDP increases, need to actively pay down the debt.
IMO Trump and Sanders are too expensive without results for the investments. Cruz will kill us and spend our money doing it, bad investment. Rubio, Carson are fiscal unknowns. IMO, fiscally, Bush, Kasich, and Clinton are our best bets. Democrats are financially better for expansion than Republicans but Republicans are more financially stable than Democrats. --- historically speaking (see article). Brings me back to Jeb again...... sigh.
TRUMP: 'I have standing to sue' Ted Cruz
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/donald-trump-threatens-lawsuit-unless-202627477.html
This makes Trump sound like a....dare I say...Pussy lol
Remember the Clinton surplus was mainly the result of the Republican Congress that swept into Congress in 94-96. Also Bush 41 increased taxes which did not help in his re-election bid. Clinton was smart enough to know the tide was turning with the "Contract with America" and made deals with Congress. I give him credit for doing that.
Was there a question in there somewhere HH/mg/sd/MM? All I see is you trying to justify the weasel-like manipulation in the system. By those in power. To prevent even the smallest influence by the already limited amount of power the population has over our government.
Besides, you seem to think that the Constitution was only set up to limit the people's ability to directly influence government. Umm, yeah, but what about the rest, the *majority* of the text of the Constitution? You know, the big parts where the government is supposed to be limited in power. The primary reason for the Constitution in the first place! Of course you would casually, flippantly actually, ignore that part of it. Whatever.
Please don't reply again. Your idiotic twisting of both what I say and that of well documented history is making me want to vomit.
kb2755, don't forget that Clinton had the benefit of the dot com bubble. That had a huge impact on the budget and fiscal policy and, IMO, was the primary reason why there was a slight pause in the rate of increasing debt.
Regarding Reagan, his administration was the one that got the debt train rolling. So while there are apparent benefits during his reign they have to be offset by the costs, and I think we are all aware of the cost , the debt problems we have today that were kicked into high gear then.
Parsing politics is pointless.
Imagining that Trump is running for prez in 1952 and pleading his case to Ralph Kramden is funny as hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XriXDtfqCg
JIT: Way back from the first thread on you most recent rant. "You got me stumped where I tried to manipulate you in that last thread. Can you point it out?"
"All I see is you trying to justify the weasel-like manipulation in the system. By those in power" Do you really feel the Constitution call for the electoral college applies as weasel-like manipulation? You are right that limitations is what all of this is about and IMO I would like to see some changes as noted before.
The founding fathers were pretty specific about their feelings on a pure democracy. While I believe they would say the electoral college's day has past, I am not sure they would reject all the "rigged" the primary processes (caucus, proportional wins, winner take all, superdelegates, and independents can vote states).
Ben Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams
“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.”
And for the gunnies out there: James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html
I said nothing about limiting the people's ability to influence government. I spoke directly to your ascertain "You know as well as I do that the *only* democratic component of our political system is voting for the representatives whom we think will work in our best interest" leading to your statement: "There's nothing democratic about that!" My point was not that what you said is wrong, it is not. I was speaking to the idea that you seemed surprised to discover our election process is not a pure democracy. Heck, the foundation of our Republic is based on the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.
I did not rationalize our current Presidential election process but merely pointed out some facts re: the founding fathers, Constitution, electoral college, etc. Also the fact that Democrats and Republicans are private parties, private organizations, with their own private rules and expectations. And that voters and candidates can choose not to join or they can join and change the platforms, change the rules.
I also noted my IMO-what-would-I-change which is pretty far from a rationalization.
So this all started when I wrote a 30-word little tickle and you were off to the rant races including ad hominems, (now accusing me of "idiotic twisting"), ascertains of my manipulative 30-word assault without any substantiation, and saying that it must be true because you have said I have manipulated you as a matter of course. Yeah, right, if you say it enough, it must be true.
But you did not answer the question.
Feel free to respond or not. It's OK either way.
You want an answer? READ THE GODDAMN THREAD! IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN THEN ASK SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU BECAUSE I'M TIRED OF DOING IT!
Seriously, I'm not sure why I continue to bother with you HH/mg/sd/MM. It doesn't matter what I say or how I communicate because regardless of my intent or perspective (or anyone's on this site, for that matter) you'll still be the manipulative little shit that you are and *try* to twist everything to suit your view, pretending to play dumb just so you can score points as if this is all just a game.
Well, thankfully the world is full of people much better than you, and I think I need to spend more time with those kinder, gentler, less self-centered, and less selfish souls in the world just so I can get your type of scum off of me, if only for a little while.
Parting sentiments: Bite me you little piss ant!
Wow! Is this what it feels like to be Trump, to just throw it out there? Feels kinda good to just say it like it is! Peace.
"you'll still be the manipulative little shit that you are and *try* to twist everything to suit your view, pretending to play dumb just so you can score points as if this is all just a game. "
Thank you!
Why in God's name do people STILL INSIST on sparring with hh/mg/sd/mm??? Don't you all get by now (and I admit I learned this the hard way myself...) that he really has NO opinion? He just likes to get under everyone's skin.
Do like I do....keep scrolling down....to the next poster's comments. Keeps me from needing a Valium.
Hey strangerdanger and justintime -
How about finding some humor in the current political morass, instead of bashing each other with unflattering and useless personal attacks? Again, what do you think of Trump and Sanders as candidates? To me, they are both a joke, and subjects of good humor.
Looking forward to the debate tonight, but I hope Ben asserts himself to get more air time. He's like a lamb amongst a pack of wolves.
My apologies for my previous post. It was written in frustration, which is my problem and no one else's.
A self-imposed timeout is in order...
It was easier working with 4-5 year olds than watching that "debate"...............unbelievable..........ugly..............bullying.............without point
It's OK JIT, was notably out of character so as my Dad used to say "you got to have money in the bank if you want to make a withdrawal." You have plenty saved up. Thanks for the comment. I can be exasperating at times.
Exasperating is not the word here googledanger er, strangerman, don't you get the simple fact that most people on this forum are just tired of your sophomoric twaddle no matter what you call yourself.
Bonv So now that everyone has kissed and made up, where are the jokes? Plenty of rich material out there in Trump and Sanders. Go for it, and lift our spirits.
SD seems like a decent person, maybe actually pretty smart. I say this because I sense he is coming around to our guy, Donald trump. :)
OK, first Trump joke. Three Trump supporters, Cynic, Auntiel, and JeffersonRepub walk into a bar. You’d think at least one of them would have ducked......
"Bernie Sanders lost the Iowa Caucus by .03%. In other words, Bernie would have won if six stoners had managed to get off the couch." –Conan O'Brian
"Donald Trump said that he's not going to the Fox News debate, because moderator Megyn Kelly is biased against him. And Trump has a right to be scared, because usually when a younger, attractive woman disagrees with him, she ends up taking half his stuff." –Jimmy Fallon
The Democrats say that government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and better looking.
The Republicans say that government does not work, and then get elected and prove it.
My opinion ....
1.Trump is the strongest and most brutally honest man in the race. He doesn't care about being PC and he is not a sleazy, liar politician like the rest of them. He tells it like it is ... no matter who opposes him and how many boos he may receive. He doesn't tell us what we want to hear ... he tells us what we need to hear. He knows how to utilize the resources around him to get things done. I truly believe he is the best candidate to fix our economy, build our military back up and fix all the poorly negotiated deals made by the incompetent politicians in office now. (Obama, Clinton, Kerry etc.) He will also have the courage to actually do something about immigration. He is a fighter and thats what we need for our country!
2. Rubio would make a good VP.
3. Kasich would make a good VP
4. Cruz is a LIAR ... plain and simple, the typical say anything to please politician.
5. Bush is a poorly couched, utterly clueless fool, just another sleazy politician. Drop out already!
6. Carson is a great guy but WAY too laid back, lacks enthusiasm.
The hard truth .... All of the above are MUCH better options than that clueless hack, liar Hilary and that extreme socialist, (College is free) Bernie.
Hilary should just save face and millions of dollars of other peoples money by dropping out now. (before she's forced to by the criminal investigation that she's under now)
In my humble yet brilliant, genius opinion ;) Hilary supporters are - A. Clueless B. Paid for. C. All of the above. I truly can't believe how anyone could support her.
Someone tried to give the GOP congress of 94-96 all the credit for the budget being balanced. Missed the point.
That budget was balanced because the Republicans agreed to some tax increases while "Bubba" agreed to some spending cuts.
You can't do it just one way or the other, has to be both. So many Republicans these days have pledged to never raise taxes for anything, at any time, even though they could end up lowering taxes for the majority of people, just by agreeing to increase them for a few millionaires.
Clinton won a landslide victory in 96 by the way. All those Republicans in congress didn't help Bob Dole a lick.
maureen2,
Please explain HOW Trump is going to deport 11 million illegals? Will he rent 220,000 50-passenger buses, or will he just have one bus make 220,000 trips to Mexico? What resources is he going to utilize to get that done?
Of course, in Trump's world Mexicans are murderers and rapists. Tells it like it is? He twists the facts and makes up his own brand of truth, just like all the rest. He's the worst kind of politician -- a closet politician!
Rent the buses? He'll have to build them, hire and train additional drivers and the scrap and fire them all after he's done in a couple of years. Good thing he has much experience in big plans followed shortly thereafter by firing everyone.
Not to memtion squeezing 11 million people through our border gates. Not like you can throw them over his new wall. Maybe he can hire Disney to manage the lines.
Current deportation cost per person is 10k. Do the math for 11 million. Even if he avoids 90% of the current cost,do the math.
Also will need to import millions of workers to CA and Tx and across the South from other states to pick cabbage. Even NJ will need over 100,000 out of staters to bus tables and pump gas. Who wants to move for minimumwage?
What a deal.
Sorry. Those inportation numbers are AFTER you employ every unemploed person in those states at minimum wage which, like the rest of his immigration plan, won't happen.
Alll you will get is an expensive wall. How many are crossing right now any way.
The wall will definitely help with illegals. Ide say more so it will be a symbol of strength. It'll show were not fn around anymore, and no more taking advantage of the US. Anybody ever wonder how in the hell the national debt is ever going to be paid off? Ide say that's one of the biggest problems we have aside from ISIS. Not a single "politician" has mentioned fixing this by creating a better trade system. Or by giving incentives for these yuuge companies that are bouncing out of here to different countries to stay in the US. We've got some major problems, these suckers don't seem to care about fixing them. There more concerned about eliminating abortion and eminent domain. Retarded or what?
@JerryG,
You sound like a politician yourself ... Twisting and recreating Trump's 'misconstrued' comment regarding immigration. Hope you didn't waste too much time on your nonsense mathematical description. Truly hilarious ...
If you say that Trump is a "closet politician" ... then I say you are an "open" media absorbed democrat, who doesn't have the mental capacity to see through the BS the media is serving. Keep watch the groovy channel ... I'm sure it served you well the last 7 years.
Immigration is a major problem and IMO ...Trump is the only one in the race with the strength and resolve to actually deal with it. He does not back down from a fight because of fear of losing votes or being PC. It's refreshing to have someone who is not full of BS. The guy has guts and that's what this country needs! Not some weakling who apologizes for us.
So ... when a 'legal' American worker can't find a job because they've been undersold by an "illegal" non-taxpaying immigrant ... lets just hope it's not your friend or family member who suffers for it. It's a big problem and often happens in our own town.
Trump is the ONLY person in the entire race ... that will actually put a stop to it. Even if his strong actions offends the weaklings in DC. Desperate times calls for desperate measures ...
Trump openly welcomes all to our country, You just have to do it the legal way and obey the laws as our citizens do. Most of all he wants to make sure you are not a terrorist! Not sure why anyone should have a problem with that.
Wake up Jerry ... this isn't candy land. Our great country has big time problems.
Forcefed4door,
In just about every debate thus far Trump has made strong comments with regard to our very poor trade system. (China, Mexico etc.) He is a solid business man. If any one could fix it, it's him. Remember ... Trump is a self funded, billionaire business man and the others running are just politicians using other peoples money to fund their campaigns.
That said ... who would you rather have negotiating trade deals for our great nation?
No worries Maureen. If you read my post I said,Not a single "politician" has mentioned fixing this by creating a better trade system. I will never consider trump a 'politician'. ;) He's all we got left.
Maureen: I think most would agree that secure borders are a good thing. We can argue the method of a wall, but the concept of a secure border is a good thing IMO. However, Trump seems to avoid the facts in his quest to fan your fears for fame and glory. And that's where I have a rub: where Trump lies.
People coming across the border is way down. Most are not from Mexico. 350,000 a year and less than a third of these are from Mexico. Is Trump building the right wall in the right place? PEW Research is the source:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/22/unauthorized-immigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/
Less than 50% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. At the same time Trump is getting Mexico to pay for the wall, he promises to whack U.S. firms with a 35% punitive tariff to manufacture in Mexico effectively forcing factory movements to other countries, maybe the US but doubtful, and destroying Mexico’s economy. Why would the Mexicans pay? This pledge is a lie. Remember, Trump also said he would turn Atlantic City into Vegas East.
But again, secure borders are a good thing IMO.
Trump’s concept to deport all illegals is just plain stupid based on the numbers for either costs, logistics or work force impacts. If you avoid the math and accept only the rhetoric, you are clinging to a lie. Economically Trump’s idea is a economic sinkhole of a plan that will not make America great, just poorer.
Let’s just deal with the costs simply. Less than 50% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. This basically means a longer and more costly bus, boat or plane trip for the other 50%. Current deportation costs are $10,000 per head. At 11 million people, that’s $110 billion dollars. Even if Trump magically removes all due process costs and we just pick em up, avoid any court costs, and let’s say drop the costs to $1,000 per head, an impossible task, but then it would only cost $11 billion dollars.
That’s only part of it. That's the cost to do it in a reasonably organized and orderly fashion over decades. Ramp up to do it in two years and the costs will skyrocket. We would need a fleet of new buses and drivers for two years or so. We would have to eat the disruption costs of losing up to 11 million workers over two years, a huge cost disruption that unemployed Americans can not backfill. In other words, Trump’s plan basically costs money so we can lose more money. Same way he ran his casinos into bankruptcy four times and finally had to be removed by the board. Only this time, there’s no big government to bail him out.
The Atlantic puts the cost at $400 to $600 billion.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/
In future additions, we will look at the complex logistics of transporting 11 million people. That’s like moving 1,100 Hackettstowns over two years. That means picking up and moving 1.5 Hackettstowns every day, seven days a week, for two years. Or like moving New York City and Los Angeles combined. Or the next five of our largest cities.
Then we will look at work force impact. We’re are supposed to employ American workers and lower unemployment. But are the new workers available where the old workers are leaving? And will they take the jobs? Physically the unemployed workers are not in the right place and I contend that they will not voluntarily move for these minimum wage jobs.
Trump's immigration deportation concept is complete balderdash and there is no realistic plan that supports it without a severe economic penalty.
I think, if Trump actually becomes the president, when the rubber meets the road, we'll see that talk about deportation and building a wall was just talk, aimed at getting votes.
My hope for him is that he can take care of the trade imbalance, but on the other side of the coin, what's he going to do about all the pollution?
We'll see how he handles this process from here on, we'll see if he's presidential or not..
There's a lot of people hearing what he says, noting he is a non PC self funded unpolitician miraculous businessman straight shooter who walks the walk but apparently many of these folks, like you mentioned, have determined there will be a different set of realities than the plans he is actually committing too.
If he doesn't deport them: read my lips, no next term.
Looks like Trump will run as a third party candidate after he loses the republican nomination. SOB.
maureen2,
"Trump openly welcomes all to our country." You mean as long as you're not Muslim, right? This is the man who wanted to ban ALL Muslims from even visiting the US for business purposes.
So how would you deport 11 million illegals? Forget about my questioning Trump, how would YOU do it?
Trump identifies what he says is wrong with America (and I'm not denying that some of what he identifies as problems do indeed exist) but he does not have workable solutions. Is illegal immigration a problem? Of course, I never said it isn't. But where's his concrete, doable, step by step plan for deportation? He's a businessman, so show us his ability to produce a business plan that takes into account all the costs of moving 11 million people back to their countries of origin. I'd like to know where Mr. Trump will get the money from, too.
Anyone (and every candidate of both parties) has spent all their time telling us what's wrong. I want them to start telling us exactly how they expect to accomplish correcting these problems. That's where Trump is exactly the same as other candidates...he has no concrete achievable solutions for these problems. And despite his saying he's not a politician -- he really is.
If you don't see that, then you're in Candyland, watching the debates on the groovy channel, not me.
The American people have become so complacent that they can't even think outside the box anymore to come up with solutions to any problem.
"How's Trump gonna do this, how's Trump gonna do that?"
Well Gee, how about we think of ways we can help fix some of these issues instead of putting the kabbash on everything so we can ignore what's going on?
That's like saying - "I can build a bridge across the Hudson because I'm fabulous" - without having any plan on how I'd fund it or complete it --- ridiculous -- words - just words - no concrete plans............
"If he doesn't deport them: read my lips, no next term."
You got that right.
"Looks like Trump will run as a third party candidate after he loses the republican nomination. SOB."
No SOB there.... if the RNC breaks their word, Trump can break his.
"That's like saying - "I can build a bridge across the Hudson because I'm fabulous" - without having any plan on how I'd fund it or complete it --- ridiculous -- words - just words - no concrete plans............"
Come on.... Trump isn't unique in this regard.... empty promises are the cornerstone of running for any office. And "concrete plans" doesn't mean "plans that actually WORK", as we have seen with Obamacare.
JeffersonRepub -
Granted, Trump is within his (self-perceived) rights. But how would this affect the general election? Or do you actually think he could win as a third party candidate?
I don't know if he can win as a 3rd party candidate... but I KNOW he could win as the republican candidate. Which has me questioning his motives... I don't know, it's a developing story. Trump has handled things so well so far, for him to implode almost seems... intentional. I guess we'll see how it goes....
And if he DOES run independent, that gives a leg up to Cruz, imo. Not Rubio. If any Trump voters decide to not vote for him because he runs independent, and they are afraid he'll split the votes, imo they won't go to Rubio, they'll go to the only other candidate that stands for at least some of the stuff Trump stands for... Cruz.
In a Hillary-Cruz-Trump race, IDK. Scary. Trump vs Hillary? Trump wins. Cruz vs Hillary? Close, but I think Cruz wins. But 3-way race? All bets are off.
Another deficiency in our system is that there is no provision for a runoff election. Moving the election into the House of Representatives (and then giving each state's delegation one vote), come on. We can do better than that.
jd2,
What exactly do you mean by a run-off election? That's what the primaries ARE....
Do you mean an electoral tie? If so, I agree with a run-off election as opposed to letting the govt CHOOSE who the winner is.
So the cost for the Trump Deportation Plan looks to be $400 - $600B. That's like 1/3 of the Iraqi War. But what about the sheer logistics of moving 11 million people. Not finding, catching, and collecting, just the moving.
Of course if you move 11 million people by bus at 50 people per bus, it would take 220,000 bus trips. Pretty simple math.
At two years, that's 110,000 trips a year or 9,200 trips a month, 2,300 a week, or about 360 buses every day, seven days a week for 2 years solid. Almost sounds doable.
Of course the buses have to come back empty so your 360 trips really becomes 720. Still sounds doable. Toss in the fact that 60% are located in six states with major concentrations in NJ, Illinois, New York and Florida makes it even sound easier. But New York and NJ are two day trips. Illinois is over 24 hours. Even San Fran is over 8 hours making running new trips every day with the same bus and driver pretty much impossible. The other 40% are located in 44 states. Getting pretty complex, logistically speaking.
Suddenly your 720 buses looks like thousands, each bus having an associated driver included. Or maybe three or more drivers per bus if you expect them to sleep, or have weekends off. Not to mention maintenance buses, shops, etc. etc. It’s a huge job that you are not going to handle via existing Army trucks or fit into Greyhound’s schedules. Somebody is going to be building a fleet, a new bus company that you will disband and fire everyone from in two years.
And none of this includes the transportation you need to find these folks and get them to the buses to begin with.
If you say trains are the answer, you still have the same problems and now you add the buses needed to get them to the trains and the buses to get them from the train's departure point which certainly won't be South of the border.
Sure, this one is doable. But doing it in two years is going to have a cost.
Regarding run-off elections ....
What they do in European countries (eeeeek, socialism!) is hold a gigantic election with everybody on the ballot ... then, if nobody got 50 percent of the vote, they hold an election between the top two, so somebody will get a clear majority. That's your "run off."
No primaries, none of the circus, which we Americans seem to love because we just can't stop talking about them.
SD, most people do not care about the details. They just know they are loosing with the present crowd of big money. That would be about half of the Dems (Bernie) and about 40% of the republicans.. ( Trump and Cruze) The Dems most likely by history, come home. It could be the end of the Repubs. Now the Supreme Court comes into the picture, as the show goes on as the lies continue to please the sheep..
Old Gent,
If most people don't care about the details and are stupid enough to vote for a candidate who can't/won't offer a concrete, affordable, doable plan to accomplish the changes they propose, then the sheep deserve what they get.
Old Gent - Sheep rule, and lies are the dictates in this election. I am waiting for the Dems to claim that immigration from Mexico to the USA "will raise the IQ of BOTH countries."
JeffersonRupub - If Trump were to implode "intentionally" this would be the greatest service he could deliver to our country, having vocally raised issues, then bowed out. Too much to hope for. This guy wants it all, having signed a deal with RNC, then unilaterally threatens to renege, his style of "the art of the deal". Not trustworthy.
I know Bernie's ideals are super expensive pie in the sky, but at least you can negotiate that stuff.
No free college, but at least more affordable, once all the dealing and haggling has been done.
No single payer health insurance utopia, but at least some improvements and not making it unaffordable for millions of people again, like before.
Hospitals suffer financially from helping uninsured people in emergencies. At least we do have the laudable American ideal that no person in dire emergency gets turned away.
Well, I was a Nelson Rockefeller guy when I registered Republican ... long time ago.
Andy Loigu - Was that before or after Attica? Some parallels to Trump today, as Nelson's brother, David, was one of the richest men in the world at that time.
On deportating undocumented workers; we talked about the extreme cost, 000's of billions of dollars equal to a large part of the Iraqi War budget; the mammoth task of the logistics of 220,000 bus trips which is really 440,000 when you figure the buses have to go round trip -- perhaps doable but at what cost?
But in the trifecta of stupid, we look at the jobs, a main reason we really hate illegal immigrants -- the fact they are stealing our jobs. Somehow we think if we get rid of these job competitors, our lives will be better. We will look at a few major states and you can conclude the results.
In CA, there are 3M illegal aliens (IA), 2M undocumented workers (UW). There's 1M unemployed Californians. So you need to import 1M people to expensive CA to pick fruit and vegetables. Can't get them from neighboring NV, it has 190K IA and 140 UW with only 100K unemployed, it needs to only pick up 40K from out of state. TX has 2M IA and 1M UW and only 200K unemployed. That's 800K needed to relocate tor Texas. NJ has 330K IA and 450KM UW with only 230K locals to fill those jobs. Perhaps a small number but imagine trying to get 220K people to come to NJ to wait tables or work the shelves at Shoprite. And if you have a family, you have to move here, get your minimum wage job and then resubmit for welfare too.
Now all those numbers assume that all the in-state unemployed take jobs currently held by UW. Not bloody likely. As is the case to import people from other states to takes these jobs, not bloody likely. So either the fruit withers on the vine or producers up wages to attract employees. Which means we all pay more. If Shoprite's labor cost goes up 5%, where do you think that money will come from?
Nationwide, we have 11M IA of which 8M might be UW. We currently have just under 7.8M unemployed but the two groups are not in the same places meaning there will have to be a lot of travelling to get those minimum wage jobs. Plus two groups don't have the same job aspirations or opportunities. The chance that all currently unemployed will accept UW-type jobs is slim. Many have better choices. Not to mention that, albeit slowly, the job market is improving in the U.S. and the new jobs are not UW-type jobs. These new jobs compete with UW-type jobs as well and most would take a new job over a UW-type job in a NY minute.
Bottom line is that the employment numbers just don't work out. The math does not support a mass deportation of U.S. workers, undocumented or documented -- don't matter. But deporting UW further complicates backfilling jobs due to UW locations and concentrations as well as the type of minimum wage jobs they support.
Deporting all UW will leave a hole in our economy that can only be filled by rising costs resulting in higher prices for everyday commodities that UW's produce like food, fast food, in NJ - gas, and other minimum wage jobs.
Most of the Donald's plans are like this; they just don't make practical sense. If there's a plan at all His health plan is really not a plan for example. It's more like guidelines. And those guidelines don't make sense or even fit together as a coherent plan. Amazing.
Since Trump said that Bush "lied" about the reasons to go into Iraq in 2003, I thought I would provide the following link. It's a very long, but very good essay . The gist of it is that we invaded Iraq because of an ideology percolating from the 1990's about America's role in the world, how we needed to use our military power to make it a better place.
Iraq was seen as an opportunity to do that, with disastrous results. Unfortunately, per the essay, the ideology still exists, and could get us into another disaster like Iraq. But the essay says it much better than I can.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/11022104/iraq-war-neoconservatives
perfect, DannyC--- and there's this to contemplate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-death-of-the-republic_b_9239812.html
If you were to meet strangerdanger in the real world would he speak in long winded prose or just sit there and not say a peep lol.
"long winded prose", I like that! He does have a strange language all his own, seemingly derived from many hours/years spent reading (writing?) political blogs. Because no one talks like that LOL
Well, Ann Coulter kinda' does, but I'm sure SD is NOT a fan ;)
You just need to travel in better circles JR :>)
The answer, as in all good questions, as to whether I am long winded or silent is, it depends.
iJay 
The Pope says "building walls is not Christian" in comments about Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/index.html
Hmm... how does Vatican City look from the outside again?
Is it Christian to be a hypocrite?
Well, you know how I feel about Donny Boy, but I feel that the pope was out of line by questioning Trump's faith. I was never keen on the pope and the popes in the past mixing their religious beliefs in with politics. The same goes for many of the Republican candidates proclaiming their Christian values, it shouldn't even be part of the equation and you are reading this from a Christian.
as other than Christian, I am more than sick of the obliteration of separation of church and state...........this is not what I signed up for
Can Trump sue the Pope?
Today I watched Trump read his response to the Pontiff. Guess only the angels wing it around the Pope.
I heard the Trump called the Pope and demanded to speak to his boss. The Pope said "you will be fired. And I don't mean you're losing your job."
I think that the context is very important.
"Phil Pullella, Reuters: Good evening, Your Holiness. You spoke very eloquently of the problems of immigrants. On the other side of the border, meanwhile, there’s an already rough election campaign. One of the candidates for the White House, the Republican Donald Trump, in a recent interview said that you are a political man and added that maybe you’re a pawn, a tool of the Mexican government on the political issue of immigration. He has said that, if elected, he wants to build a 2,500km wall along the border; he wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, thus separating families, etc. I’d like to ask, then, above all what you think of these accusations against you and if an American Catholic can vote for a person of this kind.
Pope Francis: Well, thank God he said I’m political, because Aristotle defines the human person as “animal politicus”(“political animal”): at least I’m human! And that I’m a pawn… meh, maybe, I don’t know – I leave that to your judgment, that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only of making walls, wherever they might be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. Then, what you told me, what I would advise, to vote for or not: I’m not getting into that. I only say: if he says these things, this man is not Christian. It needs to be seen that he has said these things. And for this I give the benefit of the doubt."
US losing jobs. National debt growing. Our enemies getting Billions from US for Weapons and military equipment and spending it in Russia and Europe. North Korea is posing a constant treat. World Leaders Laugh at us. Washington politicians worry about being "Politically Correct". Guess what Hackettstown it is not working. The United States of America needs some one to fight the fight who does not hide behind false values. Someone who is right up front and displays a no nonsense attitude. We need to budget monies to our National defense not cut spending . We cut cut cut and we are getting weaker and vulnerable. We need a leader that appoints the best people for the job. No paybacks. We need Trump.We have to make a move now or we all better make our peace with our maker. Politics as usual will not and is not working.!!!!
Reagan Republican With all due respect, and coming from a Christian, the pope can F off.
I don't think you're going to see Trump losing ANY votes over this one, SD. Once again, you misunderestimate the steadfastness of the Trump supporter.
Steadfastness, or narrow-minded tunnel vision?
I guess Catholics can join Muslims in being banned from entering the US if (God forbid) Trump were to be elected.
"Steadfastness, or narrow-minded tunnel vision? "
No more narrow-minded & tunnel-visioned than those who voted for Obama.
...or those planning on voting for Bernie's ridiculous promises and plans.
....or those planning on voting for Hillary. Wait; scratch that- those people are idiots. Voting for someone under FBI investigation and is a probable felon and possible treasonist. Tricky Dick was evil but Hillary is A-OK? INSANITY.
I read Reagan Republican's piece and did some cherry picking for a few thought provokers. Not meaning to bash, just providing another perspective on some points.
"US losing jobs." Unemployment is getting pretty low now so I guess RR meaning the quality of jobs, like those good old high paying factory jobs. Why were factory jobs so good? Might it be the long, arduous and deadly fight the UNIONS waged for wages and benefits? Wait, aren't unions the darnation and demise of NJ public service? We have factory jobs in SC without the Unions and those people are the first to go on unemployment in a recession and the last to come back after it's over. I am confused. What kind of lost jobs do we want?
"Our enemies getting Billions from US for Weapons and military equipment and spending it in Russia and Europe." No response on this one except tin foil hat anyone?
"Washington politicians worry about being "Politically Correct"." Again, I am confused. What's wrong with being political correct or polite for that matter? Is going out of your way to inflame and offend a better path?
"We need to budget monies to our National defense not cut spending . We cut cut cut and we are getting weaker and vulnerable." Yes, because we are the most powerful and strongest nation in the world. We own the air. We own the sea. Therefore, having lost sight of this position, we need to redouble our efforts. Oh yeah, it was the Republicans who stood right behind Obama to make the current cuts in defense. They basically voted TWICE to make the defense cuts and could have easily avoided it. Guess that's how they do election planning.
"We need a leader that appoints the best people for the job." Hopefully not hiring those people that caused his company's FOUR filings for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
As a former (recovered) Catholic, all I can say to the Pope is screw you. Who the HELL is he to judge who is and who is not a Christian???
Being a Christian is having a personal relationship and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, I have studied the Bible for years and the Pope obviously has not.
Maybe he should re-read the New Testament before he makes stupid, outlandish and NON-CHRISTIAN statements. Just saying.
Well JR - your level of civility when it comes to those who do not believe as you do - says a lot about you................... none of it anything to proud of - in my world..............
When you read the entire text as Bonv posted above, I say: right on Pope, you got that right.
Heidi - Ha, "(recovered) Catholic". I rescued my wife from guilt ridden Catholicism, and she found happiness in that. However, I have experienced politics, mostly far left wing politics, creeping into Protestant churches in recent years, dictated from the top church leadership. I agree that being a Christian is a personal commitment to faith and the practice of Christian values, not the twisted politics of the day. Things have changed, radically, but keep the faith!
Come on. Churches have been political forever and politicians have been spouting religion from day one.
Calling building a wall and deporting 11 million people a non-Christian act does not even seem political to me.
Agree SD, let's all carefully read the Pope's text as provided by Bonv above. It's doubtful he even knows who Trump is. He was simply talking, in answer to a question, that if there is a man who talks only of building walls and not bridges, that man is not Christian.
Is there such a man? He was non-committal.
My takeaway from this is that if Trump were president, it would be just one dispute after another, with everyone under the sun.
strangerdanger and jd2 - As a church going Christian for decades, I know that it was not like this in the Protestant churches until about six years ago. The source of the change came from public position statements of synods (top church leadership), and trickled down to rhetoric at the pulpit. Go to church now, and you would no doubt feel quite comfortable.
DannyC,
You may very well be right about churches becoming more political. I only say that in this instance, I see the Pope's actual comment as religious, not political. Again, that's based on the full text as provided by Bonv above.
The up-and-coming religion of our time is that of government, with many choosing to put their faith in an institution controlling its flock by not just fear but also by force. Has anyone coined a name for it yet?
We all have to believe in something, of course, and today a large majority believes in an institution that uses force to push their beliefs on others. Whether R or D, both try desperately to control the other, "conformity of belief" being the goal.
JIT,
That's gotta' be the post of the year (definitely the post of this election season!) You could not be more right. And what I find so IRONIC about it, is that these people who want govt to force their beliefs on others- it doesn't matter which side you're talking about about, because both sides do it- claim they are trying to keep the OTHER side from forcing THIER beliefs on THEM. The whole thing is insane.
justintime - So government is now God? That is insane. Here is a "coined" name for it: "Nuts". Here is another: communism. You are sarcastic and not serious, right?
Danny,
JIT is serious. And I agree with him. Government HAS become a "religion" for many. Interesting how the absence of religion can become a religion in and of itself. But then that's what atheism has been for centuries- it's own religion.
And yes- communism- one of the forms of govt devoid of any religion whatsoever- very much becomes the state religion, by replacing religion with it's own dogma. Scary territory indeed.
The absence of religion in Eastern Europe had a name -- Soviet tyranny.
Gotta hand it to Trump for going hard at Bush ... a Bush presidency is the last thing we need.
JIT and Jefferson Republic ARE correct...in my opinion. Government has become a religion.
I still don't get all the pissing contests that are going on regarding the "slate" of candidates we are given.
The "slate" ultimately boils down to two candidates, colored red or blue to make it easy, who will continue the welfare-warfare status quo.
Remember your "non-interventionist" Dub'ya, or your "Nobel-Peace-Prize -winning Obama"?.... (um O'Bomba, I guess, to the wedding he bombed and the Dub'ya war he continued....lots of innocents killed there.)
"Acceptable collateral damage" I guess.... yah, right.
'The absence of religion in America now has a name > ISlamo-Nazi Tyranny .
It is the ' Progressives' on BOTH sides that have made Government their Religion! (Obama/Clintons/HarryReid/NancyPelosi/MitchMCConnell/JohnMcCain/
"We can thank the DC establishment, Left and Right, for this sad state of affairs. Character no long counts for anything. And we can thank the Obama administration for being the most purposefully divisive, lawless, and anti-constitutional in modern history".
There is no crueler tyranny that that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." Montesquieu
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/americas_soft_tyranny_is_hardening.
That article was from October 2015 and in just a few short months Obama is steamrolling the US with his Executive Orders that have ravaged the lives of people in the Heartland of America > Americans who believed they lived in the Land of Liberty!
Obama Signs Executive Order to Legalize BLM Land Grabs
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/04/40357-obama-signs-executive-order-to-legalize-blms-land-grabs/
Mercenaries on the Ground in Harney County ORegon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9elFmVCbUfM > HARNEY COUNTY OREGON
Who Killed Lavoy Finicum??> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlFqymXnMY
continued next post:
continued:
Obama's Plan to Protect 5 Million Immigrants Just Made It to the Supreme Court
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/supreme-court-obama-immigration
Justice Scalia Dead Ahead of Crucial Supreme Court Rulings!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/14/scalia-death-supreme-court-abortion-immigration-race-labor-voting-conservative/80372440
Donald Trump is the ONLY one who has the ba%%$ to take on this regime!
http://pumabydesign001.com/2016/02/07/this-donald-trump-video-the-snake-is-going-viral-in-europe/
Trump is probably the least religious person running for President. The only God he worships is the almighty buck. I hope you're not counting on him to bring back religion to this county.
Quick way to get trump to lose, ask him his favorite bible verse and then watch him try to make one up
Hey mark as an atheist I'm all for it. It's probably the only thing that would cause me to vote for him. I am just pointing out to Sha44s who seems to be really hung up on the lack of Christian values he/she sees that trump is so not the person to be banking on bringing Christian values to the White House.
I think it would be absurd for any thinking American looking for a big upgrade in the Oval Office to select
Rubio!
This gang of eight nonsense that Rubio & Schumer tried to sneak through congess
was much worse than most realize.
Rubio struggled, just like he did during his 2013 push for amnesty as the lead pitchman for the “Gang of Eight” bill, to defend his record on immigration.
In the interview, with Neil Cavuto, Rubio made at least five demonstrably false statements in under two minutes.
“ICE officials now, who are saying that your push for enforcement on the border has not been consistent, that when you were part of that Gang of Eight that you were not making it a priority. When they questioned this Chris Crane of this council group of officers, he said that not one of the changes we suggested was made to the bill before Sen. Rubio introduced—that he tried and failed with you repeatedly. That your heart wasn’t in it,” Cavuto asked Rubio, referring to a Friday evening exclusive interview that Breitbart News’ Julia Hahn had with Chris Crane, an active duty Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer and the current president of the National ICE Council.
Rubio replied by making a series of knowingly false statements attacking Crane’s credibility and attacking the credibility of this news network. Virtually everything Rubio said was inaccurate.
“Number one, that’s not true,” Rubio replied to Cavuto. “And he’s not an ICE official. He’s the head of a union. And it’s being reported on a website that’s not a credible source. It’s the same website that said, Neil, that you guys gave me the questions to the debate because one of the members of my staff is a family member…”
Rubio Lies,
1.) Chris Crane is an active duty ICE officer despite Rubio’s claims to the contrary.
.2) Rubio did not fix the concerns law enforcement had with the Gang of Eight bill before it passed the U.S. Senate.
3.) Unlike Rubio’s claim, Breitbart News Network has never reported that Fox News leaked him debate questions ahead of time.
4.) Sen. Rubio and his campaign have repeatedly credentialed Breitbart News reporters for his events.
5.) Marco Rubio himself writes for—and frequently conducts interviews with—Breitbart News despite his “conspiracy theories” claim.
Did anyone see Rubio latest bill O'Reilly interview on fox? He said "the American people" 9 times in 1min30sec. There is something wrong with the dude. This is all the establishment has left? Big WOW!
Actually Darwin the qualifications for an 'elder' or overseer of a church is
1Timothy3:4>
....manage his family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect!
If not for any other reason Donald Trump fits the bill in that department> None of his children drink smoke or do drugs and everyone of them are Successful People~!
I'm not voting for a Preacher! I'm Voting for a Man that says he will take care of this Country like he takes care of his FAMILY...including ALL his wives! Sounds like a MAN IN CONTROL to me!
Donald Trump says he can Save this Country...and I'm sure in turn GOD has plans to SAVE DONALD TRUMP!
I think this article explains to me why most Americans and Christians are supporting Donald Trump!
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/why-a-bible-believer-is-supporting-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states/
"None of his children drink smoke or do drugs and everyone of them are Successful People"
well one of them is only 9 years old. I'm sure he is already more successful than most but he still has time to start drinking
you must not have a good tabloid memory of Donald Jr when he was growing up. he definitely had some wild times in the papers. but I agree with you none of his kids turned into Paris Hiltons so good job by him for that.
but unless he is going to give all of us $36k/yr private schooling and then jobs at his office not sure how the success of his kids is a reflection on how successful our country will be with him in charge.
Darwin, can you define how cruz or Rubio have been any more successful than trump? I never did see any big list of accomplishments by them that say they could run the country any better. Wouldn't matter either way at this point though.
Each of his children are successful business people who have risen to the title of Executive Vice President in a corporation known as The Trump Organization. It must have been exhausting... the hard work involved in getting handed Daddy's company, but then again, Daddy knows all about that, too.
Darwin, can you define how cruz or Rubio have been any more successful than trump? I never did see any big list of accomplishments by them that say they could run the country any better. Wouldn't matter either way at this point though.
well not that I care for those 2 but since you asked. I will give Rubio credit he came from immigrant parents who didn't have a multi million dollar business to hand over to him. he built his success on his own. so for that I applaud him. Cruz came from a wealthier family and had a silver spoon. So can't help you with Cruz.
I thought I read somewhere that Rubio ran into a wealthy person who paid off his bills and gave his life the jump start he has now.
And ianimal, if I was as rich as his father, then taught my kid the business leaving him the money (what kind of greedy bastad wouldn't) . And then my kid expanded what was all ready there by 10 fold, well how is that bad? And again what kind of greedy bastad wouldn't then give to and teach the ways of his business to his many kids. Another really dumb argument if you think trap is a bad person because of that... ridiculous
BTW Sha44ss I read the article you linked.
was kind of ok with the logic until I got to this part:
"Predictions for the two cents they are worth. As I see it, Donald Trump will be the far-and-away winner for the Republican party nomination for president. Hands down. Then, should he survive the coming assassination attempt(s) on his life, he will easily win in November in a landslide"
after reading that I just think the author bat s-- crazy,
I think you missed the point ianimal was making. Yes his kids are successful but its not like the weren't handed their success.
as for Rubio's net worth, not sure where you read that. he still had student loan debt while he was in congress
http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/marco-rubio-net-worth-debt-negative-salary-age-wife-biography-money-mortgage-loans-spending/
http://fusion.net/story/118943/it-took-marco-rubio-16-years-and-a-book-deal-to-pay-off-his-student-loans/
"Another really dumb argument if you think trap is a bad person because of that... ridiculous"
Who said he was a bad person because of that? I said that "success by nepotism" didn't impress me. If his kids grew up to found their own companies or earn an EVP position with some other corporation, that would be a lot more impressive than them all being EVPs of Daddy's company. It's kind of like Daddy the football coach making his son the QB of the team... it shouldn't impress anyone.
To much work to convert anyone to be a trumpster haha. So I'll side line it and keep up with the headlines.
Why would you even want to try to convert people? What is this, an occult like the Moonies?
Darwin: You don't think the Left(eg.George Soros) or the Establishment or some Mexicans or Muslims will try to kill Trump?
"Predictions for the two cents they are worth. As I see it, Donald Trump will be the far-and-away winner for the Republican party nomination for president. Hands down. Then, should he survive the coming assassination attempt(s) on his life, he will easily win in November in a landslide"
http://shoebat.com/2016/01/08/90755/ EL CHAPO THREATENS TRUMP
http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/kill-trump-enraged-left-calls-for-trumps-assassination/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-trump-adviser-trump-wears-bulletproof-vest/article/2583692
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/video-knife-brandishing-muslim-threatens-donald-trump-i-will-circumcise-you
Or maybe even the Clintons
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/23/donald-trump-pledges-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-as-president/
**especially since they have a long list of expired 'friends'
oh my I should have known before I got to the end and saw the poster..............get out your tinfoil hats - the devil's out to get ya................
No sha44ss. I don't. If no redneck tried to assassinate a black Candidate no one is going to try to assinate an orange candidate.
positive - Think more like Heaven's Gate. It's the Apocalypse and we need to elect the Anti-Christ to hasten End Times.
The entire slate of red, blue and purple "choices" you are given in the thoroughly corrupt system we now have will, if elected, either toe the line or be rendered ineffective.
Assassination, especially in the highly public way that fits most people's concept of it, would probably only be useful to the oligarchy if it resulted in greater controls on the populace in the name of "security."
Trump is a blowhard, but a pretty good marketer and salesman. He is also persistent....until the whole deal totally collapses and he weasels-out and sticks it to his backers, just like most successful politicians.
I still don't get how a group of people, many of whom are smarter than me, can become so wrapped-up in the fictions these sociopaths create. You might argue among yourselves over stuff that either doesn't affect you (gay marriage, for example) or stuff you can't change by voting for the candidates selected for you (like the welfare-warfare-control status-quo.)
The length of this thread and all of the crap that a lot of people willingly accept in the name of "being informed" or "patriotic" reminds me that we are not nearly as evolved as we think we are.
GC- leaving the earth on a UFO is a step up compared to this carnival of freaks. Lol
4catmom- I hope you have an extra tinfoil hat I can borrow. Lol
**No sha44ss. I don't. If no redneck tried to assassinate a black Candidate no one is going to try to assinate an orange candidate."
Rednecks have MORALS Darwin and will wait for the Civil War before they go that route~
and I think it 'ignorant' to the facts of History to dispel assasination attempts on Presidents or Candidates as 'tinfoil' conspiracy!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html
You're kidding ..right?...and here I thought you liberals were all supposed to be mensa members!
@RU
Natural Born means that you were a citizen at birth because your parent(s) was NOT where you were born.If you were born in France then your US parents would get a birth certificate from the US embassy, the same way you must register a birth here at the Bureau of Vital Statistics.
And simply being born in most countries does not automatically make you a citizen.In fact, the US is the only place that I know of where that is accepted and needs to be abolished.Children born of illegals should not have received a US birth certificate but their parents needed to register their birth at the Mexican embassy because they are Mexican citizens not US.We are going to have to void those US birth certificates and issue Mexican ones to those kids born of illegals who violated US law.It will be hard on the kids especially if they're like 30 but they can blame their criminal parents for any inconvenience in having to move back to Mexico and having to learn the language etc
MRA LMAO. Rednecks have morals? Wow that's a funny line on its own. It's even funnier when you add a link that shows 3 black leaders killed by Rednecks
"Rednecks have morals? Wow that's a funny line on its own."
This level of hate and ignorance makes me realize Darwin no longer has anything of value to contribute to the conversation.
He's just bent because the Trump train isn't being derailed... like all the libs thought it would be. They are getting truly worried they will have to utter the words "President Trump".
Here's a tidbit for you....
Successful assassins (whose politics we know):
John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, shot and killed President Lincoln
Charles Guiteau, a member of the communist Oneida Community, shot and killed President Garfield
Leon Czolgosz, a leftist anarchist (similar to the useful idiots in the Occupy movement) shot and killed President McKinley
Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist, shot and killed President Kennedy.
Failed assassins (whose politics we know):
Severino Di Giovanni, a leftist anarchist, tried to bomb President-elect Hoover’s train
Giuseppe Zangara, a professed anti-capitalist, tried shooting President-elect Franklin Roosevelt
Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, two Marxists, tried killing President Truman at the Blair House
Samuel Byck, who tried joining the leftist Black Panther group, attempted to kill President Nixon
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, member of the Manson Family and also a hippie environmentalist, shot at President Ford
Sara Jane Moore tried to kill President Ford as well because, as she said, “the government had declared war on the Left.”
Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a leftist connected to the Occupy movement, tried getting a one-in-a-billion shot at President Obama by firing a gun at the White House
The only individual whose political motivations can be deduced as coming from the right side of the political spectrum is Francisco Martin Duran, who claims he was “incited” by conservative talk-show host Chuck Baker, but also claimed that he was trying to save the world from an alien mist which was connected by an umbilical cord to another alien in the Colorado mountains. So there’s that.
From his website, Trump tax plan goals: “1. Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages. 2. Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money. 3. Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again. 4. Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.
All good goals. Too bad the implementation falls short of the goals. Specifics include: families at $50K or less pay no taxes taking 75M off the tax rolls. Today the number for filing is $20K per family, not sure if filing means you actually pay though.
Four brackets: 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%, no marriage penalty or AMT. Today we have 7 brackets, five at 25% or higher topping out at 39.6%.
Businesses pay 15%, today businesses at 15% to 39%.
No death tax. This is Trump's big gift to Trump. This is his payday for being President. This is where he sells you out. Today individuals pay a death tax at about 5.5M of their estate, joint at 11M. Takes till an estate of 11,000,000 to pay a tax. FYI, the lack of a death tax benefits Trump personally, greatly saving his family $2 BILLION dollars. That's $2,000,000,000. Some payday. I guess he did fund his own campaign.
How does he charge less tax and make more Federal revenue? One way he says is reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich and businesses and capping interest expenses. Also, removing the business international tax deferral after a “grace period” for them to being their money home.
But does he reduce deductions enough? For taxpayers, bottom bracket will keep all deductions, 50% of deductions for second bracket and less deductions for top bracket. So most taxpayers will keep all of their current deductions but just pay less tax. It's PFM. Pure .... Magic.
So less people paying taxes, more people and businesses paying less, and many deductions still in place. Supposedly the real magic is in the booming economy. We make it up in volume, the huckster's favorite rally cry. Of course if he’s wrong, as he is, we either have huge deficit, unemployment or both. The problem is that a giant tax cut is a quick fix; expanded the economy is a long game. The two parts of his prosperity equation don't fit. We will go broke on this one.
Already branded Trumponomics, the word fantasy is oft used: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics
Even FOX talked about “mixed reviews.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/28/trump-unveils-tax-plan-that-would-lower-taxes-for-millions.html
The Trump Tax Plan does not pass even a simple sniff test.
Considering anarchists are proponents of complete freedom from government rule, I think the only reason to classify them as "leftists" is to fit your narrative. They're actually on the extreme right wing of the political spectrum.
ian,
That's where you're wrong. There IS no left and right: it's not a line, it's a circle. Extreme left and extreme right end up in the same place.
A perfect example is the irony of the left saying "no one can tell me I can't have an abortion", while they try to tell people they can't own guns as is there constitutional right. (and the argument of course goes in reverse). The left wants to control people just as much as they think they right wants to... it's not all about hippies and freedom and love... the left is just as militant as anyone else (Code Pink anyone?)
That's just one example, but it runs the gamut: extreme right wants unfettered capitalism, extreme left wants socialism. Neither is a good idea. Extreme left wants to do whatever they want, but wants to be able to tell the right they can't have Christmas decorations in town squares, or whatever. The whole thing is about control, and both sides are guilty of it.
Libertarianism is the closest to NOT controlling others as we're going to get, but America is so angry and divided, we are nowhere near ready for that- the American people can't handle it- and the govt sure as hell doesn't want it, them being all about control themselves.
LOL, so the person who drew up your little sketch there is the be all and end all of defining the political spectrum? And yet... you went out of your way to define the anarchists as "leftists" even though your graphic of how you understand the political spectrum to exist shows them as being outside the political spectrum altogether. So, even if I were to buy the political spectrum as a circle nonsense, you still deliberately altered the anarchist to fit your narrative.
And... then you also play the John Wilkes Booth as a Democrat card... yet, he was hardly a "liberal", was he?
"Libertarianism is the closest to NOT controlling others as we're going to get" Really? You don't see control in libertarian policies to restrict the Federal government?
It's always a tug of war, a give and take.
But one thing is certain IMHO: Trump's plans will make us go broke.
Ian,
I can't help you with your shallow understanding of the political spectrum, but don't worry... you'll get there sooner or later.
And yes- democrat/liberal and republican/conservative do not mean today what they used to mean... but YOU have played that card yourself recently (I think that was you, might have been SD...), identifying "conservatives" through some antiquated wiki definition.
"But one thing is certain IMHO: Trump's plans will make us go broke."
So will Bernie's. So now what?
(and don't say Hillary, because even coming from you, that's ABSURD.)
My shallow understanding? You claim to have "studied" politics for 25 years but still didn't know what a "reactionary" is. You must be the "Tommy Boy" of political science students... maybe another 25 years will do the trick.
And.. I'll show you something you missed... your "circle"? It isn't closed, so it isn't really a "circle"; it's an arc with a beginning and an end and thus, LINEAR. (Curvilinear, to be exact).
ianimal - Actually JR didn't play the Boothe card anyway, that's just a cut and paste off the internet from a source he didn't name.
JR - There is extremism in Libertarianism as well, folks like Larouche have advocated doing away with 95% of all government of all kinds. Instead of oppressive control lack of conflict resolution eventually leads to anarchy as well. That drawing is pretty bad because the two ends leading to the same place are so diametrically opposed. But it needs a third path there as well which really blows it.
"Libertarianism is the closest to NOT controlling others as we're going to get" Really? You don't see control in libertarian policies to restrict the Federal government?"
And therein lies your complete misunderstanding of the founding documents and original intent:
The federal government was DESIGNED TO HAVE ONLY LIMITED POWERS. Controlling the government WAS THE PURPOSE of the founding documents. They were not about anointing the covet with power over the people, they were about explaining the power of the people ALWAYS trumps the power of centralized govt.
"And.. I'll show you something you missed... your "circle"? It isn't closed, so it isn't really a "circle"; it's an arc with a beginning and an end and thus, LINEAR. (Curvilinear, to be exact)."
Oh, gee, you got me. I've been "defeated" LOL
"That drawing is pretty bad because the two ends leading to the same place are so diametrically opposed."
How so? Both the left and the right want to CONTROL ABSOLUTELY. They both have their own ideas about what the OTHER side should and shouldn't be allowed to do. If you think one side is "better" than the other, it's only because you happen to agree with the principles on THAT side.... which of course, makes it no better at all... just your opinion.
If you think the hippie free love left doesn't want to control anyone, you have an awful lot of reading to do....
Someone took the standard left-right paradigm and simply curved the line instead of leaving it straight and JR screams EUREKA!! Politics is a CIRCLE!!! LOL...
Ha relax JR it was a joke and I was just trying (poorly I guess) to point out the stupidity of Sha44ss's comment. That somehow "rednecks" his words not mine by the way have no history of trying to or succeeding in killing a black guy? Really? And then he posted a link in which 3 black leaders were killed. Sorry if I found irony in that.
Let's continue on maybe you can find us some more fake news stories. You've been on a little roll as of late. :)
You'll get there, Ian... someday.....
Maybe.
Or continue to keep your blinders on falling prey to the 2-party/left-right/good-cop-bad cop paradigm that everyone else keeps falling for....
Back on topic, I have really enjoyed watching Trump (love him, hate him, terrified of him, whatever) make mince meat out of the GOP elite and the MSM. Just when I thought elections didn't matter anymore, along comes Trump to prove me wrong (so far)... even if he's not my choice, it's heartening to see a candidate so hated by the political establishment on both sides and the media, succeeding....
"Or continue to keep your blinders on falling prey to the 2-party/left-right/good-cop-bad cop paradigm that everyone else keeps falling for...."
LOL, that's funny coming from you. I've been calling for voting third party and eradicating the Republicrat duopoly for at least three election cycles on here. For most of that time, you derided me for "throwing my vote away". It seems like "you" are the one who is finally losing the blinders.
Donald Trump symbolizes something amazing - bringing power back to the people and for that I thank him. A value that conservatives have been yelling about for years, they should take note.
Ya know, conservatives have been trying to do this for decades and have failed miserably. Their vaunted hero Ronald Reagan, got them exactly what in the long run? Nothing... If Reagan was so awesome - why did we have Clinton 4 years later? They had the 'contract for America', nice idea but again failed in the end.
I agree with most conservative viewpoints, but they have done zilch to break gridlock or change things in Washington.
I don't believe Trump has any core values and maybe that's good lol. I can see Trump advancing ideas for both the right and left further than the Republican's or Democrat's ever have done.
That's any easy question BB. Bush 1. He went back to playing nice with the Dem party. Lost it all. The Dems hatred for Reagan was and still is no different than their hatred for any republican. Remember they (dems) lost the roof over their heads of 40 years back then, and vowed to never let it happen again. Ever since then it's been all out war for the Dem party against the Rep party. The Rep party of today (and ever since Bush 1) do not have what it takes to bring them down again. This is why Trump and Bernie are doing so well. The voting public on both sides are sick of the same old garbage coming out of Washington. It saddens me this is all either party can come up with to run our Nation. Scary. Oh stupid us. (Americans)
"It saddens me this is all either party can come up with to run our Nation. Scary"
well said. We live in what we like to call the greatest country on earth and this is the best we can find to run it? yikes
Auntiel: Bush only played with Democrats because Reagan has left him in a deep hole forcing him to raise taxes. The cost was from his own party.
Clinton most certainly worked across he aisle. Perhaps in a vigorous way at times but many a concession and compromise was made and sometimes, a joining of ideas. Obama too offered olive branches, readily accepted, and then shoved in his face --- hard. The last one was the sequester. Hard to say that cost cutting is a liberal idea, at least by you. Yet the sequester is cost cutting. Then the President offered another concession. The cuts could come through Congressional agreement and only would come across the board if no agreement could be reached. So Conservatives got their way twice and turned around and blame the President for defense cuts. Obama also extended the Bush tax cuts taking much heat from his own party yet Conservatives blame him for raising taxes on a regular basis.
I can understand why he is reluctant to compromise.
I can understand both sides being dismayed with Washington, especially the Congress but with the President's inability to gain traction there as a leader. IMO either candidate to the left or right extreme will spell great damage to the country, mostly fiscal, but that will lead to even more social unrest. The right has no viable centrist leader and the left's is a lightning rod.
May you be born in interesting times.
Lady Jayne Except the full quote give it more context...
"We won the evangelicals," Trump said. "We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."
It's not like the "poorly educated" were the only people that voted for him in Nevada.
He swept effectively ALL the categories.... young, old, white, non-white, men, women, educated (high school through postgraduate) and not, republicans, independents...
Here's the actual data:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nv/Rep
Mark, since when do supporters of either party let context get in the way of a good sound bite?
And he didn't win the "young" vote... under 30 went to Rubio 37%-31%
It's a bit strange...
17-29 years old went to Rubio: 37% to 31%
But there is no rating for the other "young" categories (17-24 and 25-29) in the next table. Probably not enough data, as even the entire 17-29 category was only 7% of the votes.
So, Rubio won by 6% in a category that encompassed just 7% of the total vote (in the entrance poll). Assuming that translates to the overall numbers (~75K total votes), Rubio had 315 more young votes than Trump across the whole state.
Trump did win both the 17-44 and 45+ categories (so both old and young overall). Of course if you keep slicing the pie thinner and thinner you'll eventually find at least one category that *everybody* won.
The other candidates are just running in hopes of vp slot Kasich/Rubio. Cruz is a gonner. The trump vs hillary debates will make history.
I'm looking forward to it forcefed4door, but I won't be rooting for either one of them.
Darwin ...you really are -mensa member....THIS is where **Redneck came in
""No sha44ss. I don't. If no redneck tried to assassinate a black Candidate no one is going to try to assinate an orange candidate."">> I was agreeing with you actually
>that Rednecks have morals and wouldn't even think of it!
My link to past Assassinatiion attempts on Presidents and Candidates and other Govt Offiials was to your insinuation that assasination attempts on Trump are bat s__crazy!
{"Then, should he survive the coming assassination attempt(s) on his life, he will easily win in November in a landslide"}
after reading that I just think the author bat s-- crazy,"}
** As JR has shown the LEFT has no limitations on how far they will go to
stop GOOD people from doing whats right for HUMANITY!
Trump is up against.... (YES 5 catmom)>>> very ** EVIL men that are in charge of our Gov't at this very moment! ** LOTS of DEVILS are out to get him AND the rest of us too eg!(ISIS and the WHOLE Islamic Empire is as as Devilish and Horrific as you can get!) and our own traiterous Gov't Too> the PRogressives(Communists on BOTH sides!)
Yes ONLY the Good Die young! OPEN your eyes!
Auntiel and stranger danger
Both parties work together against the people to keep them ALL in power and lining their OWN pockets! Both parties take money from EVIL George Soros and other Big Money Donors and Special Interest Groups!!! the US is beholden to so many OTHERS now our LAND is being sold off piece by piece as evidenced by what is going on with the land grabs (by Obama & the UN and Harry Reid and Iranian V.JArrett) out West and the Standoffs between American Citizens and the traiterous ***International group BLM!.. One AMERICAN Rancher has Died and other AMERICAN Citizen Ranchers have been tried as **Terrorists** while Terrorists like Nidal Hissan who killed our Troops at Ft Hood are being coddled!
And Don't anyone of you tell me these people were 'militia' had it coming because I have FRIENDS out there involved with all of this and know these people & know the TRUTH!
TRUMP IS EXACTLY THE ALPHA MALE we need to STAND UP TO THEM ALL!
If Trump doesn't win this time we are TOAST! YES!! GOD BLESS & PROTECT HIM~!!
yes, sha44ss I apologize. once I posted I went back and saw that I in fact was the one that used "redneck" first. my bad. I tried to edit my post once I saw my mistake but JR had already posted so my post was no longer the last one.
Agreed, Mark. I'm not saying he didn't kick some ass in NV, just that he didn't win the under-30 crowd... smallish crowd that it may have been. But that's to be expected. There are definite trends there that as age increases and education decreases, the percentages rise for Trump. Rubio's trends are the opposite.
I think the biggest surprise to me from that poll is that 87-88% of Nevada Republican Caucusers have at least some college education and almost 50% have college degrees. I would not have guessed that.
"Donald Trump is the Mussolini of America with twice the vulgarity", from the Telegraph (British):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12132320/Donald-Trump-is-the-Mussolini-of-America-with-double-the-vulgarity.html
There really are many similarities. And at least they are NOT comparing him to Hitler!
"And Don't anyone of you tell me these people were 'militia' had it coming because I have FRIENDS out there involved with all of this and know these people & know the TRUTH! "
what other truth is there other than a bunch of armed men overtook a government building? a really lame government building btw. then ran out of supplies and asked for the wimpiest supply list. then as the FED tried conduct a traffic stop 1 fled, got stuck reached for his gun and was shot. watched the video. another nut job had to be talked down for hours from killing himself. yup a bunch of American heroes alright. at least they will have plenty of dildos to use in prison. :)
Oh, god! 621 posts and lots of wasted words.
Here's an article I found today:
http://robidouxinklink.com/2016/02/election-2016-how-we-the-walking-dead-people-created-this-real-life-house-of-cards/
It won't make much difference on how many here think, but it makes me feel better to post something from someone who pretty much "gets it."
A lot of the other topics here seem much more useful.
But I feel better..... for a minute or so,.....so posting this was about worth the time it took....
Probably won't even remember it tomorrow.
Thanks Darwin for the Apology! Sorry for calling you -mensa member!
"what other truth is there other than a bunch of armed men overtook a government building? a really lame government building btw. then ran out of supplies and asked for the wimpiest supply list. then as the FED tried conduct a traffic stop 1 fled, got stuck reached for his gun and was shot. watched the video. another nut job had to be talked down for hours from killing himself. yup a bunch of American heroes alright. at least they will have plenty of dildos to use in prison. :)"
Darwin: There ARE a few 'outsiders> militia' (like Pete Santili of some crazy radio station and somebody name Reidinger or something like that , that were arrested that came there for 'attention & notoriety' and maybe they were even 'plants' to make it look bad for the RANCHERS that were standing up for their Land Rights and their Livlihoods! And of course the BLM and this administrations corrupt DOJ is trumping up charges on them all! > Lavoy Fincum did NOT reach for his gun!
https://www.facebook.com/DMLdaily/videos/1111323878907068/
Dennis Michael Lynch is an Investigative Reporter who has been covering this in its entirety ! If you are interested in the Truth instead of heresay this man has been there!
https://www.facebook.com/DMLdaily/videos/1116704488369007/
The Bundy's and the HAmmonds are the Ranchers along with Hundreds of others including Indians that have their lands, their livlihoods and their Livestock stolen!
Obama just signed executive orders to legalize their land grab! And its not about
'monuments' - its about Uranium!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/18/colo-gop-blasts-obamas-latest-national-monument/?page=all
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/04/40357-obama-signs-executive-order-to-legalize-blms-land-grabs/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/17/abbott-blm-end-unconscionable-land-grab-texas/
WTSHTF! It has already started!
@JJ
Oh, god! 621 posts and lots of wasted words.
Here's an article I found today:
http://robidouxinklink.com/2016/02/election-2016-how-we-the-walking-dead-people-created-this-real-life-house-of-cards/
ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU & EVEN THIS ARTICLE>>>>
WEVE BECOME A BANANA REPUBLIC!..... but we have to go through the motions and after the last seven years
TRUMP IS AT LEAST AN ***AMERICAN!>>> If he only gets the three things above done ..
He should win on that alone!
I don't know about the rest of you but I just want things in this Country to go back to the way we were!! ...the level of Corruption is really scary and sickening what we have become!
You know what's funny?
Cruz and Rubio are like "Trump only got 40% of the vote... that means 60% of the country doesn't want him as the nominee!!!"
Well.... Cruz and Rubio only got 20% of the vote each... so that means 80% of the country doesn't want either of them.
Math works both ways.
Fact is as long as they both stay in, Trump wins. If one drops out, the 60% is not automatically ceded to the other; Trump gets some. Especially if Trump's style of strength is as important as the Conservatives are showing it is, both of these candidates are proven wimps by avoiding poking the bear. At this point Carson and Kasich are just in it to waste their constituents money and garner some creds for the speaking circuit and book tours.
Food for thought
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-president-trump-would-govern-1372330318045238.html
So Lady Jayne, the worst we can expect is that Trump will do what the people want (giving him the most applause)?
How horrible.
Lets not forget that he can only sign things into law that are presented to him through the Senate/Congress... so we still have several hundred other voting options if it turns out that we don't really like Trump. They are your actual representatives...(which is why Obama *can't* get anything done... the people don't want what he is selling...)
"Lets not forget that he can only sign things into law that are presented to him through the Senate/Congress."
So why are people upset about Obama' executive orders he said rhetorically?
There are many things a President can do without Congress.
After last night, I think people can see the emperor without clothes, not that they care or it matters.
Trump Wall: can you say boat?
Trump bringing factories back: will he start with Trump factories?
Trump undocumented deportations: will he deport his illegals?
Trump health care plan: he does not have one
Trump tax plan: he's being audited
Trump tax plan: will cost $1.2 Trillion, will make it up with improved economy
Trump education plan: lost Trump University lawsuit, still being sued, will be in court in July
etc. etc.
Now I know many like his untethered outsider vantage point. Others equate divisive hate speak with plain speak. And others could care less about the reality of his plans, or lack thereof, they feel he will do the right thing independent of what he says.
I say bring it on. Please nominate Trump, he has no clothes (at least none made in America)
Who's really worried?
We may not agree with them, but the latest round of executive orders (regarding gun control) was limper than a wet noodle, basically saying "hey guys, enforce the existing laws".
Not to mention that executive orders can only clarify how to enforce a law, we can still go to Congress/Senate and have the underlying law repealed (or legislatively clarified) with enough support - so the President cannot rely on executive orders being infallible forever.
Christie just endorsed Trump, hoping for the VP nomination? I thought Trump might use Carson, just to balance his vitriol, but Trump seems to have liked the way that Christie destroyed Rubio. Trump already can handle Cruz with his liar campaign to use the "TrusTed" banners against him. Now it looks like there will be two punks on one ticket. Done deal?
I heard on the news this morning that since Obummer has been in office our national debt has doubled.....thanks for helping...worthless president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/?page=all
Darrin well I guess a Trump/Christie ticket would be better than a Trump/Palin ticket. That was my biggest fear. this is my second biggest fear.
"At least Trump can prove where he was born and to whom ......"
So why doesn't he? Why has he NEVER provided his birth certificate?
Flapjack "I heard on the news this morning that since Obummer has been in office our national debt has doubled."
I wonder who we would need to borrow money from to pay for all the free college (among other things) that his proteges are offering.
What's another few trillion to China?
Embryodad Trump is a runaway train, as in the movie "Unstoppable". But he has an uncanny ability to destroy his competition via "liar" assertions and alliances with unprincipled, liberal-hugging, opportunists like Christie. "777" was set into motion by morons, but now it will be hard to stop.
Trump and Christie? I guess Christie hates really hates the job he was already elected to do.
We're going down the toilet in NJ thanks to this big bag of wind.
But think about it, Trump/Christie is the perfect combination of multiple bankruptcies and nine credit downgrades.
Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year
President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.619 trillion.
•FY 2017 - $463 billion projected.
•FY 2016 - $474 billion projected.
•FY 2015 - $583 billion projected.
•FY 2014 - $485 billion.
•FY 2013 - $680 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.547 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
•FY 2008 - $458 billion.
•FY 2007 - $161 billion.
•FY 2006 - $248 billion.
•FY 2005 - $318 billion.
•FY 2004 - $413 billion.
•FY 2003 - $378 billion.
•FY 2002 - $158 billion.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus.
•FY 2001 - $128 billion surplus.
•FY 2000 - $236 billion surplus.
•FY 1999 - $126 billion surplus.
•FY 1998 - $69 billion surplus.
•FY 1997 - $22 billion.
•FY 1996 - $107 billion.
•FY 1995 - $164 billion.
•FY 1994 - $203 billion.
President George H.W. Bush: Total = $1.03 trillion.
•FY 1993 - $255 billion.
•FY 1992 - $290 billion.
•FY 1991 - $269 billion.
•FY 1990 - $221 billion.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion.
•FY 1989 - $153 billion.
•FY 1988 - $155 billion.
•FY 1987 - $150 billion.
•FY 1986 - $221 billion.
•FY 1985 - $212 billion.
•FY 1984 - $185 billion.
•FY 1983 - $208 billion.
•FY 1982 - $128 billion.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/people/fl/Deficit-by-President.htm
Thanks... I guess I missed that. I saw the movie a few years ago (Denzel, right?) but didn't commit the train's ID # to memory (-;
"liberal-hugging, opportunists like Christie.'
I'm having a hard time keeping count but I think we are in double digit mentions from DannyC about Christie's Obama hug. It really must be the worst thing to ever have happen to Danny. I hope you are in therapy dealing with this traumatic experience you witnessed
ianimal - "777" or "Triple Seven" is the number of the runaway train in the movie "Unstoppable". But "666" may be appropriate for the Trump/Christie ticket.
darwin - Christie cannot be trusted, like Trump, to have consistent principles, and devoid of any concrete program proposals, bear-hugs for Obama notwithstanding, for which he will never to be forgiven. A Trump/Christie ticket would be a nightmare for anyone who does not support Hillary or Bernie.
Not a nightmare IMHO. I chuckled when I got the NYT alert about Christie endorsing Trump. And the debate last night, they (Rubio and Cruz) tried to shake/rattle Trump but it didn't work. Now Rubio did do much better and he may do well next time but he is like a Republican version of Obama...
Rubio mentioned Trump possibly scammed people with his Trump University online school. First I've heard about it, does anyone know about this?
If it's true than why hasn't the media and the other candidates been all over it? Seems like a big deal to me...
positive - If you google "Trump University" there are dozens of stories. It's not new, but the fact that he probably has to testify while on the campaign trail is.
CNN story from Sep with links to stories about the law suits:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/trump-university-fraud-claims/
LA Times with info about the California suits:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trump-university-lawsuit-donald-trump-20160226-story.html
Trump says they did a terrific job, and it's another one of his wins. Others have said it's another failure of a not so brilliant business man. There's plenty of write ups besides the two above, plenty to make up your own mind with.
Thanks GC, I did some googling prior to my post, but wasn't sure of the sources.
Just more dirty laundry to add to his ever growing hamper..still won't change the minds of his blind groupies.....
Darwin, deficits are different than the debt (much worse IMO). Deficits are borrowing just to make payments on your debts. Kinda like using a credit card to pay off other credit cards.
Darrin, I'm truly insulted! I've been a virtual one-trick-pony on this site and have discussed the debt trend numerous times in the past. Obama has simply been in charge while the trend continues and hasn't deviated from the "master plan" trending the past 40 years or so.
So what, you guys just ignore my posts or something? ;-)
I don't really follow the "trend" justintime.....unless of course sinking further and further into a uncorrectable sinkhole is a trend...
Using Darwin's numbers:
President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.619 trillion.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.294 trillion.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus.
President George H.W. Bush: Total = $1.03 trillion.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion.
So Regan - Bush - Clinton was a dropping trend (not really a trend, more all over the place, but dropping throughout)
Bush had a huge addition, but we also had a major terrorist attck (911) and went to war while he was in office.
What has Obummer done to justify his 6.6 trillion?
It makes no sense to me how we can allow this to go on. What happens to us as citizens if we just keep racking up dept like that?.....we go bankrupt! Why would America be any different?
Darrin, you searched for "deficits" trends. Search for "debts" trends instead and it's a bit different. Look particularly at data further out and you'll really see how ridiculous the past 40 years have been.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFD
Notice the resemblance to a parabolic curve?
As much as many want to blame fiscal problems on a D or R, both are and have been "all in" and will continue to be until something breaks.
Kind of strange but here are different numbers from the same source Darrin. Not that it changes the picture, but it does make Obama's record comparison to Bush a little closer. Your Bush numbers look off. I agree the debt is our greatest threat to national security. If the debt crashes us, no one will be secure. The deficit is what feeds the debt so it is important too. Even more so right now when we are so deep in the debt hole that you really can't afford spending deficit dollars to bail yourself out no matter how good the investment.
This is the main reason I hate Trump. He is expensive and we can't afford it. He wants to spend, spend, spend and then double down by slashing taxes and then triple threat by wishing an expanding economy will cover his losses. Can't claim chapter 11 this time Don.
I find it amusing when folks seem to think Obama was wildly spending on frivolous items. So I post some text from the same source as Darrin's numbers (with the different numbers included. Note the "forecasted" future Obama years are not yet included).
Secondly, and I will post it shortly, IMO the most salient metric for our debt is the debt/gdp ratio. Like when you mortgage your house, how much you can borrow depends greatly on the revenue you are bringing in and the risk of you continuing that or growing it. The same is true for the nation. Our GDP is a benchmark for how much we can borrow. It provides a barometer of whether financers, both domestic and foreign, will continue to invest in America with a low risk of getting returns.
But here's the text that answers two questions: how much debt, debt leading Presidents racked up and ---- especially to answer the Obama question, what we as a nation got for our money.
"Barack Obama - The debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's term. He added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase, in six years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year.
Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over ten years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. That more than doubled the debt, which was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001 -- the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. That drove military spending to record levels of between $600-$800 billion a year. It included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.
Franklin D. Roosevelt - President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was more than a 1,000% increase over the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover's last budget. Of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. However, most of the debt was added to gear up for World War II, not to pay for the New Deal. In fact, $209 billion alone was added to the debt between 1942-1945. For more, see FDR Economic Policies.
Woodrow Wilson - President Wilson was the second largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. Although he only added $21 billion, this was a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt level of his predecessor. Of course, Wilson had to pay for World War I. In fact, the Second Liberty Bond Act was enacted during his Presidency, giving Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling. Article updated February 6, 2016."
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
I see what you are seeing justintime, but even that is not a true parabolic curve, obummers term clearly stands out in the chart. What has he done that justifies this?
Now yes, I do understand that you hit a point that this growth becomes exponential, mainly because of interest.
We are going to reach a point of no return, if we are not already there. Something needs to be done, but what? And what happens if nothing is done?
Here is the debt/GDP ratio chart. As you can see, we have been here once before after WWII and it took 35 years to reign it in, even by The Greatest Generation(s). The Great Depression didn't even come close to this level of debt only reaching 40%. The revolutionary war, civil war, and WWI only reached 30%.
That's the magnitude of the problem.
"Federal debt began the 20th century at less than 10 percent of GDP. It jerked above 30 percent as a result of World War I and then declined in the 1920s to 16.3 percent by 1929. Federal debt started to increase after the Crash of 1929, and rose above 40 percent in the depths of the Great Depression.
Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s, reaching 60 percent of GDP in 1990 and peaking at 66 percent of GDP in 1996, before declining to 56 percent in 2001. Federal debt started increasing again in the 2000s, reaching 70 percent of GDP in 2008. Then it exploded in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, reaching 102 percent of GDP in 2011. Federal debt has breached 100 percent of GDP twice since 1900: during World War II and in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008."
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt
When you vote for any U.S. representative, think about this. IF we start now, we can be done by 2050 :>(
Keeping it short, recall public debt is a linear component of GDP, so all things being equal $1 of new debt directly adds $1 to GDP, thus using the debt to GDP ratio is meaningless when looking at debt alone. You need to look at the other components at the same time.
IOW, the debt/GDP ratio is just noise when arguing for or against more debt.
While I agree on looking at other componets, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on everything else you said.
Most economists look at the ratio as an important factor of a countries ability to repay debt, to better understand the econmic status, and other things.
A dollar of debt does not equal a dollar of gdp. It is not linear.
+1 darrin, +1 JIT
obama chalks up 6.19 trillion dollars in debt, the most of any president, at any time.
make him the best at putting us further into hock,
not a good thing.
no amount of spin can change that simple fact.
Hillary is unfit to serve as president as she has promised on mulitple occasions that she will continue barrack hussein obama's polices. that's not a good thing
Speaking of hillary, how come there is no thread on this forum for all her supporters?
C'mon mg, wrong on *everything*? A wee bit of a stretch there, and besides, I thought we weren't going to go there...
Regarding my GDP post, I do have to apologize because I am incorrect in this case. My recollection seems to faltering lately and since I don't have as much time as some to verify my memory banks I'll just have to slow down my drive-by's and cross my t's and dot my i's.
In this case, I confused government spending with debt:
GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).
Y = C + I + G + (X − M)
However (you knew it was coming lol), seeing as government spending has been increasing along with debt (although debt has been increasing faster than spending), and the debt is the primary reason for increased spending, there really is a correlation, even it it's not what I originally alluded to. BTW, to be clear, that equation is linear. Oh, and to keep the numbers looking clean I'm only posting the spending vs gdp numbers you like ;-)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020USp_XXs2li111mcn_F0t_US_Total_Government_Spending
Regardless, your point about the (lack of) damage done by excessive debt is moot if the trend doesn't abate - and it hasn't. On the contrary, I believe that the excessive debt (specifically ALL debt, not just the government) has had disastrous effects on the economy, manifesting itself in distortions from income and wealth disparity to bubble markets, and those distortions in turn are felt by the masses who have been restless and not really knowing why.
And don't forget about the necessity of debt to keep the monetary system going. Imo that's the real reason why ever increasing debt is explained away using the GDP ratio. Total debt cannot possibly go down without the corresponding destruction of money. IMO that's much more the issue and the primary reason for the magical Debt/GDP ratio economist love. IOW, it has to be acceptable for the current system to exist!
Forcefed4door.........because nobody supports her?
SD "When you vote for any U.S. representative, think about this. IF we start now, we can be done by 2050 :>("
Even single step in the right direction is better then what Obummer has done in 8 years. At least the other times we had a war on our hands.....Obummer has done nothing yet has managed to double national debt.
I found a clearer chart SD:
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d9c60237a1cb76cd3c3eb6ce3893ac2e?convert_to_webp=true
I think your wrong Darrin. Remember they only have two choices to support, Hillary or Bernie. Everyone knows for a fact what those two are about. So the only recourse they have is to bash the Republicans and their candidates as usual. When they enter that booth they will vote for one or the other. Never, never will they admit who there guy is. You would think if they were proud of their choices they would be letting us know. They have no problem telling us how they feel about a Republican candidate they have no intention of voting for anyway.
Forcefed --
There is no need for a thread for Clinton or any of the other candidates.
The only reason there is one for Trump is because he is such an anomaly.
It's very unfortunate that so many people do in fact bash the current republican front runner and hopefully the next president. It does seem like more people here talk about how bad he is than how bad Clinton is. It's a very piss poor attitude. No wonder we got obama for 8 years
Forcefed --
Did you ever stop to think that maybe "more people here talk about how bad he [Trump] is than how bad Clinton is" ...... is because he IS a ridiculous choice for the President of the United States???????????
Don't worry Forcefed4door, I don't discriminate..I think Hillary is certainly in the same moral bracket as Trump.
Pickins are slim.....
Postive, well that's at Least ok. He'll need a few hold your nose votes for the general haha. This is some of the crap that's in the works apparently. There all dirty rotton scoundrels in both parties. https://youtu.be/vUdsg4CHMY8
Sorry happiest, but I do not like the majority of candidates. I love Ben but we know he's not going to make it. Hope he will be able to get a position...Surgeon General would probably be ideal for him.
positive --
Who you like or don't like is immaterial. The fact is that Trump is not Presidential material.
Happiest wasn't sure if I'd get hung by the "Hillaries". Lol.
I appreciate your open-mindedness.
"The fact is that Trump is not Presidential material."
Neither is Obama, as the country has discovered. Nor is Hillary, under FBI investigation for mishandling of classified information. Bernie has violated campaign finance reform laws already, and it's only the primary.
Nor is Ben. He seems like a nice guy, but he has been the least enthusiastic- BY FAR- of the candidates. I don't believe he wants the job, as he's rarely acted serious about his campaign. It seems to me like he's having fun campaigning, knowing this will turn into book fees and speaking fees when he loses- win-win.
"The only reason there is one for Trump is because he is such an anomaly"
Yeah, and doing the same thing for the past 30+ years has gotten us where?
Maybe a anomaly is exactly what this country needs, because doing the same thing certainly has not worked.
Hillary is not the answer, she is simply riding the Clinton card, as well as the women card, hoping for votes
And don't forget, there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for hillary ;-)
Also send me those emails when you get a chance, but if you are shooting for president, it may be wise to learn what should be classified and what shouldn't...not just look for a mark on the email.........
"Clinton’s description of the emails on her server has shifted over the last year. She initially claimed there was no classified information in the emails but later clarified that none of the material had been “marked” classified at the time it was sent or received."
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/state-department-releases-more-hillary-emails/
So even her stories change, wow, big shocker coming from the Clinton name
I am not afraid to say it.....I like Trump, but that does not mean I agree with everything he says, but when has anyone honestly ever agreed with every single thing a president says or does? Change is what this country needs, if it is the wrong change, we will find out in four years, and then re elect the wrong just like we did with obummer...........because here in America we are just gluttons for punishment. I just see all the other candidates as puppets, Trump at least has his own head and is not afraid to speak his thoughts, right or wrong.
We need to cut spending and have a PLAN to pay off our debt over 20 or 30 years. This means tightening our belt. Changes to Social Security are being made so it will remain. Fraud needs to be cut. Just released that about 720,000 taxpayers returns were breached at the IRS! Fake tax return payouts in 2014 were not 5 billion but over 20 billion. Still subsidizing big oil for about 20 billion a year. Middle East billions in aid that is even large under Obama to placate Israel over the Iran deal.
Create a national healthcare and pension system like in Canada. Control our borders. Accept than we will have millions of guest workers but document them.
Instead we have career politicians in Washington that just cave to special interests.
Make America Great Again! This is about the USA, not other countries. Every country has a responsibility to its citizens first, foreigners second...
"Nor is Hillary, under FBI investigation for mishandling of classified information."
I think it's good to investigate wrongdoing yet might reserve the hangman's noose until an actual guilty verdict and sentence
I mean it's not like she was convicted and fined for hiring illegal aliens or found guilty of defrauding thousands. Trump's response: he sued those he defrauded for non payment (and lost). And is currently actively being sued for more fraud.
Now Hillary charged a lot of money to speak to some banks frankly ripping them off when you look at her plans for the finance industry.
Trump has ties to a different kind of bank: "The Atlantic City story starts with Trump’s purchase of a bar, at twice its market value, from Salvatore Testa, a made man in the Philadelphia mafia and son of Philip “Chicken Man” Testa
"Nicademo “Little Nicky” Scarfo (who became boss after the elder Testa was blown up) and his nephew Phillip “crazy Phil” Leonetti controlled two of the major construction and concrete companies in Atlantic City. Both companies, Scarf, Inc. and Nat Nat, did work on the construction of Harrah’s"
"He had a close association with Kenny Shapiro, an investment banker for Scarfo. According to secret recordings of then Scarfo attorney Robert F. Simone, Shapiro was intimately involved with bribing Atlantic City Mayor Michael J. Matthews"
"In New York City, several of his buildings were built by S&A Concrete Co., a concern partly owned by Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, the boss of the Genovese crime family. In addition to this business relationship, Trump and Salerno were both represented by high-power attorney Roy Cohn. In his book, Barrett cites an anonymous source who confirms that on at least one occasion Trump and Salerno had a sit-down in Cohn’s apartment. Trump has denied this claim in the past."
So sure, let's talk about crimes and misdemeanors and, if you like, whispers in the night. If Trump has his genius IQ, is the master deal maker, wouldn't one assume he knew who he was dealing with? And how did he get away with hiring illegals right under nose of the Union? Did he have "support?
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how-close-was-donald-trump-to-the-mob/
+1 darrin
Clinton lies and keeps lying , she can't stop herself from making false statements and should not be elected president. she has been shown to untruthful over and over agian
""Clinton’s description of the emails on her server has shifted over the last year. She initially claimed there was no classified information in the emails but later clarified that none of the material had been “marked” classified at the time it was sent or received."
she lies about a lot of things she is asked, she untrustworthy and unbelievable and less than authentic.
the FBI will recommend to the DOJ that she be indicted on several counts when it finishes it's investigation.
the democrats had better come up with a plan B, they're gonna need one stat, how can she serve as president from prison?
i can't believe that anyone would support this broken character for higher office
SD, to compare Trumps personal legal activity with Hilary's legal activities while working as a government employee is definitely not apples to apples.
If she doesn't know whats confidential when working as secretary of state, to the tune of (i believe) 1800+ emails......what else doesn't she know
It IS about our MEDIA in this Country and we are ALL stupid.
Reminder Why Trump Battles the Fox News Machine!
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/26/urgent-reminder-why-donald-trump-battles-the-fox-news-machine/
I agree Darrin, they are not apples to apples.
On one hand you have Hillary not practicing safe storage for email, which is a stupid less safe process. A good number of the emails are currently deemed classified.
On the other hand, it was perfectly legal and allowed by state department rules, so far not one email was mark classified at the time, and as far as we know, no spying or data theft happened.
For Donald, he was convicted, albeit 35 years ago, of hiring illegal aliens and fined $1M. He claims it was not him, it was the company he hired. The land he bought from a high ranking Mafia player and the company he used was Mafia controlled. Guess he didn't know that either. Then his Trump University has defrauded students, been found guilty. He blamed the judge of being Spanish and therefore biased. He is still be sued by other students.
Trump has genius IQ or so he says. He went to a very good school, although not Wharton Business as he sometimes lets you think. He is a master dealmaker, knows all the players in the game and in the world. Even China where he does a lot of "Made in Amerika" business no doubt. But he didn't know about his frequent Mafia deals and what they were doing?
The difference is Trump had been found guilty multiple times, Hillary has not and is currently under investigation for which she will be most likely be found guilty of using a legal but less than best practice.
And she did not kill Vince Foster either.
Can you say Aba Daba Duke, Trump?
"A disaster of biblical proportions - dogs and cats living together" each chasing their own tail. It may be all over tomorrow, super Tuesday. God save us all.
It will be over for the Dems on Super Tuesday unless Bernie just wants to spend cash.
For Repubs, it may continue, hopefully with less than 5, until a brokered convention. Numerically that means Trump probably has more delegates but less than needed to secure the nomination. And then let the real dogfight begin.
When it comes to mudslinging, oooops sorry plain-speaking un-PC talk, Trump has lowered the bar yet Rubio and Cruz have finally taken up the gauntlet and are now squeezing under Trump's low bar with their own personal attacks, name-calling, and a myriad of unproven allegations. The Don's stress lines are showing as his volleys are being met with smashing returns.
All of this is just food for fodder as Hillary sits back, takes notes, and plans her strategy to enjoin either Benito the Fascist, Spanky the kid, or Adolph the Nazi. Sorry, my bad on the name calling. Maybe the Nationalist, the Freshman and the Evangelical Warrior would be kinder. The first will bankrupt us, gosh only knows what the second will do, and the third will kill our kids in a holy war.
God save us all is right.
We will probably get Hillary which means 4 to 8 years of obstruction, attempts to improve the ACA, and attempts to revive the economy. But make no bones about it, this is an iron maiden who will not be seen as weak and when there is a spark, she will send our kids in as quickly as she voted Yea to Iraq.
Has the republican race (or should I say contest, to be thoroughly pc) bottomed out after the embarrassing big ears, small hands attacks, or can we expect more such schoolyard nonsense? Yearning for program proposals to fix things.
Bonv,
Very funny 20+ minute rant by a Brit, exemplifying what the international community thinks about our ludicrous election and our culture. "DRUMPF" for president...ha!
Strangergoogle, I think you forgot to mention all the skeletons in Hillary's closet. There is far more firepower sitting right there for trump to use. He won't need attack adds, most of his rallies are on live tv. He has unlimited free airtime and he's pretty good on attack mode. There is no doubt the d's are worried. Not to mention the republican turnout numbers are record breaking everywhere, while the d's are much lower than last election cycle.
I know Clinton is your lady, but it ain't gonna happen. No more corruption.
All I'm seeing here is fanaticism (as in wasting mental energy strenuously arguing the merits of your favorite team,) a strong desire to dominate others by proxy (and a proxy who will throw you all under the bus, anyway, and convince you it was for your own good) and a desire to be dominated by an authoritarian figurehead.
There is a Hillary dominatrix meme, but I couldn't find a Trump one so I won't include links. But, jeez, it seems like some of you would be happy to let them "rule" you.
I have noticed, through personal experience, that some very intelligent people are not at all immune to indoctrination and narrow-band thinking. Reading some of the impassioned arguments to support slimeballs who really couldn't care less if you lived or died seems to validate that.
BonV, the important aspect of that piece, is that it is all true - and that the "followers" as if in a cult - don't care what is true, just like Drumpf, aka Trump, it is all an ever changing delusional show - and the koolaid is handed about on either side, with jousters focused on knocking each other down rather than presenting reasonable, intelligent consideration of our considerable issues.. I would love to see debates, discussions, articles, investigations focusing on policies, political goals, voting history, PLANS, but instead we get these reality-TV shows with juvenile irrelevant personal insults.. We no longer have a political system, we have the "clowns of the day" every four years - and it's our own fault.
pmnsk It seems to me that politics and the parties therein has devolved into the same garbage as sports. It's "My team vs. Your Team."
At the end of the day, just like sports, none of the slimebags you are so passionately supporting give a rats hindquarters about you, and are more interested in the cash you have in your pocket and how they can have all of it.
The_Bishop "Big difference with skeletons in closet versus actual guilty convictions."
Yea, it means one hasn't been caught. Not exactly a selling point IMO.
I'm still at a loss at how we ended up with Trump & Clinton and doubt there's time for a 3rd alternative but will keep my fingers crossed.
I'm reading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and these 2 quotes really fit this year
―“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
― “There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/01/larry-summers-donald-trump-is-a-serious-threat-to-american-democracy/?postshare=6971456834459580&tid=ss_tw
I find myself at an odd crossroads between disdain for the status quo and disdain for trump. Reading manipulative opinion pieces like this one is pushing me - shockingly - toward Trump. Today was the first time I've actually considered voting for him, not at all because I agree with his politics but because I can't stand people in power manipulating the discussion like the article posted (one of many actually). I find myself thinking that the pain of trump is less than the pain of sustaining the path we've been on as a country.
I can't beleive I'm even considering it. Wow.
Got a bad feeling that Super Tuesday will cement Trump vs. Clinton, a real nail-biter today.
Where's the manipulation? It's your favorite word, I am sure you can do better than just say "read the article and see for yourself?"
Seems like whenever you disagree, you are being "manipulated." Show us how in this example.
Interesting article in this month's Rolling Stone (which showed up in my mailbox even though I would never subscribe to such a liberal rag - but I found the article interesting anyway... ).
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224
Maybe it's just because someone ascribed the term "backpfeifengesicht" to Ted Cruz...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpfeifengesicht
Yup... that pretty much sums him up for me.
" I find myself thinking that the pain of trump is less than the pain of sustaining the path we've been on as a country.
I can't beleive I'm even considering it. Wow."
Ah, the ol' "lesser of the 2 evils" position. I've done that for years. I don't think I can do it anymore. In the primary, I will vote my conscience- for the person I WANT to be president (not necessarily the person I think "can beat whoever".)
If, in the general, it's Trump vs whoever, I will have a clear conscience voting for Trump, based on one thing only: his promise to secure the borders and temporarily stop immigration. That is the ONE thing his campaign is built on, and if he keeps that ONE promise, perhaps we will have a chance. But if the illegal immigration/amnesty isn't stopped, you will grow the democrat voting block to an unstoppable size, there will be no remedy, and America as we have known her for 2 centuries, will be over. EVERYTHING hinges on the border/immigration.
If Trump can't get it done, or goes back on his word, he won't last more than 1 term, then God only knows where we're headed.
Where we headed,indeed !! The" Boomer generation" (Biggest bunch of Spoiled Brats the world has ever seen) .A Pop culture,built on Greed and Power as per their mantra ,WE WANT IT ALL,WE WANT IT NOW .They abused credit to the point of causing the recession and then cry about it !!
It is unbelievable that GW Bush the worst Prez in history could be topped by a disgusting example of a man as Trump.
Try listening to Trump and then the speech's that brought HITLER to power in 1930s
they could be word for word !!!
SO be careful what you wish for,be VERY careful..
Oldtimer Not adolph, thats cruz.
Donald is Benito. Listen to those speeches.
Only got one word for trump wall: boat
Can't help but wonder if more people aren't starting to see through the con-man Trump. I guess we'll find out tonight.
I heard of a scenario where Mexico will pay for the wall.
Under Trump the U.S. may get so screwed up that Mexico will need a way to keep many Americans from fleeing there!
jd2, you've been listening to "little marco" too much.
49% Trump! Woo hoo!
Trump is winning .... again. Trump 2016!
Hilary over 2,000 emails discovered with classified information and another 30,000 deleted just days before the FBI investigation started. She won't stand a chance against Trump.
Trump will be our next president and he will do well! Trump ... Trump ... Trump ...
"It is unbelievable that GW Bush the worst Prez in history could be topped by a disgusting example of a man as Trump."
I'll have to fix that for ya, old-timer....
It is unbelievable that OBAMA the worst Prez in history could be topped by a disgusting example of a man as Trump.
-or-
It is unbelievable that GW Bush the worst Prez in history could be topped by a disgusting example of a man as OBAMA.
Obama by the numbers still better than Bush.
Another word for Trump wall. Tunnel.
I guess a good thing is conservatives embrace radical change and extreme forgiveness suporting a guy who was for all the things they hate but now says he isn't. Wanna buy a bridge? Sorry, I mean wall.
I guess that's because Hillary lies. Well Trump does beat her in the liar category.
Who's the sheep now?
Oldtimer, you can see there is no getting around the greatest reactionary warrior in this Forum, one JeffersonRepub. The man is indefatigable.
Putting politics aside, Obama is a good man.
I would even say that about George W Bush.
I certainly would never say that about Trump.
Obama is NOT a good man.
Neither is Trump.
I believe Bush was sincere, altho I don't think he was a fantastic president or anything.
Just ask Hillary if Bill was a "good man" LOL
"JeffersonRepub. The man is indefatigable."
Thank you.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
jd2, please tell me anything good that obummer has done in 8 YEARS for this country????
I don;t care if a person is a "good" person...i want some who is "good" to our country and actually does their job and is not just a puppet.
Trump may not be the most understood character .... but he takes his punches and does NOT deviate. He's not worried about being PC. The media is out to end him and he's still winning! That's what we need a winner. He speaks the truth no matter how painful it is for your liberal, socialist ears. He is strong ... and that's exactly what our country needs. He is a good man and will make a good president too. He is an accomplished, successful billionaire who gets things done!
Keep listening to the corrupted media and their sleazy, political wall street funded Ads. The people bashing Trump are the criminals that destroyed our nations economy. He is the only one with the balls to do something about it. America is talking and they are saying "Trump"! Real change!
Obama did nothing but double our debt. Create the worst health care plan in US history. He destroyed and betrayed relationships with our allies. Caught on numerous lies. Hmmm ... Uh Yeah ... what a great guy.
Bill Clinton hmmmm ... What did Bill do? Oh yeah, he "did not have sexual relations" Lol, A liar, just like his wife Hilary. Shall we add Criminal to the label? Hilary is under a FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION! Media seems to ignore that ... instead they attack Trumps skin tone and hair.
Wake up ... stop watching the garbage the media puts out. The media controls everything political and then some. Don't be fools and fall into the trap again. Our country can not afford another politician, we need a tuff businessman to get things done. Love him or hate him, Trump can do it.
Where are the Trump guilty convictions? The only thing I find is that he settled out of court on some lawsuits. I am not a Trump fan but would like to know where that info is, calling him a convicted criminal or gulity of criminal activity may be a bit of a stretch.
"The only thing I find is that he settled out of court on some lawsuits."
Which you generally can't do for *criminal* cases...
So the most anyone could say is Trump settled to avoid civil liability! Let's not forget, though... both parties have to agree with the settlement terms.
He has also been on the receiving end of settlements, as would be expected when you have business dealings in numerous areas. Lawsuits are inevitable...
You're right, I'm wrong. Guilty of operating Trump U without a proper license, personally liable. Fraud case ongoing, looks good for payout.
Illegals no fine. Payment settled out of court, sealed. Should not have listened to Rubio and the recounting of what he said. My bad. The whole affair was tawdry though. Mafia involvement, workers paid $5 an hour and often stiffed on that, extreme ovettime and terribe workinh conditions. -- real shit storm of bad behavior.
So not kgally criminal, but pretty shoddy ptactices with payoffs to escape verdicts. And fraud continues and does not look good.
If you add in covil settlemts Trump has and frivolous cases je waged, may not be criminal but certainly litigiously very busy.
Does Trump really tell it like it is?
Is Trump really a successful businessman?
Is Trump actually even very rich?
For some insight into these questions, I recommend viewing the link provided by Bonv above. (one day ago).
The following are 198 words from the 775 word article you are choosing not to read HH/mg/sd. Roughly 25%. Please tell me if an article is written using that many emotional trigger words and phrases that it is unbiased and worthy of placing even a minuscule of thought into? Now, I realize that you too like to draw from a large pile of trigger words, which is probably why you don't see the article in the same vein that I do. That's OK. I don't post for your feedback, but to present an oft unspoken view that the great majority of what is presented to us is complete and utter bs.
So here is a list culled from that article. You can decide if it was written to give an emotional jolt to a frustrated populous or...:
Mussolini
Hitler
toxic
intense
frustration
apprehension
greatest present threat
security
feared
wrong outcome
the long sweep of history
grave damage
problem
wacky
indecipherable
modern day man on horseback
demagogically
magic solution
roughshod
Ku Klux Klan
disparaged
demeaned the female...
kill
terrorists
extreme...torture
forbid
Muslims
crush
rewrite libel laws
threat
corrupt
demagogue
ascends
control over...
manifest
rule of law
protesters
roughed up
mandate
enemies list
dirty tricks
mandate
doubting
Precedents
Joe McCarthy
George Wallace
Huey Long
rich veins of prejudice
paranoia
excess populism
plausible future president
shudders to think
Cold War
turbulent 1960's
progressive populist
thug
evidenced
threaten our democracy
culimination of trends
Tea Party
obstructed
unfair
possibility of Trump...is dangerous
economy...sub-two percent
lack of confidence
weak world economy
growing sense
protectionist
demagogue
great uncertainty
risk premiums
fragile US economy
recession
protectionists
isolationist
undermine confidence
financial crisis
geopolitical consequences...serious
incredulous
appalled
struggling
influence
"truculent isolationism"
rebalancing
Trans-Pacific Partnership...could collapse
American security
more seriously
inevitable
erratic America
steady China
demagogic appeal
political psychology
frustration
fears
world order
outsider
fighting
left behind
Trumpism
essential
convincing
economic slowdown
authority of ideas
idea of authority
vigorous
political debate
compromise
relegated to the margins
better off we...will be
Jd2....yeah.....insight.....because if we found it on the Internet, and we agree with it, IT MUST BE TRUE!
Maureen, what is clear, is that you are willing/able to "read through" the media propaganda - but only for the information from one party - you are swallowing whole the media propaganda from Trump supporters and it is a substantial book of salesmanship - just look at one issue that is presented, follow it back on your own, don't rely on media outlets - challenge them - as you do those that present the other side's line... THAT's what is needed in voting populous, a willingness to set aside preconceptions and what we WANT to be so in order to justify our views - and a capacity to be open, intelligent, rational and careful in our own processing of information. Jumping on the bandwagon with our eyes closed, whatever the bandwagon, does nothing but keep this circus going...
Well pmnsk, at least the circus will be different.
Voting for any establishment candidate changes nothing. How much more crystal clear can that be after the past 40 years or so?
No, what needs to happen is for people to see that the entire system is a farce in it's current condition, manipulated more than not toward the outcomes those in power want and not toward the real needs of the people. Personally I'm getting to the point of seeing that the only way to fix the system is to first break it and build it back up the way that most of us think it should work. This may be the perfect opportunity to do that.
So much for Rubio being "the only viable republican candidate"... he's won ONE state. He needs to step out, too bad he's going to continue gumming up the works through FL. Ditto to that idiot Kasich, the only reason he's still in is he's angling for someone's- anyone's- VP slot.
If conservatives/republicans are looking for an alternative to Trump, it's Cruz. Last night showed that.
Perhaps Rubio will swallow his moderate side and angle for Cruz's VP position: that's the only way Trump isn't the GOP nominee.
I still think it's going to be Trump.
And apparently Hillary's plan is to try to assassinate his character as a misogynist and womanizer? Laughable- everyone already knows that, and they don't care. He's still winning big. Despite everything both the GOP and the MSM have tried to do to stop him, the freight train rolls on...
Justin... starting to "feel" your ideas, lol... system does seem broken already, but perhaps not enough to prompt real change.
Gee, Darrin, have you watched it?
It is one person's point of view, well presented. Is there truth in it? Absolutely. Is it the whole truth? No, of course not.
We can never get to the whole truth of things, which is why never-ending arguments continue.
JIT, I get where you're coming from but you used the term manipulate. Manipulate means "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously." But in your latest tome, you more accurately, IMHO, said: "an article is written using that many emotional trigger words and phrases that it is unbiased and worthy of placing even a minuscule of thought into? Now, I realize that you too like to draw from a large pile of trigger words....." I think that's a better description and so nice of you to align me with the author and the piece. Cute touch.
First: it's an op/ed, not a news piece, it is meant to emote a reaction. It is allowed to be biased, to have attitude. It's opinion. Perhaps not praiseworthy to be biased yet given it's an opinion, not sure it can't help but be biased. Although you have shown trigger words; you have not shown bias per se.
Second: Manipulate? The article is designed to influence fer sure. Control, sneaky, clever, unfair, unscrupulous --- you'd have to be pretty stupid to have this one sneak up on you in an unfair manner.
Third: Trigger words. No doubt. You can't say Benito Trump without a trigger being pulled. And you're right; I have been saying that before Trump even took the lead. Am I manipulative? No, I am in your face saying straight up that this guy's a fascist and worse than that ---- we have seen it before.
What's really funny is that Trump has often used a grand preponderance of the words you just listed in his grand spectacular rally's to whip up the audience by verbally chomping on some group or other scapegoat for their problems. There's a few cases where he has suggested violence as well. And yet many, including you, have fallen under his spell and see him as good because he is different from the status quo. So he whips up the crowd, offers some generalized plans mostly saying he is great and he will do it better, and then offering no specific plans and more importantly how it gets funded, we are off to the races.
And you of all people seem to have decided that this is all good because it is different from the status quo. Wow, that's not exactly a blue ribbon reason to give a man the keys to the castle. Maybe trigger words do work.
The real issue is not Trump being Trump. It's not trigger words or clever showmanship and delivery. The real issue is that Trump is what the audience wants. It's not the trigger words, it's the audience's desire for what Trump is selling. And when it's all over and I apologize in advance for using a trigger word, but when it's all over, remember, there were no bad Germans civilians.
This sheep will continue to look at the plans and will select the candidate that will spend less while growing the economy more, give us the best chance to begin lowering the deficit and blunting the debt and most importantly, the candidate that will kill less of our kids in some sort of nationalistic or holy war. That will require sacrifice. We will pay more taxes, get less entitlements and programs, and hopefully we will have more kids to enjoy the fruits of our labors. And that ain't Don or Ted
JR, Rubio has been called the only viable Republican candidate in the "general election". No one ever said he had a shot at the shit show that is the Republican primaries, lol. The extreme right has just enough influence to dictate who the Republican nominee will be... but not nearly enough populist support to win a Presidential general election.
I definitely can't see a successful presidential run happening for Ted Cruise, not even with Xenu himself as Vice President.
Trump is a wild card in that he's pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of conservatives but has enough moderate and even liberal views on certain issues that would allow him more widespread support among those political gene pools, while The Wall is apparently enough for the "Two Corinthians" crowd. To be honest, I still don't see him beating Hillary, but he's got a much better shot than Little Cole Trickle does.
4catmom,
Excellent article, thanks for the link. Europeans, with a much better appreciation of history, and the lessons for the future contained within, are more intelligent about our nation's politics than many of our own voters are. The Europeans see from their history the dangers to democracy of an American Hitler or Mussolini.
Too many Americans live their lives in thirty-second video clips, and can't see past the next year, much less the next four years. We, as a nation, can see the polarity and hatred a Trump candidacy has created in less than a year; we should be scared as hell at the prospect of this hatred and division lasting for four years, of a President Trump pitting white against non-white, citizen against immigrant (legal or not), Christian against Muslim (and maybe Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or whoever else he decides isn't "Christian enough"), and tacitly approving the KKK and other hate groups.
And before everyone starts spouting anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric back at me, this is not about Hillary -- I don't care for her either. This is about the potential rise of a hate monger and what his presidency could mean to America. I'm scared as hell for the future of this country should he win the presidency.
"Rubio has been called the only viable Republican candidate in the "general election". No one ever said he had a shot at the shit show that is the Republican primaries, lol."
Well that's been shown to be nonsensical. Rubio doesn't possibly have a shot in the general if he can't even come in 2nd in the primaries- which he's not, and I predict he won't.
As far as Trump's "wide-ranging support", that's exactly why he's sweeping up the primaries, and why he has the best shot to beat Hillary in the general- I don't care what the polls say... again, it's non-sensical: the guy who wins the GOP primary by a landslide ISN'T the guy that could beat the dem nominee? Nonsense. MSM trying to influence voting, that's all.
"Well that's been shown to be nonsensical. Rubio doesn't possibly have a shot in the general if he can't even come in 2nd in the primaries- which he's not, and I predict he won't."
Nonsensical? Do you think that the people who voted for Trump or Cruz would vote for Hillary over Rubio when push comes to shove in a general election? I don't think so.
Do you think that Rubio is more likely than Cruz (especially) or even Trump to get the lion's share of the national moderate (not to be confused with "moderate Republicans", necessarily) vote and even some of the liberal vote from voters who are disgusted with Hillary? That seems perfectly reasonable as well. And the national polls tend to bear that out.
And who's winning the GOP primaries by a landslide? It's been nothing but pluralities so far.
Unfortunately Rubio is Obama Right or Trump Lite. He's too young, unseasoned, not rigid conservative enough (even with his swing to the right for this run) and, as I have said before, needs to go back to the minors for seasoning.
At this point, he has said he will not run for Senate again. Frankly he is risking much because if he continues and loses Fla, he will certainly have a hard time keeping his seat if he changes his mind and decides he still wants to have a job.
Theoretically he could still win a brokered convention but that would be a real mess. And no, they wouldn't vote for Hillary, more likely many Trumpets and Cruisers would just not vote.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
pretty good website to track the reality of how each candidate is doing with the Delegates. Winning states is good and obviously needed to get the nomination but since there are very few winner take all states, coming in 2nd is just as important. Trump is not running away with the delegates as much as he is with the # of state wins.
"And who's winning the GOP primaries by a landslide? It's been nothing but pluralities so far."
Delegates:
Trump 316
Cruz 226
Rubio 106
If that trend continues (and everyone thinks it will, Trump will win handily.
I heard Donald Trump disavow the KKK several times yesterday. Not sure where anyone gets that he supports them.
Metsman Delegates, proportions, "wins" aside...
What's the popular vote total for each (and total primary votes cast)?
Would be interesting to see how a "small" win in a big state trumps (for lack of a better term) a "big" win in a small state.
"strangerdanger' has it understood. This poor sap,Trump,is just another huckster who hi-jacked a political party like Christie did..
The REAL problem is that there are Americans made so desperate for difference,
they will listen to any drunk who staggers in !! REMEMBER ,whether DEM or GOP,
we are the ones who elected( "bought into") the BS since 9/11. We must find people of character to these positions ,not self serving opportunists !!
The leadership was dumb enough (or GREEDY enough) to get GW elected and the corporate side made all kinds of money off the mid east war.
NONE of the candidates are of sufficient stature to run this country ,that's why we cannot now settle for the first loudmouth that makes nothing but self serving brags!
"The REAL problem is that there are Americans made so desperate for difference,
they will listen to any drunk who staggers in !! "
That certainly was the case in the last 2 presidential elections....
My European contacts are very concerned also. They know there sugar daddy's gifts may be over.
4catmom's Link to the NYT
As Europe knows, democracies do die. Often, they are the midwives of their own demise. Once lost, the cost of recovery is high.
Wow, deep JR. Before Bush, I believed in using party preference to pick candidates. I voted based on who's house I would rather be invited to party at. Reagan/Carter/Mondale (that's a Reagan yup) Bush (eh, maybe, oh wait look at the other guy), Clinton (oh yeah, no question, Bubba ho, just leave the wife at home...) Bush (yipppeeee, BBQ, booze, coke, and bring the wife, just don't go to the basement with Cheney), Obama (tough call but McCain really old. Against Romney, ez pick). Now an Obama party was a tough call. Have to dress neat, be PC, not drink much, have to smoke outside, no doobies, sounds pretty boring so I kind of tossed my candidate selection based on party preference.
Let's see, 4 elections ago we did elect a known drunk and coke abusing Momma's boy. And I think he hired a child abuser or some kind of abuser of something to be his second in command. But he was great at BBQ.
After 8 years of stupor, we elected a smooth talker who reminded us of Will Smith, you know, the black Rubio....
Now after 16 years of stupor, we have Benito, Spanky, and Adolph from your side and Liar, Liar and Woodstock from mine. You go Benito, I'll go Liar. PS: they're all criminals so don't bother going there.
I honestly think she'll kill less of us and maybe, just maybe, will force some progress down Congress's throats --- both sides of the aisle. One things for certain, and I don't care what you all say ---- she sure shooting ain't Obama.
But on the party side.....I am sure I don't want to go to Ted's house, I would be burned at the stake as a heretic. Gosh knows what happens at Rubio's place, probably swings both ways --- left and right. And probably has a cover charge. Hillary's will be uptight and probably will have to stay up all night working on something or shredding something. Now Donald's hmmmmm....the lights, the glitz, we be putting on the ritz... nah, let's get real. That would be like being the freshman nerd at a senior football team/cheerleader mixer. I am pretty sure I just wouldn't fit in with the effete elite.
Manipulate is exactly the right word for an opinion piece written by a high ranking (ex) government official to play off the current political environment, basically saying that the world is going to end if Trump is elected. No, the world won't end but it won't be the same either. Somethings will break, and that's not necessarily a bad thing depending on what breaks. Now HH/mg/sd you're the one trying to manipulate and say that it's not really manipulation. Whatever, that's your usual tactic too.
So what is the real issue is for the extremely aggressive rhetoric going around? Protection of the underlying systems of government that will be disrupted by an "outsider" fiddling with things.
While I agree that Trump is not the right guy, the one thing people are expecting with him is that he will NOT do things the establishment way. And since the very definition of change means not doing things the same way, Trump seems to be a good fit for change. Since I still despise the man I don't know what I'll do, but I do know that changing the system is by far the more important objective given the trends of the past several decades.
Mark Mc - A real easy and simple example is something like Texas vs Vermont. Vermont for is worth all of 16 delegates, Texas is 155. Even if you win only 20% or the vote, you get *double* the delegates of all of Vermont.
GC - I understand that.
I was somewhat referring to ianimal's "pluralities" comment above.
Just because Trump wins by say 40% to 30% in one state, that doesn't mean it's negated by Rubio winning 40% to 30% in another.
We could roughly use JR's delegate count for each of them above to say Trump is hovering around 48% of the vote, on average, but I'd like to eliminate any imaginary lines (delegate districts, etc.) and just see out of X million votes cast so far, Trump has gotten Y million of them.
I imagine there is some website somewhere that has these tallies, rather than having to go through all the columns and add them up myself. Some of the charts on CNN chop off the tail ends, which could skew the totals a bit.
SD,
You've got the biggest mouth full of crap I've ever read on this forum. Do you think it's even possible for you to just say what you mean, instead of wording every thought into a compound sentence/diatribe/political blog like you're writing for salon? Seriously, man- reading your long-winded posts got old years ago. Just say what you mean, man!
(my apologies for not being able to say this as thoroughly as JIT already has several times recently)
SD, very entertaining post, about the party preference-method of picking candidates! Where do you get this stuff.
Everybody's a critic :-)
Thanks jd, I just let my fingers do the typing.
JR: better see the DR. You got trash mouth.
JIT: I do understand what you're saying, just don't see manipulation. Funny that using the same words, you didn't note the same fo Trump. I understand your desire for change and appreciate your hesitation with Trump. I am guessing he won't grow on you. So we agree on the evocative words, not on the manipulation and that's that.
And before you continue to accuse me of manipulation, please remember your 4-star, 4-letter meltdown where you attempted to vulgarly blast me off HL altogether. Perhaps intimidation would be more accuate. Move on.
There you go again, calling Bush a known drunk and coke abuser and Cheney a child abuser while no mention of Clinton the womanizer and philanderer or was "Bubba ho" your reference to that.
My preferred candidate is out of the race. I have nothing to lose. Wouldn't it be grand if old macgoogle would follow suite.
...what is worse is to elect yet another bought-and-sold politician like the rest of the candidates...
What are the odds that Trump runs as an independent, given the pundits' talk about GOP finally freaked out by his success and considering doing anything to stop him? What is the scenario in that event?
Just elected into the new Republican party. ( They are among us.)
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/reports-travis-county-gop-seeks-to-remove-chairman-who-says-rick-perry-was-a-rampaging-bisexual-adulterer.html/
>>As Europe knows, democracies do die. Often, they are the midwives of their own demise. Once lost, the cost of recovery is high.<<
+1 Old Gent!
The only thing that I would add is that democracy has been (rather correctly) defined as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
Lots of people who love the "idea" of democracy also profess to support "minorities."
Problem is, "democratic" rule creates minorities who often have no choice but to comply with the will of the majority. These minorities could easily be 49% or even more of the governed population.
Often, these majorities are easily led into supporting some batshit-crazy stuff by slick propaganda or by being indoctrinated by government schools and the mass media.
True liberty isn't easy but, like exercising and eating right, it's worth it.
Y'all are arguing over Doritos vs. Pringles here.
There is no reason to expect that democracy in the USA will die, and anyone who thinks or advocates that needs a roadmap to Canada.
I am asking for a roadmap to the 2016 election in the event that Trump runs as an independent. Anyone got some ideas?
If Trump runs independent, the republican vote is split and Clinton walks away with it.
Gadfly "If Trump runs independent, the republican vote is split and Clinton walks away with it."
Distinct possibility. And that happens because the GOP WANTS to LOSE- kill their own party. By purposely not supporting Trump. Because they would rather lose than acknowledge any power the the actual people. They can't have us voting in WHO WE ACTUALLY WANT- the vote can't actually MATTER. The end of the republican party having any power in the US for a couple of decades. The libs dream of EuroMerica will be complete.
(except for the guns- as I said, you'll never get them, that'll be when the SHTF)
IF Trump is the nominee by winning the primary vote handily, I don't think they'll try to broker the convention (I don't think they technically can). If Trump does not have the required number of votes to be a nominee and they have to re-vote at the convention, things could get ugly indeed.
On the other hand, if Trump really wants to win, and is smart enough to NOT run 3rd party, the Cruz/Rubio voters will line up behind him more than they would for Hillary, and Trump wins. If Cruz or Rubio join Trump (unlikely?), they walk away with it.
This has certainly been the most interesting election cycle in my lifetime.
At least Carson got out- FINALLY. Now if only Kasich would wise the hell up. Vote suckers.
Yes, we are a representative republic with a democratic voting system... for the most part. It's corrupt as hell tho, with all the gerrymandering and "superdelegate" BS....
+1 kb2755 - a very unbalanced and toxicly mean spirited individual, agreed
+1 jjmonth - the two sides keeping everyone busy attacking each other prevents real progress, and if you look over the history of the human race this ahs been happening for thousands of years. you are making some very good points.
the republicans keep trotting out ;mitt romney. looks like they are developing a plan B.
the demos keep trotting out Biden, looks like they are developing their own plan B for a fall back position.
hillary could very well self implode from all of the true scandals surrounding her,
trump has a way of offending just about everyone out there somehow, and he's still standing, but not sure for how long.
there is a solid possibility that this election may look much different come november.
and as jjmonth posits; at the end of the day, repub or demo, not much is likely to change, the government will continue to grow bigger, taxes will continue to grow larger, and more and more 'regulations' will be written by unelected bureaucrats who just love to lord it over 'the commoners'
"That's right! I said it!" (ML quote)
I would prefer Romney and perhaps Biden over any of the candidates running, except maybe Kasich.
Agreed jd2. I'd be ok with Kasich since he's the only one running. I actually like Romney but he's not running nor is Biden.
Here's an interesting article out of Germany, exploring Trump's German roots. Did you know Germany deported Trump's grandfather, Friedrich Drumpf? It's explained herein.
http://www.dw.com/en/what-donald-trump-learned-from-his-german-grandpa-friedrich-drumpf/a-18701551
Ah, now good 'ole Mitt is tossing around the "You didn't build that!" line regarding Trumps business.
Sounds awfully familiar... are we sure Obama didn't just find a Scooby Doo mask that looks like Mittens?
You guys may as well call yourself democrats if you'd wanna vote for Romney. He's a dirty insider that once again gets absolutely nothing done and is owned by special interest and donors. Why would anyone want that and continue this nonsense. I know SD does :-)
Just so you guys know, NOBODY voting in the republican primary gives a crap what Romney says... we didn't give a crap what he said when he ran himself, hence the low voter turnout... Romney will have ZERO effect.
Maybe Romney should have went after Obama the last time the way he went after Trump today, he might have better luck. Buh-bye, Mitt.
Romney is a manageable puppet whose strings can be precisely controlled. Given the mindset of Trump supporters, I can't see Romney having any influence at all. The ones Romney can influence are already anti-Trump. A wasted effort IMO.
The problem with the Republican strategy on this one is that they refuse to see that most Republicans hate the party offerings of religiously conservative career politicians. Attacking Trump is a losing strategy.
maja Attacking Trump is a losing strategy for sure, but it's got nothing to do with religion or conservative politics. TONS of conservatives are voting for Trump. Trump has won more of the evangelical vote in some primaries than Cruz has. The reason Trump is winning is because he is perceived as an outsider- if the GOP doesn't want him, the people DO. Period. The republican voters are sick and tired of having candidates shoved down their throat, and this year they decided to rise up and do something about it- RECORD VOTER TURNOUTS- no more moderate McCains, no more joke Romneys, they're angry and they want their candidate to be as angry as they are.
Frankly, only a Cruz/Rubio ticket could derail the Trump train.... and I'm not even sure THAT could.
Trump is smarter than Reagan, not that I was a fan of Reagan and his Reaganomics. Trickle down didn't work. Reagan was considered by many Republicans to be a great Republican President. Just take this for consideration...
They call it Trumpanomics too and it features not trickle down but total flood.
Totally agree with JeffersonRepub, no one is derailing Trump. Republican and many independent voters are tired of what is going on in Washington and they want an outsider with real change. These Republican politicians better start supporting him instead of fighting against him because that is what the majority Republican voters want.
Jete 22 You can't derail Trump. He is off the rails to begin with.
Like he told us about his anatomy last night, he has no problem in that department. So Presidential. A beacon.
"These Republican politicians better start supporting him instead of fighting against him because that is what the majority Republican voters want."
that's actually not true. Trump is getting 34% of the votes. Which means 66% of the Republican voters want one of the establishment candidates.
Republicans need Rubio to drop out. He has no shot and has been very poor in these Debates. Maybe in another 8 years he will be ready. But him staying in until he loses FL is really screwing up the party. He is young, inexperienced, unprepared. Everything Republicans knocked Obama for being so I find it strange that they are building Rubio up as the party's front man.
Cruz needs SOMEONE to endorse him from outside of TX. its sad no one likes him. I mean no one. Not a single current Senator has endorsed him. only 1 Governor, TX, has endorsed him. No one else finds that strange?
Kasich has a shot but needs a sweep of the BIG10 states. OH, and IL are all winner take all states and he should win both. that will get him into the race. With some success he will start getting more endorsements as the party realizes Rubio has no shot and starts turning their support to Kasich. Plus MI will get him a good amount of delegates. and he has a shot later on to take PA. Plus CA is his to lose if he can hold on that long.
Last night Debate he was a clear winner as he finally got to talk.
But the party needs to tell Rubio this year its not your time and get him the F out of the race.
darwin - Do you think that Kasich, called by many as "the only adult in the room", and after winning more states and delegates, could stop the runaway train?
darwin - Don't find it strange at all that no one endorses Cruz. Mr Obstructionist Green Eggs & Ham told all the rest to screw off, and they have. Also shouldn't find it so strange Rubio is being built up for the simple reason that he beats either Hillary or Bernie. Trump outright loses, and Cruz is a toss up. In Trump's words, they want to get used to winning. But what it takes to win an R nomination is exactly what loses in a general election. That's why their party is so split. Kasich has a shot at being the spoiler, but even in a brokered convention I could see them drafting someone new before giving him the nod.
Oddly enough, if Kasich would have run as a Democrat, he would probably be the next POTUS, lol.
ianimal - At least Kasich managed to articulate a knowledgeable foreign policy last night. No one else addressed the subject, they just bashed each other, third grade style.
DannyC, I like him... he's sensible, unlike the rest of the freak show.
But the Republican party is such a trainwreck that "sensible" is seen as a character flaw, lol.
They all have to stay in to get to brokered convention. If any drops, Trump probably wins. Need Rubio to take fl. Kasich oh.
"Like he told us about his anatomy last night, he has no problem in that department. So Presidential. A beacon."
Yeah, I mean, his only competition in that category is Bill Clinton... nothing unpresidential about a semen stain on a blue dress in the Oval Office. A Beacon.
Yeah. That's a fair comparison.
A self-serving public announcement versus a private encounter that you spent millions to drag out under oath from a whack job souvenir hunter.
Two adults in private versus one child in tantrum.
JR, what about the fact that he seems to be getting more liberal by the day? Is that not starting to offend your conservative sensibilities?
Two adults acting like children (since we're talking ADULTERY here) vs one adult acting like a child (and hurting NO ONE in the process).
But then I wouldn't expect you to see it that way of course," free-thinking liberal " that you are.
BTW- I agree that Trump was unpresidential with his comment. But Clinton's actions were far worse.
"JR, what about the fact that he seems to be getting more liberal by the day? Is that not starting to offend your conservative sensibilities?"
I'm not voting for Trump. But yes- he needs to be careful, because his "close the border" stand is the one that above all else is getting him elected (so far), so he needs to be very careful with how flexible he's going to be without alienating his core supporters.
Carly Fiorina was the only candidate that had the BALLS to say exactly what Planned Parenthood is, and exactly what needs to be done to it.
Good idea, JR. Let's stop funding an organization that provides health care to low and middle income women that might not otherwise be able to have timely, affordable, access to a doctor.
So what, with your vast knowledge of everything, IS Planned Parenthood?
"conservative sensibilities?" oxy, oxy, oxymoron in come free :>)
Comparable. One was a private affair, the other a public announcement. I agree that both were reprehensible. Kids should not be watching Donald Trump, he is a bad influence with bad language and bad behaviors. That's a pretty bad start for a President. Clinton's transgressions were only brought out by spending millions of our dollars to satisfy your prurient interests. While he is a cad, why did conservatives spend so much of our money to determine what everyone knew? He's a cad. He would not have been a bad influence if you had kept our money in our pockets and not wasted it just because inquiring twits need to know.
"But then I wouldn't expect you to see it that way of course," free-thinking liberal " that you are." Oh give me a break. Is it conservative to discover who beds who? Is it liberal not to care who beds who? Do we really need these details from our Presidents as a matter of public knowledge and policy?
If so, the Donald's sexual transgressions will be of billionaire levels no doubt. Not to mention those creepy Donald/Ivanka pics.
Glad to know you're not voting Trump, me either.... :>) But I might have gone for Bush (no jokes please...)
His stand on flexibility is pragmatic though. Our leaders do need to exercise a modicum of flexibility as well as non-flexibility depending on the issue and potential results. Cruz's no quarter stance is a no brainer, non starter resulting in very little potential progress in any direction.
LBJ who was not exactly a compromiser said (I think he said it, but can't find it) "you got to get along to get along." Now maybe he was willing to compromise but he was no weakling or bad dealmaker. He's got some uncompromising quotes that would curl your toes.
Independent of what he has said in previous years, I do think Trump will honestly try to do what he said. It's just that most of what he says is nothing. And what few sparse plans he has outlined are too damn expensive and won't work. I think last night he basically telegraphed that you will get a wall, it just won't be 50 feet high. You will deport some immigrants, just not 11 million. And you will still go broke (I said that, he didn't).
Along the way he will add to our current divisive atmosphere and may incite some really hostile actions against a number of different groups in a very un-American way. He is a low road to take.
I just want to stop funding an abortion mill that sells baby parts. ZERO taxpayer dollars should go to that evil organization.
So, that's what I don't get JR. You and many other conservatives absolutely HATE Planned Parenthood. It doesn't bother you that Trump supports them?
JR, if you are against abortion then you should be equally supporting what happens to the babies that are saved from abortion. These babies often have severe disabilities and/or are not wanted by their own parents. Just to "save" them but doomed to live a painful life does not make sense to me...
Nobody's perfect (Trump). And as I said- I'm not voting for Trump.
You guys have to understand- Trump's #1 issue is IMMIGRATION. Yes, he's perceived as an "outsider" (and he is, if you define "insider" as "career politician"). He has such huge popularity on 2 fronts:
1) secure the border/stop illegal immigration- for both a homeland security standpoint and a jobs standpoint. NO AMNESTY.
2) create jobs/fix the economy - which the last 16 years of government have not been able to accomplish.
If Trump does just those 2 things, most of his supporters will take the bad with the good. Because without immigration control / with any form of amnesty, America is over. That's the end game. THAT is why Trump's supporters are so rabid.
My family is divided: my mom and I are willing to vote for Trump in the general, but we will not vote for a moderate (Rubio). My sister and niece have seen enough of Trump's antics to be in the #NeverTrump movement currently happening. They will stay home before they vote for Trump.
The delegate votes are a lot closer than previously reported- while Trump is still a juggxrnaught, Cruz is gaining... today's CLOSED primaries and caucuses (where ONLY republicans can vote), will be telling..... do Cruz & Rubio team up? (they could beat both Trump and Hillary), or is the Trump train unstoppable?
@Gadly - the last thing I heard him say about PP is that he supports them MINUS the abortion part. LOL.
Not that it matters what Trump says. He doesn't really say much and what he does say changes. He is bulletproof. The Teflon Don?
It's o.k. to have people break the law, enter your country illegally and sign up for free hand-outs ..... Have as many children as they wish because these offspring are immediate citizens and can enjoy all the rights and privileges of being a citizen because of some archaic law made 175 years ago when the US population was 31,000,000 and it is now 322,000,000. It is breaking the countries back supporting all these people and if you talk about sending them home libs paint you as " A Un-American Racist ". We have to get over that feel good mentality and start following this countries laws instead of mining these people for Democratic votes. Just what does it cost having these uninvited guests stay here as opposed to sending them home ? Tell me just what country can Americans sneak in - and get food stamps and free medical care ?
If the GOP doesn't want a "populist" candidate winning their primary, perhaps that should have kept the promises they made to their constituency instead of folding like a cheap camera upon arrival in DC. The GOP has MADE THIS SITUATION THEMSELVES.
It may be the re-taking of the republican party by a more conservative base, or, depending upon the actions of the GOP at the convention (brokered?), it may be the END of today's republican party having enough popularity to ever win again- making itself irrelevant.
And while I think Trump is light years better than Hillary- he's a wild card. I honestly have no idea if a Trump presidency would be good, bad, or irrelevant. There are just so many different things going on right now.... no new jobs, economy sucks, border isn't secure, terrorist attacks, housing market has never recovered, etc etc etc...... there's just no way for ANYONE to be able to predict the future. NO ONE knows what the future holds, and anyone who thinks they do is delusional and in self-denial.
Here's an interesting read... yes, it's Rush Limbaugh BUT- it's not an opinion piece, it's straight up political analysis about the primary/brokered convention, and why Trump is so popular. Even those who don't like Rush, because it's not an opinion piece, I think you will find it very interesting...
I would have cut & pasted, but it's too long for the forum.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/03/04/keep_your_eye_on_convention_rule_40
I have read been following your thread and everyone has valid points, for me my attitude has changed to Trumps favor when I started to look at his family. They all support him 1000% and unite behind him, doesn't seem like they are spoiled even after being raised on a golden spoon. We have so many family related problems in this county which must have an impact on our future as whole...if a family can't get along how can a country get along.
As far as the establishment hating him it is only because if he gets in they will actually have to earn their paycheck. And that goes for both sides of the aisle and whatever side you are on we are still the UNITED States of America
MM MM - Are any of Trump's family actually out on the trail stumping for him? Hillary's family is 1000% behind her and they are all out campaigning for her. If that's your criteria, then your candidate is Clinton. Even the politest way to describe that argument is less than "weak".
JR wrote "There are just so many different things going on right now.... no new jobs, economy sucks, border isn't secure, terrorist attacks, housing market has never recovered, etc etc etc.."
There's a problem with many conservatives and republicans these days, in that in the face of reality, they simply choose to ignore it and make stuff up that better suits their narrative. Like Carly Fiorina with the Planned Parenthood debacle. She basically just made shit up, and when countless fact checking showed her to have done so, she simply doubled down and continued to stick by the lie.
JR, you are sounding fairly similar. you can say that there are no jobs, but we continue to add jobs on a monthly basis. 242,000 jobs added in February with unemployment at 4.9 percent. The economy sucks? Not really. It may not be as robust as we'd like but this is due more to the global economy hurting. By that comparison the US is holding fairly strong, and the stock market correction was just that...an overdue correction tied to falling oil prices and fear of rising interest rates.
Housing? Home prices are rising, and last year was the best year for existing home sales since 2006, so obviously housing has experienced a very strong recovery. Sure, my house may not be valued by Zillow at $320,000 like it was in 2007, but then it was never worth that....that was a price inflated by a vastly overheated housing market that had no ties to reality.
OK, so you have something with the border not being as secure as it should be, and there have been terrorist attacks with the Boston marathon bombing and the husband and wife in San Bernadino. But as terrible as these events were, they pale in comparison to Paris or 9/11.
So aside from a couple mildy accurate points, it really sounds like you are just making stuff up that supports your end goal...making Obama look like the worst President in history. The truth is far, far different. But truth doesn't really seem to matter to Republicans these days.
True to all your thoughts gadfly...character doesn't seem to register and you really don't understand why the success.
My candidate would never be Clinton, I remember who signed NAFTA and I do know that if I compromised national security I would never be granted any kind of investigation but would simply taken away
eperot,
If you haven't learned by now how the jobs numbers are spun, you'll probably never learn.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx
an excerpt:
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
MM; its profiable for the Trump family to be pro-Trump. His tax plan will net them an additional $2.5 Billion in inheritance. I might vote for Drumpf for just a fraction of that.
The inheritance tax we're talking about affects only the top .14%. That's point 14 percent and its been in place for decades.
His family will also benefit greatly from reduced Drumpf business taxes but personal taces are unknown since The Donald is hiding those.
Stranger danger,
Agreed that their would be some personal gains on there behalf but he still would have to negotiate with congress and the people. If I remember right the Clintons were broke when they went into office according to Hill.
My point is look at all the broken families and not only has he managed a business his children aren't being arrested everyday and if there was dirt the media would have tossed it by now. To me that in itself is an accomplishment in this day and age. We have a lot of issues to deal with and personally feel both parties need to evolve for the better of the country. I served in the Army and was fortunate enough to never have to go into conflict and although I did not vote for BO if he showed up in my driveway in need of willing and able bodies to do the countries bidding I would grab my bag. My parents had a lot of influence on me as to my va.lues and morals as well as the POTUS should try to carry on the core values of our country regardless of what party.
I also own a small business and it is in the service industry, after the 30yrs we have reached a point where the things have changed so much that repair is not the best option. Sometime upgrading to a new replacement is the answer and our machine is old and broken. I like view points from all candidates on both sides but realize I can't pick from all the trees and put in one basket.
I see what you mean that Trump means change but you get pocket change and he gets $2.5 billion dollars. Change is good but we can't afford Trump.
His tax plan nets him a minimum of $2.5B, costs us trillions in deficit and debt and a promise that the economy will cover.
His walll/deportation plan will remove undocumented, cost us $600B to 1Trillion and wreck the economy especially in States like TX, CA, NY and NJ. Unemployment will rise not fall.
His health plan turns control away from the states and under Trump federal control.
I am all for change that brings us tigether to solve our problems. I am against change that bankrupts us while personally profitting the power broker President.
Hand-wringing from a Trump-basher: If we stop Trump, and get Cruz or Rubio instead, are we better off? Trump is unqualified, of course, and says crazy stuff, but he doesn't seem to be a political fanatic. On the other hand, Cruz?
My only reply is look at the deficit are we really better off, we are in a position that we owe so much money it can't be paid off.
Man-boy Rubio & pipe-dreamer Kasich need to drop out. They are doing their party a disservice by sucking votes away from Trump & Cruz at this point. The party has spoken, and it's between Trump and Cruz.
If rubio or Kasich is praying for a brokered convention, they shouldn't- as the article I posted earlier said, with the vote numbers, it's obvious who the people want, and if the GOP tries to broker a choice not made by the PEOPLE'S VOTE, they'll burn the party to the ground.
I didn't write this, but it seems the most reasonable/logical scenario:
President Rubio is not going to happen.
Marco Rubio’s temptation may be now to walk away. But Marco Rubio does not need to walk away. Ted Cruz and the nation need Marco Rubio.
John Kasich has shown every ambition to be Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential pick. Kasich has blocked punches against Trump, held his own fire, and even praised Trump at a time everyone else is fighting him.
Cruz needs Rubio in an alliance. Like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush uniting the GOP in 1980, a Cruz-Rubio alliance would unite the GOP now. Cruz supporters who dislike Rubio would begrudgingly embrace Rubio. Rubio supporters who disdain Cruz would begrudgingly support Cruz because of Marco Rubio.
Together they keep the wings of the Republican Party from splitting. Together, Rubio can throw the personal punches at Trump that have so thrown Trump off his game and Cruz can throw the policy punches that show how shallow Trump really is.
....and even in that scenario, I'm not sure Cruz/Rubio could beat Trump/Kasich.... Trump's numbers are just so strong. Altho Cruz is now only about 70 delegates behind Trump, so it's a lot closer race than the media is portraying. I noticed this morning a few MSM sources listed the winners of the primaries yesterday, but NOT the delegate counts.... don't want us to see how close the race is? Trying to control the narrative? NAH.... the MSM would NEVER do that,, after all, they're JOURNALISTS, totally impartial and dedicated to the truth.... right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JeffersonRepub -
Do you think John Kasich would lower himself to run with Trump? Chris Christie, yes, that obese, opportunist, traitorous, Obama-hugging thug from jersey. Is anyone else willing to hitch their political career on Trump's stagecoach, formerly a runaway train, which may now be breaking some wooden wheels?
"Obama-hugging thug"
Man Danny you really need to move on from that hug. It's getting creepy this obsession you have with it.
Darwin -
No matter how many times you criticize it, I will never forgive Christie for that "viral" nationally visible Obama-hug just a few days before the 2008 election. I believe that it helped get Obama get elected in 2008, coupled with Romney's incompetence, of course. At the very least, it showed Christie's lack of principles, political strategy and good judgment, so it's all on him.
Danny,
I think Kasich will do whatever he has to to get himself in the white house, even as VP. Everyone on this forum sees him as this "nice guy" or whatever, but I see an egomaniac who doesn't know when to quit. Even if he wins Ohio, he's done. He has ZERO chance. He should drop out, but he won't- because of his ego.
Of course every single one of these people have egos, or they wouldn't be running. I find Kasich very much like Trump in that, if you asked him, he would tell you not only is the best governor in Ohio history but he would be one of the best presidents in history as well.
Maybe Trump will make him Postmaster General LOL, since every time he opens his mouth we have to hear about HOW HIS FATHER WAS A MAILMAN.
Go home, John.
We need more hugs all around.
I'm for anything that gets a brokered convention. Will keep the entertainment value high.
The Republican party is already broken. Question is can it put itself together again.
MSN had the delegate count every 15 minutes. FOX avoids adding numbers, its hard for them.
John Mccain: "At a time when our world has never been more complex or more in danger... I want Republican voters to pay close attention to what our party's most respected and knowledgeable leaders and national security experts are saying about Mr. Trump, and to think long and hard about who they want to be our next Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.”
Unfortunately, I am not sure that it is "thinking" that is producing Trump's numbers....
JeffersonRepub -
You say to John Kasich "go home". To Marco Rubio "go home", too? So if it is just Trump vs. Cruz, then what? What will the GOP establishment (Mitt Romney being irrelevant) do about that?
We didn't like McCain then. We don't like him now. He's not a conservative. Ditto with Romney- who as I predicted had ZERO effect on the numbers of this race. Go home, McCain. McCain is being challenged this year and I hope he LOSES.
Yes, Rubio needs to go home (or become Cruz' VP).... Romney LOL As I predicted, NO ONE CARES. Voters didn't like or turn out for him then, we don't give a crap what he says now. He had ZERO effect on the race with his "plea". What a joke.
The more the GOP tells us (thru McCain or Romney or whoever) that "we need to listen to them", the bigger the anti-establishment sentiment goes. The GOP effed up big-time in the last few elections, not giving us candidates we actually wanted, and now they're paying. You sleep in the bed YOU made. The GOP establishment MADE THIS TRUMP MONSTER, now they reap it.
I *think*, given the choice between Cruz/Rubio and Trump, the GOP would support Cruz/Rubio.... but only because of Rubio. I actually think the GOP would prefer Trump to Cruz. But the numbers are already in: It MUST BE Trump or Cruz, or the republican voters will blow up this party, and the convention. The GOP will be treading on very thin ice if they try to broker the nomination. Especially with the Trump supporters- they are so ANGRY, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the convention turns into a riot. No joke.
JeffersonRepub -
A brokered nomination would be a disaster, and not going to happen. Who do you think will win, Trump or Cruz? Not what I want, just trying to predict the future, LMFAO
Right now, I give the edge to Trump, but Cruz isn't far behind, and seems to be gaining momentum. The closed primaries (where only republicans can vote) Cruz does better in... which I think is telling as to who the republican base wants. Trump's huge popularity is due in large part to tons of crossover votes from moderates and even democrats... that's why he wins big in the open primaries.
So they are not conservatives but you are. So good to know white from wrong.
Enjoy your ever shrinking circle while you continue to scream that <50% is the majority.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out
Interesting perspectives about voting for Trump that I find surprisingly relatable.
Great article. Nothing we didn't already know (why people are voting for Trump in droves), but it's a nice all-in-one-place explanation.
Hey JIT, I see Rand voted for Cruz.... I think you're a Rand guy, right? What do you think of Rand's endorsement? Just curious....
This is from Glenn Beck, who I know a lot of you think is a nut job and would reject anything he said out-of-hand without even reading it, lol, but I think he's got this one dead-on balls accurate:
Marco Rubio has such a promising future but I fear he is about to blow it.
He is having a terrible night all around the country.
The polls are tightening in Florida but at this point he still stands a very good chance of losing.
If he loses his home state he begins to have the image of Romney.
A nice guy, establishment and a guy who can't win.
He could instead be known as the king maker.
He could now out, endorse Ted Cruz. Maybe become the Vice President and be a part of a campaign that would have HUGE coat tails and change the course of the country in the same way Reagan Bush did.
Why risk the loss? He is young and electable at the right time.
Stop listening to the party elites and listen to the people. There is a revolution going on. Either Trump or Cruz.
If Trump wins the nomination AND Rubio loses in Florida not only will he look small and Romney-like, but also be blamed for the loss of the nomination.
Marco, play the long game. Just as GHWBush did in 1980.
No, not a Rand guy. I have no idea what he's been saying or doing.
Really liked his father though.
If Marco wants to run in Fl for senate, he should drop out now.
He has said he will not run for senate and wants to focus on president. Might want to backpeddle that one.
If he wants to curry party leadership favor, they may want him to continue. Better be sure they cough up a job post november then.
Looking past all the poopadoodle, as Andy says, there is only one difference between all the candidates. That is the one world order goals of them all. That is what is so secrete about the NYT’s article. Trump met the head honcho at that meeting and Trump had some nice things to say about him. That’s why he is such a threat to them.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/03/donald-trump-held-briefing-with-richard-haass-head-of-council-on-foreign-relations/?_
Check out Heidi Cruze. They are the Republican answer to the Clinton Dynasty.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/23/heidi-cruz-presidential-race-profile/70329060/
This little tid bit in this article. She is a member of the council
Also conveniently missing from Heidi’s Wikipedia bio, is her service as Depty US Trade rep to USTR head Robert Ziellick. At USTR, Heidi worked on US,China trade police. The one Donald talks about so much.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/who-is-the-real-ted-cruz/#ixzz428Ktpvb8
So it is as Caesar’s world, as the world turns.
"Man-boy Rubio & pipe-dreamer Kasich need to drop out. They are doing their party a disservice by sucking votes away from Trump & Cruz at this point. The party has spoken, and it's between Trump and Cruz."
Out of all the primary contests to date, only two of the top ten and five of the top twenty states in population have weighed in with their votes. I think it's a bit premature to call for Rubio and Kasich to bail, unless you're a Ted Cruise supporter, that is.
"Out of all the primary contests to date, only two of the top ten and five of the top twenty states in population have weighed in with their votes. I think it's a bit premature to call for Rubio and Kasich to bail, unless you're a Ted Cruise supporter, that is."
Well that makes one of you. (three of you if you count Rubio and Kasich)
Using your rationale, Cruise should drop out since he's trailing by a pretty big margin already and he already blew his delegate wad with Texas. He's not going to win California, NY, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, PA or NJ. And most of them are winner take all. He's a dead man walking and has zero upside.
Kasich has no chance of winning the nomination but at least he has the chance to pump up his political power immensely when he captures all of Ohio's delegates. He'd be a fool to drop out now. If not the VP nomination, he'll definitely wind up with a Cabinet position out of it.
Comparing Cruz trailing by 82 delegates to Rubio trailing by 254 and Kasich trailing by 347 is laughable... but that's what I expect from you, Ian. It's a two-man race, everybody except you, Kasich, and Rubio knows it.
It's not even a two-man race. If Cruise were WINNING by 100 or so delegates right now instead of losing... maybe. His constipated toad face and his particular brand of right wing zealotry isn't going to play in the big delegate states that are left.
And I never said Kasich had a chance to win; I said he has an opportunity for political GAIN by staying in. He'd be a fool to give up now before cashing in that chip. He's probably spent close to two years getting to this point. Why should he quit when the payoff is on the horizon?
JR - As ianimal is already saying, you don't get it. Only Cruisers could think it's just two men. If it was just two men then it's all over, Drumpfenstein wins. The all or nothing states guarantee that. But if he doesn't then in a brokered convention even without any additional delegates, Rubio holds the cards. Or Rubio does combined with Kasich. It's laughable to figure they won't be there for that. He stays in the race, Drumpfenhe becomes the king maker.
In Ohio, Cruisers might be the one to challenge if he had Rubio's votes. But in Florida, Cruisers support is plummeting by the minute and is holding Rubio back. So who do you want to drop out? Florida is more delegates so why not Cruisers? The more you argue, the more the Drumpfenstein monster takes over.
Which brings up the subject of the Tea Party in the china shop where breaking everything in site is a good thing. So why isn't breaking the party just the same? It's hypocritical to not want it all to collapse.
Timothy Leary's reality maybe.
If there's one thing that the Tea Party excels at, it's not getting things done.
I wasn't referring to the reality to which you subscribe HH/mg/sd.
Of course my comments are big picture based, as they usually are. I was thinking economically in my previous comment. Honest money, specifically, that can't be gamed so easily, as it is today, would do wonders to temper everyone's appetite for destruction (literally in the case of the federal government).
BTW, is your newest name, "Syringe Danger", a clue as to how you reach conclusions via the Timothy Leary method?
j/k of course, but the coincidental timing is impeccable ;-)
Talk to the smart phone :-)
It might understand you and you share the same sense of humor.
That may be the first funny you told although it did come at my expense. Small change, keep those laughs coming. Even big pictue ones.
You know you don't have the names right at all.
Call me crazy but maybe it's not the best idea when you are running for president to ask a room full of supporters to raise their right hand. The image might not look that great. Especially after you just had to make numerous statements that you don't like white supremacist groups.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/05/trump_supporters_raise_right_hands_to_pledge_support_to_donald_trump.html?utm_content=inf_10_2641_2&wpsrc=socialedge&tse_id=INF_8ef1c6c9fd6b43d59e64903f59f2b388
It's like a broken record, that's nothing new JR. You've been saying it all along, it's not like people don't know what they're signing up for. They already know that. It's not like people don't know his father was arrested at a KKK meeting. Or Drumpfenstein himself lost a law suit for refusing to rent apartments to blacks in the 70's. Saluting at a rally to pledge your loyalty is old news.
"Saluting at a rally to pledge your loyalty is old news."
Old news, yes, especially since we all do it at every sporting event and our children do it daily every morning.
What we pledge to makes all the difference though. Obviously you and many others are concerned about the meaning of this particular pledge.
Isn't this a variant of Godwin's Law you like to regularly remind everyone about?
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/john-kasich-leading-michigan-poll/2016/03/05/id/717656/
Kasich isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Especially if this latest poll in MI turns out to be accurate. If he wins MI and then has another strong performance at the debate he'll have major momentum. Plus he has the Terminator out campaigning for him :)
GOP needs to sit Rubio down and get him to drop out. Then put all their support to Kasich for the March rush. Promise Rubio 2024 will be is year LOL
Oh the horror HH/mg/sd! This is, as GC likes to point out, just Godwin's Law at work. The difference being you and others are on the other side of the fence in this case, using the imagery to support your position. Funny how in the past it has been ridiculous for others to use Hitler references, but now...
IMO Trump can sink himself without all the Hitler and Benito references.
LOL, Darwin... I wouldn't hold your breath for Kasich winning Michigan. Every other poll but the one you cited shows Trump as a double-digit favorite with the first digit being a TWO in several of them. But, it would be a pretty big victory for him to come in second, which he has a much better shot of pulling off.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-3933.html
Like Trump is not using imagery, theatrics and the rest of the visual and audible art of the con to suck these sheep in.
Erase the past, that's just for examples of the art of the con.
Now go to the message, the tricks, the theatrics, the very spectacle of it all and you wind up at the same place. A huckster selling hate to the frustrated. The pictures are just hopefully to jump start that train of thought.
Ha. The Ohio governor winning the Michigan presidential primary is like Jim Harbaugh getting elected mayor of Columbus. (-;
"Now go to the message, the tricks, the theatrics, the very spectacle of it all and you wind up at the same place. A huckster selling hate to the frustrated."
Yeah, reminds me of the last 2 elections.
Just a different huckster and a different set of frustrated people.
Yeah they're If this reminds you of anything that you have ever seen, get glasses, thick ones.
Are you telling me Obama sold hate to the frustrated? a message of Hope and Change is hate? Might be frustrated with what they got...... but dont' think he was selling the hate messages that this guy is. Of course you have to have buyers...... buyers for all Mexicans illegally crossing the boarders are rapists, stop all Muslims from coming here, etc. etc. etc.
Haters gotta hate.
"Sticks and stones, Love....."
Perhaps a hater, doubtful, but if so, at least a hater with statistics :>)
Remember, Make America Grate Again --- use parmesan with your pasta
Demonize Mexicans
Demonize Muslims
Demonize China
Respect Putin
Quote Mussolini
Demonize the Press
Demonize Politicians
Demonize International Business
Forget who David Duke is
If you're not with us, you're a criminal, a foreigner, ugly, and an idiot
Please raise you hand in allegiance in an offensive Nazi salute in a HUGE propaganda rally and say, hey, I didn't know it was offensive, we were having fun and they wanted to do it. But I will look into it, maybe, we'll see.
Yeah, this is getting good all right.
Trump just keeps winning! I'm petrified that he is going to win. If so, I'm going to that island in Canada! Americans can sleep in their own bed now, you idiots deserve what you get.
Larry T-R-U-M-P
What is your alternative SD? Pick one of the other "bought and sold" politicians? I am tired of this happening at the Federal and State level and to a large degree at the local level as well. To derail this "special interest corruption train" it takes picking someone different. Maybe Trump won't do shi! but I can tell you it will be 5 cents more than any of the other candidates.
T-R-U-M-P..
Strangerdanger are you for real? Stop drinking the Koolaid. to liken Trump to Hitler is a joke.
Well, Trump is certainly going to take our country back! It would take something drastic for him to not get the nomination at this point. Cruz isn't far behind, but the trend of Trump beating Cruz overall in every round tells the story. Even if Cruz and Rubio (or Kasich) joined forces, I don't think it would be enough.
And if Trump gets to the end well in the lead, but without the 1,237 delegates needed, if the GOP tries to broker the convention, Trump supporters will burn it to the ground. Hang the bullshit rules these politicians change at their convenience- LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK.
"Pick one of the other "bought and sold" politicians?"
Last night we witnessed a Presidential Press Conference where we were advertised, with displays on stage cameras panning on the product: Trump Steaks, Trump Wines, Trump Water, and Trump Magazine.
Let me ask HL: anyone ever buy any of this crap? Anyone stay or play golf at Trump location? I am guessing the casino slot machines will be the end of the line for us and they went broke.
So what's happening here? Since Reagan, the blue collar and middle management Republican class has been sold out by the high flyers with free trade (Donald's favorite), outsourcing, union busting destroying their livelihoods and neighborhoods. The Rich Republicans just aren't listening to the majority of their party. The Tea Party answers, splinters off, maybe garners some Democrats feeling similar thoughts about their party, wins some good power in Congress and is completely incompetent and ineffective.
Enter Trump promising to break all, beholden to none, has been visiting people's living rooms for years, he's rich, he's famous, and he's very angry just like you. He's flipping fighting mad. And he identifies specific targets he will destroy: illegal aliens, Mexicans, Muslims, Chinese, Press, Politicians and PC People. He attacks all comers. He even goes after the Pope. If you're against him, you're and ugly deformed idiot. He's a fighter for you against all comers and if you question him, he gets nasty, not PC. If you're against him, he gets mean and tawdry. He's a fighter. He says he's the great unifier.
Along the way he's telling you he will "Make America Great Again" without telling you what he will do, how he will do it, and most importantly, how he will ever pay for it. I have shown the costs of his plans and the implausibility of implementation. Mostly your response is: "well he will do the right thing, it's not necessarily what he says." That's the goal of the huckster. To get you to agree to basically anything as a result of putting your money down.
The man has shown you that he changes his mind to suit the times and tells you what it takes to garner your favor. The man has telegraphed to you how he is a flexible dealmaker promising a great deal. Clearly, not all of his deals are great and usually they are great only for Donald. He say's he's a great businessman. At what cost: those $5/hr Polish workers probably don't think he's great. Those import minimum wage part time short timer resort aliens probably don't think so. The only Trump workers who seem to love the Donald have Trump for a last name and either President or Vice President for a title.
The man is not philanthropic. His history of service to others is basically ZERO, his charity marks him as the most miserly of all billionaires. He has never "ask(ed) not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." All he has done his entire life is bark at the moon, wrangle deals, and make himself rich while enriching little else.
His family comes from Germany, owning cathouses and racially pure rentals for two generations since arriving on our shores. There's no legacy of service there either. There is just a legacy of snake oil salesman which holds to this day. Get your bottle in November.
So, yeah, over that I plan to vote for a career politician with bad IT habits and a career criminal who voted to enter Iraq and takes money from all donors, rich and poor. Compared to Trump, her rip-offs are penny on the pound. I look forward to being politically correct, religiously tolerant and racially accepting of others.
wonder what would happen if trump teams up with bernie sanders as his VP
would the shattering reverberations knock the planet off it's partisan axis??
we might end up with a sustained springtime as a result, who knows?
a longer growing season economically speaking could be a very good thing, correct ?
BrotherDog,
Why not? Trump and Sanders have one huge thing in common: Both were enabled by rage against Obama. But where are the unicorns?
"and racially accepting of others."
lol, your commentary on HL hardly confirms that statement. I'm sure you meant to say "and racially accepting of others...when they agree with me" ;-)
Bottom line is that we are, once again, presented with folks who's sole purpose is to distract from the real problems we have. I know, I know - believing that solving root problems and not just addressing their symptoms is apparently a foolish thing to do in our modern times, but since *all* political discussion is about emotional issues (like asking for a show of hands and translating it to a "Hail Trump") I guess there's not a blessed thing to do about it. Other than just watching the train wreck happen I mean.
Perhaps DC but for very different reasons by two extreme groups that will never come together in any way even with Trump's many socialist platforms and programs now embraced by Trumpets everywhere. Viva la socialized medicine!!!! Viva la no taxes for many!!!! Workers Unite!!!!
I would say the rage has been building since before Obama on the right, since Reagan to be exact, but is wide spread since Obama on the right. Liberals are still split with most still leaning towards center. On the farther left, there is discord, i.e Bern, since Obama was not "liberal enough" for them and "sacrificed" much in his compromises with the right (which the right not only totally ignores but even blasts him whether he compromises or not).
This is fun until the top Caesars drop the hammer on everything. The natives are restless.
Everyone is restless. Blacks.( black lives matter). Spanish.( Immigration) White ( Protecting there Money.)
Hmm.... I'm not worried about "my money" (other than a total financial collapse)... but I am worried about illegal immigration/border security.... and I'm white. Go figure.
OH WAIT.... I FORGOT..... I'M A RACIST
Arguing ideas is a fine thing, if done for recreational purposes. It is also a necessary thing if the decisions of those arguing will be imposed on others, for...or against...their will.
Pragmatically speaking, all of this back-and-forth over "who's team is better" certainly serves the recreational end..
If this exchange of ideas is being done for the purpose of changing minds as well as the governmental status-quo, then I think you are all wasting your time.
In my opinion, you are also operating within narrow frames of reference courtesy of the mass-media (and yeah - Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and the rest of them all have their head inside of a box. I can't name any of the liberal...oh, wait, they are "progressive" now...ones, since I never listened to them.)
I hope you all realize that your ideas of "what is right and what is not" will be enforced on a significant segment of the population who may not agree with your world view.
It will be enforced by your government, at the threat of violence...and ultimately, at the point of a gun.
The galling thing is that I know that most of you arguing are very smart people who are wasting their mental energy on stuff that doesn't matter.
You want to change things? I'll bet that there are at least three things that you can do in the next 24 hrs, using the same amount of time and energy you would use to respond to this thread, that would make a real difference to someone.
Crap. I guess I should follow my own advice......
I have seen our society go from being ashamed to ask the goverment for help and just deal with a situation, to a society looking for goverment help for every situation.
("and racially accepting of others." "lol, your commentary on HL hardly confirms that statement. I'm sure you meant to say "and racially accepting of others...when they agree with me" ;-) )
Ah my favorite lurker with pent up demand to demonize again. Excellent.
You do know what racial means, don't you? You find a lot of mean being not racially accepting of others on this site?
It's good to have you think I am your root problem :>) Keep that head at 30,000 feet issues you do, oh yeah.
"I hope you all realize that your ideas of "what is right and what is not" will be enforced on a significant segment of the population who may not agree with your world view. "
If only EVERYONE would realize that, we would all get along great because we'd all be libertarians. You leave ME the hell alone, I'll leave YOU the hell alone.
SD, a big difference between someone peddling their own (or licensed) product and getting essentially paid by special interest groups. The top groups include Big Oil and AIPAC, nice summary article:
http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/
Is this where you want your taxpayer money going to? Do you want 20+ billion going for oil exploration when we should be supporting clean renewable energy. Do you want billions of your taxpayer dollars going to Israel and the Middle East?
Being a Republic, not a Democracy, we elect individuals who are supposed to represent our best interests. When these elected officials instead are heavily influenced by special interest groups, who actually runs this country and for who???
MM: I agree that since the Tea Party Congress is the least productive ever favoring obstruction over production, there has been little done since 2012. So the EO becomes a good alternative to get some kind of traction. I had listed previous compromises before so will not do it again, but the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts would be one, the Sequester cuts would be another.
Meanwhile and all righty then…. Last night Trump announced “I think Islam hates us.” Very Presidential. “He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." I can understand how The Donald does not know who's who and what's up.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/
So what’s the current table stakes at the Trump Presidential Casino, now called Trump Power?
Day One of The Trump Reich:
All Muslims are banned from entering the U.S. effectively closing the borders to 1.8 billion people and their business. U.S. Muslims will be not be banned. Instead they will be forced to register as Muslims for the new Muslim database. Trump is still deciding whether special Muslim IDs are needed like it’s 1933 but here's a hint:
““We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule ... certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”
Trump will put all U.S. Islamic Mosques under active surveillance and warrantless searches will be conducted. Trump will bring back waterboarding and other more extreme interrogation methods. These are Trumps words for the New Trump Order.
Day Two of The Trump Reich. We will cross the Rhineland like it’s 1936 and bomb the heck out of Syria and ISIS held Iraq. Trump will then allow U.S. oil companies in to take all the oil hopefully killing ISIS and Asad along the way. Perhaps we can rename our new American colony Trumpany. We will fence off a huge swatch of land, put in some tents and move all refugees there. During their stay at Camp Trump, maybe we can get them to pay for our largess by knitting us free sweaters or bottling Trump water.
"They'll rebuild that sucker, brand new," Trump said. "And then I'll take the oil."
Trump claims he’s going old school, like in 1932’s Germany: "In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils," "You go in. You win the war and you take it. … You’re not stealing anything. … We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves."
Day Three of the Trump Reich: I would gather by Day Three, Trump will have his holy war that he is itching for and feels is inevitable since all Islam hates us and wants us to die. Surely Islam will know we mean exactly that as a nation and a people by Day Three as talk becomes action.
Too bad we won’t have the Pope on our side :>)
Sure, the Hilter allegories are gratuitous. Sure.
-I didn't write this- CRUZ/RUBIO TICKET?
There are rumors afoot. Rumors, people. Rumors. I’m reminding you this is just a rumor. Did I mention it is just a rumor and an unconfirmed rumor at that.
So I’ve been saying that Rubio needed to get on out and barnstorm the state of Florida with Cruz to get his voters to go to Cruz. The problem is not Florida, which Rubio is otherwise going to lose, but the other states at play on Tuesday. Like in Maine, Texas, and Idaho, Rubio on the ballot could hold Cruz down where he’d otherwise win the majority or all of the delegates.
But Rubio has not gone and now, as word comes that the Cruz Super PAC is pulling down all its ads in Florida, there is a rumor afoot.
The rumor is that Cruz will stay out of Rubio’s way in Florida and might even suggest people support Rubio in Florida. Everywhere else, Rubio will stay out of Cruz’s way.
On Wednesday, Rubio will join Ted Cruz as a unity ticket.
That’s the rumor — the unconfirmed rumor, but the rumor that has people buzzing nonetheless. Did I mention it is a rumor?
If it works, God bless them. The Rubio people can have some closure in Florida, the party can unite, and we can stop Trump and beat Hillary. I’m down with that.
The interaction of the candidates in the debate tonight should be telling.
Update: And there is this new data point — news that broke just after the debate:
[from Twitter]
Ted Cruz just announced events Friday night in the Chicago suburbs and Saturday morning in the St Louis suburbs - leaving OH/FL for others.
Combine that with Cruz’s camp admitting their claims about Florida were a head fake and the Super PAC thereafter yanking all ads from Florida and it looks like something is going on.
HH/mg/sd/MM: You're a problem alright, but not for me personally. You are a symptom of a sick, broken society that thinks there's no end to the benefits *you* can get (or that *you* want to "give") from a government that inherently has nothing of it's own, only that which it steals from the people, and whose exclusive tool is force - the proverbial point of a gun you've heard me talk about before. So yeah, some people have a problem with that, even though you truly believe in your heart that that's a real upstanding way to treat you fellow citizens, to tell them time and time again that not only do you advocate stealing from them what you want but also that anyone who disagrees is part of a "do nothing" problem. Yes, wickedly sick on your part. Doing nothing in a system that is extremely over-extended sounds like a very reasonable approach - but you don't care and always want to belittle the view. Why? Selfishness.
I'm sure you are a nice person. In fact, I'd be surprised if you weren't. I think just about everyone agrees with the goals you claim you want (generally better lives for everyone), I know I do. But when you continually use bullying rhetoric to make anyone who disagrees with you look bad I really have to tell you to look in the mirror. YOU are the problem, not everyone else. Limits aren't a disease, they are a necessary function of a balanced life. Stop telling everyone they are fools for wanting to step on the brake pedal. The only fools are the ones pushing harder onto the accelerator into the turn that overlooks the canyon.
IOW, chill dude. We get it. You're selfish and want the government to get you every desire. All you're doing is pissing people off and creating more division. Stop being part of the problem by continually demanding the government steal on your behalf.
I see that you have branded me with a special demeaning name: how cute.
What I told you was what Trump said in Trump’s own words. You say the problem is my opinion on social programs. Can't you see the disconnect in logic there?
Yes I wrapped it in a Third Reich allegory based on another guy and another people that started the exact same way: we have been abused, make us strong again and target a religion and outsiders to make it so. Advocate violence, advocate taking others resources through war and use other’s resources to make us stronger. Stand together, salute, and pledge allegiance to me, your leader. This is fascism.
Your rationale is that is OK because Strangerdanger likes social programs and entitlements that you don’t and Strangerdanger should chill out, sit back, and watch it happen. My opinion on social programs and how they are funded does not make Trump or you proper in your words and plans.
That is not the big picture. That is not the root cause.
And for the record, and you should know this being the smart fellow focusing on the big picture that you say you do, I have clearly stated that the major budget entitlement programs, the ones that represent the lion’s share of our budget, should all be re-engineered to be self-sufficient and self-funded. I have consistently stated that the major entitlement programs are self-funded insurance sinking funds and are intended to work as just that. They are safety nets, not full retirement plans.
Are you saying we should abolish social security and medicare? What is your plan?
I have also said we should eradicate fraud.
As for the rest of the taxes; yes I think we should all join monetary forces for the good of the country. I have said the major priority in this, for national defense, is ending the deficit and paying down the debt. To do that we all have to pay more, spend less, and spend smarter. Do you have another way to pay down the debt? Because it's certainly not Trump's tax and economic plans. They will bankrupt us.
You say all taxes are force of gun yet you are all for the taxes you like as being proper. Where do you draw the line? Just for the things you like our do you have some sort of principal or Constitutional opinion. My line includes entitlements as part of our national security making it Constitutional as are taxes Constitutional.
Yet all of this still does not make Trump, or you, correct.
But wait, maybe Trump does have an idea. Maybe we use the Trump way to finally root out all the Nazi’s in our society. Let’s start by registering all German Americans, conduct warrantless searches and then round up all the ones over 90 years old and waterboard them to find out who is really a Nazi. Then we can finally deport them as the criminals they are. And we can get Germany to pay for it all.
Yup Trump is such a uniter. The best uniter ever. He's a great uniter.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-the-worlds-scary-funniest-donald-trump-supporter-praise-jesus/
Indie It's about time and I'm sure there are many more to come.
People are scared and I can't blame them.
I'm pretty much avoiding all TV news and didn't know this was going on. I appreciate that they are standing up for their beliefs and that they are peaceful and not disrupting things. Some of those Trump supporters are beyond the pale.
edit - so much for peaceful anywhere near a Trump rally these days. It's so odd to see the fights and then all of the people whipping out cameras.
This nothing has brought out so much anger, hatred and diversity amongst his supporters and nonsupporters and it will only get worse. He/it has encouraged negative chaos.
He/it is the ultimate antagonist.
"Some of those Trump supporters are beyond the pale."
Thanks for bringing that up Bonv..I noticed that too.
The Anarchists have returned. Nothing like the leftists trying to stifle free speech.
kb, you left out one word:
"..trying to stifle free hate speech."
Trump is preaching a gospel of hate and violence by condoning (not to mention outright supporting) his supporters' violence in his name.
Carson's supporters not too happy he joined Trump - which makes sense, since he and Trump are the antithesis of each other- the only thing they have in common is neither are career politicians.
http://injo.com/2016/03/557995-23-reactions-to-ben-carsons-presidential-endorsement-sum-up-exactly-how-his-followers-feel-about-it/
This is the biggest shit-show I have seen in an election in my lifetime.
So who or what is responsible for the violence at Trump's rally yesterday? Was it organized? Can we expect more of this?
No way to give "intelligent" answers, Danny- because no one really knows what's going on. You've got very angry people voting for Trump, other people who are becoming angry because some of Trump's people are turning into brownshirts, other people who are voting for someone other than Trump.... it's a free-for-all.
The only thing I think we can we KNOW is that people are sick and tired of feeling unrepresented by the republican party, and sick and tired of being TOLD who they can and can't vote for. This Trump thing, if he wins, will either change the republican party possibly forever, or blow it up. And I'm not sure one option is better or worse than the other.
If you think the violence in St. Louis or Chicago was anything, wait until the GOP tries to broker the convention and nominate someone who did NOT get the majority of the primary votes. They'll burn the place to the ground. And I want to say "maybe they should", but I won't.... all I can say is, actions have consequences. If the GOP doesn't want the place destroyed, maybe they better not consider brokering the convention. There comes a point where tyranny- even if "non-violent", must be answered with violence. Eventually, violence becomes the only thing the people in power will listen to.
And no, SD, I'm not "condoning" anything. I'm merely stating the fact that actions have consequences. How many times are you going to let someone push you until you HIT them back? That is what we are seeing here. The "death from a thousand cuts" has to stop. That's why the voters- mostly Trump voters- are so ANGRY. And I agree with them. Rather than riot, they should just get their guy in office- the ultimate "F U" to the establishment- the violence is not helping their cause.
can a candidate who brings out such violence from all sides be good for the country?
I have to wonder what the consequences would be when dealing with the rest of the world.....................
so somehow violence like this is Trumps fault? Ever think people of America are imploding because they are so fed up with how the country has been run for years? NOPE! Typical America, blame something that has nothing to do with the problem......
"can a candidate who brings out such violence from all sides be good for the country?"
Just another day in the lovely city of Chiraq...
Maybe Obama should go back there to better organize his community.
I beleive the undercurrents have been flowing fow quite some time and that Trump is merely a conduit for long pent up anger.
The 99% can't put their finger on what's wrong-they just know there is-and some are gravitating to Trump simply because he's different, just as some have gravitated toward Bernie. The rest are sticking with the existing game rules (R vs D is the only possible choice) because they know they "get" something out of the deal and are afraid to change because they can't visuslize anything better.
So the business-as-usual method of applying force to achieve outcomes (laws in layman's terms) continues, along with the predictable unintended consequences that always stem from them...
JeffersonRepub,
What is brewing in America? Trump "brownshirts" vs. (unnamed) "blackshirts"? For sure, civil war would erupt at the GOP convention if it is "brokered". WTF else? Cannot buy into the idea that "There comes a point where tyranny - even if 'non-violent', must be answered with violence. Eventually, violence becomes the only thing the people in power will listen to." - sounds like Bill Ayers. No way in the USA. Support local police and other law enforcement officials, and arm yourself.
"No way in the USA. "
I wish that were true, but history books are full of stories of collapsed societies.
People become violent when they feel threatened. Heck, look around the world today and you'll see it everywhere. Why not here? This is actually what scares me the most, and frankly as a trends guy I could easily envision the U.S. getting to that point if nothing changes.
The word demagogue, meaning a leader of the common people,[2] first arose in ancient Greece, originally with no negative connotation,[3] but eventually came to mean a troublesome kind of leader who occasionally arose in Athenian democracy. Even though democracy gave power to the common people, elections still tended to favor the aristocratic class, which favored deliberation and decorum. Demagogues were a new kind of leader who emerged from the lower classes. Demagogues relentlessly advocated action, usually violent[4]—immediately and without deliberation. Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed, pursuing power, telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority, and accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation. While all politicians in a democracy must make occasional small sacrifices of truth, subtlety, or long-term concerns to maintain popular support, demagogues do these things relentlessly and without self-restraint.[5]
Demagogues have been found in democracies from Athens to the present day.[4] Democracies are instituted to ensure freedom for all and popular control over government authority; through their popular appeal, demagogues exploit the freedom secured under democracy to gain a level of power for themselves that overrides the rule of law, thereby undermining democracy.[6] The Greek historian Polybius thought that democracies are inevitably undone by demagogues. He said that every democracy eventually decays into "a government of violence and the strong hand," leading to "tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments."[6]
Throughout its history, the word demagogue has been used to disparage any leader thought to be manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted.[4]
From Wikipedia...
"There comes a point where tyranny - even if 'non-violent', must be answered with violence. Eventually, violence becomes the only thing the people in power will listen to." - sounds like Bill Ayers. No way in the USA."
Except that's how the USA was FOUNDED- and for the same reasons. :(
And no one is asking you to "buy into" anything, and I'm not condoning anything- I'm just giving analysis, just like everyone else is, based on 25 years of closely following politics, studying politics, and living life in America. I'm just calling what I see. I'm not "blaming Trump" for anything. If the convention ends in violence, it'll be on the GOP's hands, due to their tyrannical actions. Actions have consequences.... eventually, those consequences escalate to violence. It's been they way of mankind forever.
You can only poke the bear so many times.
"Support local police and other law enforcement officials, and arm yourself."
Do you support law enforcement that doesn't support (at best) or allow (at worst) you to arm yourself?
I'll add: if this ever becomes a revolution, DC better hope it's an American-style revolution and not a French-style one. LOL Things could get very ugly very fast. Imagine Ferguson happening all over America...... it's scary stuff.
The whole point is, the people provide the threat. The govt is supposed to heed that threat, and adjust actions accordingly. That's the way America was designed to work from it's founding. I have been saying for years, when the American people decide their votes no longer matter (as in the case of a brokered convention), all hell will break loose.
And the fact that a brokered convention is "legal" because "it's in the rules" is poppycock- that's like saying it was ok for Caesar to feed Christians to the lions because it was "law", or it was ok to ship the jews off to camps because "it was legal." It's a non-starter argument.
Waiting for Al Sharpton to take credit for Trump's canceled rally. LMFAO.
I do not think that America will sink into civil war and "collapse" under any of the current "scary" scenarios. Have faith in American exceptionalism.
From what I saw last night, most of the violence was perpetrated by Bernie's Bolsheviks.
ianimal -
Yes, I just heard that it was college punks, nothing to worry about. But MoveOn.org was also accused, which points to Sharpton...and Obama. A joke in any case.
"or it was ok to ship the jews off to camps because "it was legal." Or to ship millions of hardworking Mexicans off to Mexico because it's legal.
Fact is many are condoning violence because it Is inevitable in the face of tyranny. If this is tyranny, what are you waiting for?
Fact is Trump went farther than condoning violence, he advocated it. Then he asked his followers to pledge their allegiance to the man and his words.
Fact is that this is not a blow against tyranny, a blow against the empire. These are thugs in a mob incited by the words of their leader attacking people exercising their Constitutional First Amendment rights. You can't whitewash that away, rationalize I or defend it through other bad acts.
Then he said the police said they couldn't protect him which is a lie.
JR is right, the next step is for Trump to claim police can't protect his people so he needs a private protection force. Self funded of course.
Maybe not yet Gadfly, but the support of Trump has to be based on something. Best we collectively figure it out rather than just be dismissive of it...
"This is the biggest shit-show I have seen in an election in my lifetime." JR
100% agreed and this is just the beginning. If Trump gets nominated, there will be riots, if he doesn't, his supporters will think he was bamboozled and there will be riots. Ultimately this may be the event all of the preppers were waiting for (1/2 joking - 1/2 not so much).
Let's say Benito gets elected and he brings all those jobs home to America.
Great!!!! Now you all have jobs and without a Union you can get paid like a Mexican!!!!
"can a candidate who brings out such violence from all sides be good for the country?"
The status quo is worse in my opinion. A nation totally turned over to special interest groups. Some of these groups like AIPAC promote billions of dollars being funneled from US taxpayers to another country. Does the majority want this? Use this money for better things in THIS country.
Taken from a JR post above: "....wait until the GOP tries to broker the convention and nominate someone who did NOT get the majority of the primary votes."
JR, it appears no one is going to get a MAJORITY of the votes. That's the crux of the problem. Who's to say that someone who gets merely a PLURALITY of the votes should be declared the winner? After all, the majority of voters choose someone else.
"After all, the majority of voters choose someone else."
Then perhaps there should be a run-off election and not a backroom deal?
This could be done in a single-round... just rank your candidate picks instead of picking one name.
"These are thugs in a mob incited by the words of their leader attacking people exercising their Constitutional First Amendment rights."
You have no First Amendment rights in a private ticketed event. If you are disruptive, you get ejected. If you run your mouth to enough people before you do, eventually you're going to find one that has no compunction about punching you in the mouth.
It's not much different than a concert or football game. Send a guy in a Patriots jersey to a Jets game and have him tell everyone he sees that the Jets suck. It's not a matter of IF he's going to get punched in the mouth, just a question of how long it takes.
It's perfectly fine to elect the president by plurality... why not the candidates?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories
JR, it appears no one is going to get a MAJORITY of the votes. That's the crux of the problem. Who's to say that someone who gets merely a PLURALITY of the votes should be declared the winner? After all, the majority of voters choose someone else.
jd2, no, that's not how it works...
The candidates could go into the convention, with none of them having the required 1237 electoral votes to automatically get the nomination... someone will still have the majority, but the majority can be less than 1237. They vote twice: the first vote, the delegates MUST vote for who their constituency voted for. All this will do is verify no one has the 1237 required. Then a 2nd vote will be taken. During the 2nd vote, the delegates are NOT required to vote for who their constituency voted for, and can vote for WHOEVER THEY WANT.
technically, a Kasich with the LEAST amount of electoral votes could be voted in as the nominee.
And yes- tyranny. When the people's votes are rendered irrelevant, THAT IS TYRANNY.
jd2 - what's your point...
If they guy with the most votes (whether majority or plurality) doesn't win, than by definition someone with even FEWER votes wins. Where's the logic in that?
jd2,
You're not following. there are 2472 available delegates. 1237 is only the majority if TWO candidates are running. When 3 or more are running, you can have less than 1237 and still have the "majority".
Read on:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/
Majority is either more than 50% (which nobody may get) or simply the greater number (which Trump currently has).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
That's the way it's always worked. Why not ask your elected officials to change it? You can do that, you see, bc you don't live under tyranny.
Political parties are private organizations, not government agencies. Nothing they do can be legitimately described as "tyranny", lol.
"That's the way it's always worked. Why not ask your elected officials to change it? You can do that, you see, bc you don't live under tyranny."
It doesn't work that way, surely you know that. THAT is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Besides, the GOP can change the rules whenever they choose to- right up to the day before the vote. Convenient, huh? Goes right along with all the gerrymandering and super delegates and similar bullshit they pass so they can get their way despite the wishes of the people.
We'll see how they play it- and if they play it smartly, or stupidly.
"Private organization" has nothing to do it. Talk about semantics- that's a JOKE.
When (if) the GOP tries to pick someone other than the majority leader (probably Trump) and the Trump supporters threaten to destroy the place, YOU stand up there and tell them "no, no, you see- the GOP is a private organization..." Yeah, that'll fly. LOL
Perception is reality. When the American people perceive their votes are no longer counted, all hell will break lose. Mark my words. It's taken quite awhile to get to this point, but we're nearly there, I'd say.
JR, luckily the GOP convention is in Cleveland. If they burn it down, no one will care...
As for perception being reality, I'm not talking about the stupid sheep who are following Trump. I'm talking about YOU referring to the GOP's by-laws as "tyranny". I would think someone who has spent 25 years studying politics would know better. If the GOP doesn't want Trump as their nominee, he's free to run in the general as an independent. That's like me accusing the kosher deli of tyranny because they won't put cheese on my roast beef sandwich.
"Majority" means greater than half. Mark Mc, the "full definition" you provided in your link seems to support that pretty clearly.
Receiving more votes than anyone else, but less than half, is a "plurality". This is where in a normal type of election a runoff is appropriate to decide the issue, where by eliminating minor candidates from the ballot, someone is sure to get a "majority".
ianimal -
Oui! Is that an anti-Jewish statement? Any NYC deli owner will serve whatever you want on a roast beef sandwich, long as you pay more for it. Politicians, same thing. How about some Clinton, Sptizer, Blumenthal, DeBlazio, and maybe some Weiner on the side. Too bad Trump gave money to many of them. No tyranny, just business deals...Such a deal!
Also, IMO now the logical path seems to be Trump running as an independent and we will have a three party election, with no conflicts, just popular votes. Please, experts, tell me how that might work.
Anybody that defends those violent protesting hate groups are nuts. This will only get worse and worse if a another rat gets elected
brown bear2 - Please pardon my French, force of habit..."yes". Meant "Oy vey". Any more constructive ideas, some about Trump as a third party candidate?
Not anti-Jewish at all. Pro-free-market. If I want cheese on my roast beef sandwich, a kosher deli isn't the place to go for lunch. If a voter wants the candidate with the most votes to get the party nomination regardless of what the Party elites want, the Republican Party isn't the place for that voter. Both I and he are free to go elsewhere if they aren't serving up what we are looking for. However, "tyranny" has no place in either discussion and neither does any reference to blowing up either organization. They are entitled to operate how they see fit and we are free to do business with them or take our business elsewhere.
Private, yes, but run by politicians. Well, maybe not on paper but sure as anything our politicians dictate the actions of the private institution. Semantics really...
Will anyone conjecture on a three party 2016 election with Trump as an independent and whomever the Dems and the GOP nominate? Just curious, because it might happen.
So do I inderstand you Iman. If its a private event and someone says something I don't like or holds up an offensive sign, its a-ok to punch em? And if they're being led out by police, they're fair game for a sucker punch?
Well in my America that guy gets arrested for assault with a tine, maybe some jail or community service and a nice civil suit for any bills, pain and suffering.
There's no excuse or right to violence in my America even at a private ticketed event.
Is it true that you give out tickets for parties at your house? I was wondering why you did that. Now I know.
"Well, maybe not on paper but sure as anything our politicians dictate the actions of the private institution"
Not really... in the end, the "consumer" has all the power. Without voters, a political party has no teeth. If all of Trump's supporters organized a boycott of the Party "product" in November, then the party would have to cave to their demands. The boycott would have to extend across the Board though. Federal, State and Local. Threaten to just stay home and let the Democrats take over everything.
"So do I inderstand you Iman. If its a private event and someone says something I don't like or holds up an offensive sign, its a-ok to punch em? And if they're being led out by police, they're fair game for a sucker punch?"
I never said anything of the kind. My point was that people who specifically go out looking for trouble, usually find it.
But just to throw it back on you, should it be ok for anti-abortion protestors to exercise their first amendment rights INSIDE abortion clinics? Should they be allowed to hold up signs in the waiting room? It's a quasi-public place after all.
Gosh ianimal, it almost sounds as if the entire system is rigged so that those who are ultimately on the ballot are pre-approved by those already in power. And that the only valid choice is to stay home if you don't agree with the system as it is.
Careful, there are some around these parts who don't take kindly to that kind of thought, who still think that our votes really matter... ;-)
Mark, whether or not "plurality" is part of the discussion dictates which definition of "majority" one should use. I'm sure somewhere in the canons of the Republican Party, just as in any legal code ever written, there is a section entitled "Definitions", where those terms are or are not defined.
Jd - definition 3c just says "greater quantity or share".
If it was always and only more than 50% they wouldn't have multiple definitions.
A plurality is a type of majority (relative majority) where that number doesn't exceed 50%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)
It's the whole square is a rectangle logic...
But, as I said before... who cares? The guy with the most votes should win or go to a runoff. Just picking someone else willy-nilly is ridiculous.
strangerdanger, ianimal, justintime, MarkMc et al -
You all seem to be having a four-way conversation among yourselves, nothing to do with what is going on in today's political situation. Fine, have your ingrown fun. But I still have a serious question: What will happen if there is a three party 2016 election with Trump as an independent and whomever the Dems and the GOP nominate? IT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN!
Hillary wins.
And violence is serious.
And inciting violence is most certainly unpresidential.
After that, saying you can be very presidential is just a sham act.
That's easy, Danny. Hillary wins easily. Same as if it was a 2-way race with her against Trump or Cruz. Can we get back to the much more interesting side discussions now?
And BTW, "independent" is the LACK of a party, not a THIRD party. Perot screwed the country by running as an independent in '92
Hillary is the "status quo" candidate, so in all likelihood she's a shoe-in. Just look at all the super delegates she has to see how much those already in power want her to be Prez.
Besides, the one thing that hasn't come up too much yet is the fact that she'd be the first woman President. I can see the mileage from that alone making all the difference.
ianimal -
Definitely not that simple. Too much hatred and distrust of Hillary, even is she is allowed to run by the FBI. And I fail to see how the "much more interesting side discussions" will change any of our lives for the better...bullshit!
Yes, it is that simple, Danny. And it's also very annoying for you to attempt to dictate what is or isn't worthy of discussion. Just as it's extremely annoying to think that there is a new post in a thread only to find that it's you revising your last post for the fifteenth time.
@Danny - I don't see Trump spinning out at this point in the process - the RNC will try to make sure he doesn't get the nomination but IMO they will begrudgingly accept him.
I definitely see it coming down to the wire for the general election and closer than Bush v Gore.
mg, you never answered the abortion clinic question. Should the protestors be allowed inside?
Not unless they need an abortion. You already know that
The protestors were allowed in.
Give Danny a ticket.
I'm thinking of going to the next one, standing behind the Trumpettes and yelll "go go go" when they start throwing down. Being an old angry white guy I am sure to get in.
ianimal et al -
Like wannabe, mini-me's of establishment politicians, and just fakers, you dodge relevant questions. Continue to stroke and attack each other, little boys. There are many other ways to raise serious questions and get reasonable answers on life-threatening, life-changing issues.
strangerdanger...ticket? Don't drive, sounds like you might be arrested for DWI.
Out of here, guys. Until and if you get back to the topic of the Trump phenomenon in a focused, intelligent way, but doubtful, given your poor record so far.
What I'm seeing in this thread is a thin slice of what "those who really control things" consider as the optimum status-quo: a bunch of people fighting over different versions of what TWRCT thinks is the way the masses should behave.
You're fighting for different flavors of evil.
You crave the perception of control, but you really want to BE controlled.
None of this bitching and fighting will amount to anything.
Saying "no" to playing a rigged game and working on what you can really change, will.
People are tired of bought and sold politicians bought well before they take the oath for office. How can these people be effective? In our democratic republic (if you believe so) we vote for people to represent us, the masses. But in reality, these "representatives" only represent themselves and the special interests groups they align with.
You can call Trump what you want, but he is not bought and sold. Kind of tough concept to swallow if you are an Obama follower probably voting for Clinton...
Trump is just this....look at the amount of involvement it has caused JUST on this forum!!!! 1k posts on the second edition ALREADY.......
For someone who doesn't know what classified info is and who lies out her teeth, I am surprised how well HillBill is doing, but on the D side there is real slim pickins this time.....what better pick then someone who has lied time and time again BEFORE even being in presidential seat....guess lying stays in the Clinton Family
I find it funny that some Democrats support a known liar, and think thats whats right for our country....keep those blinders on guys!
Slim pickins is right, actually no picken for me at this point. However I strongly believe Trump is the most dangerous.
Like many I want change, but not for the worst.
Quantity is not quality.
Trump was noted as the biggest liar of 2015 and I see no reason he can't win two years running.
Someone has "annoyed" ianimal? CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
I don't think a 3-way race "easily" elects Hillary. And I totally disagree a 2-way race does... I've seen polls where Trump or Cruz beat her. Close race still. Democratic voter turnout is near-record lows, and republican voter turnout is near-record highs.
I do think the GOP needs to unite behind the nominee, whoever that is- Trump or Cruz. If the GOP nominates someone else through delegate re-vote, imo it's the end of the modern republican party, and any power they will wield for a long time.
This has turned into such a mess, it's difficult to make predictions anymore. And anyone who thinks they have all the answers (ianimal) are full of shit.
Trump could run 3rd party, Hillary could get indicted, the GOP elite could unite behind Cruz or Trump, the GOP convention could nominate someone who does not have the plurality of votes and all hell could break loose.... at this point, it's a train running off the rails, and all we can do is sit back and watch.
And buy more ammo. :)
Slim pickens?!?!?! I don't understand the comments "there's nobody to vote for"....
If you are a socialist, vote Bernie
If you are a lifelong-democrat-'cause-daddy-was-and pappy-was, vote Hillary
If you are reformed democrat who is now leaning a bit more right, vote Kasich
If you are a RINO, vote Rubio
If you are an actual conservative, vote Cruz
If you are "mad as hell at everybody and aren't going to take it anymore" vote Trump
[the names of those who have dropped out have been omitted, but you had a libertarian (Rand), and outsider/brain surgeon (Carson), a conservative woman (Fiorina), a bombastic RINO ass (Christie), a three-time-has-been candidate (Huckabee), the establishment darling (Bush), and someone who stood ZERO chance and why was he even there? (Santorum).]
WHO ELSE COULD YOU WANT?? lol
...well, I could see the dem side wanting someone better, or a larger field to choose from, but you can include Kasich in with your people, if that helps LOL
Trump blames Bernie for sending protestors.
Tells his supporters to target Bernie.
Sweet. We have another demon!
Very insightful except for the sappy pappy snidley whiplash comment.
Hard to believe you don't have enough ammo yet.
"Hard to believe you don't have enough ammo yet."
What is this "enough ammo" that you speak of?
If Hillary is elected, it will make the Obama gun/ammo shortage look like a weekend backorder
Bought and sold. One of the favorite reasons for not favoring the “establishment.” Of course when it comes to Hillary, Bernie, Marco, and Ted, there is no quid pro quo proof, just innuendo. Yes they take money from wealthy donors and corporations, minor amounts to their campaign. Yes they take fees like Hillary’s famous Goldman speaking fees as a private citizen. And they benefit from huge corporate donations to their superpacs of which they exercise zero direct control.
So your answer is to support a great Buyer and Seller, someone who has directed and benefited the most from buying and selling people for his entire career as well as being bought many times over.
A man who has never benefited the people, the world’s cheapest billionaire philanthropist, never did any service – military or public, basically a man who profits by buying from and selling to the super rich. Do you think he does not favor his biggest customers? Do you think any of his customers are middle class? No, his major customers are the uber rich buying access to The Don by lining his pockets.
Trump service to America. Really there isn't much. The Trump Foundation, started in 1987, was funded by Trump to the tune of $3.7M. He is not the biggest contributor. Worldwide Wresting Entertainment gave $5M in return for Trump promotions of their products. There’s a buy and sell with a quid pro quo. There are pictures of the paid-for product puppet. Trump is experienced working both sides of the buy n sell coin. People magazine “donated” to get baby pictures. Yeah, he shilled a baby.
http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/
Trump respects the military, veterans, and will rebuild the military. How has he helped so far: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-has-given-little-vets-groups-n506341 Trump gave more money to Hillary…… http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/28/trump-busted-money-fundraiser-foundation-veterans-groups.html
Basically the Trump Foundation takes more money in than it gives out and sits on a huge reservoir of cash rather than engage in charity --- the very role it was set up for. His service to America and to those less fortunate is so paltry that even Leona Helmsley laughs at him.
Bought and sold. Trump has a lifetime of buying and selling people and being bought and sold to do things for the wealthy. You don’t amass $10B from nothing (as he tells us) without ripping a few folks off. Ask Atlantic City if they were bought and sold on a Trump Dream. Ask Trump University graduates if they were bought and sold.
And now The Don is focusing his con artist talents on buying and selling you. You are being bought and sold by a master con man. All you are getting is a wall, a deficit producing tax plan, stolen oil not from ISIS but from the Syrians and Iraqis, and the loss of your health insurance. And you are funding it all. Enjoy the wall, it may be the best part.
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
I just find is so hilarious that SD stops at nothing to talk trump down, man trump really has you hot under the collar hu?
Better not send any classified emails about it ;-)
Low hanging fruit.
So far he has not stepped up to cover Grandpa Sucker Punch's legal fees, another empty promise.
Trump does not condone violence. He just advocates it.
"Trump does not condone violence. He just advocates it."
HH/mg/sd/MM does not condone violence. He just advocates it.
There, fixed it for ya by stating the same from your point of view. You know, the government lover's viewpoint, because that's all any government can do is use violence (or the threat of) to achieve an outcome.
Hypocrite! ;-)
Perhaps you don't believe that Trump advocates violence. Perhaps you love Trump. We'll never know because you don't argue the points or defend the man, you just pick on others.
Does it make you feel superior to call me your little pet names like master manipulator or hypocrite. Is that your new 30,000 foot solution to the root cause of your problem. Or do we have to wait till you melt down again and call me every name you can think of? Seriously, what makes you think it's OK to call people you disagree with names?
And before you defend yourself by saying SD does it or SD started it, let me point out there's barely a post about me where you don't call me a name whereas you never see that level of contempt and bad form from me.
You say I am a government lover and therefore I advocate violence so I am a hypocrite to decry a man who says "punch em in the face," "take em out on a stretcher" and worse. I say the man advocates violence in his own words.
As to my love of government, which is not true to begin with, indicating I advocate violence, well I wonder how many HLers are hypocrites in your book if that's your definition.
So what are you? Are you above believing in the American form of government. Does that include local, state and federal, all of which can use the threat of or actual violence that you seem to think they must do to achieve their desired outcome.
Or is it just the present form of American government that you feel is so violence prone?
If so, when was government not able to enforce the laws it is entrusted to make?
Is there any place on the earth that represents non-violent governmental nirvana for you or do you just kvetch based on general principles for a world that has never and will never exist?
Pot calling the kettle is what I call it......in spades.
:-)
When you stop to consider the context of what you say then you'll get a pass from me (not that you need one as our opinions are each our own). Until then, since your views have years of documentation on this site and you've communicated very well what you feel is the proper roll of government, I'll continue to remind you that there are consequences for your type of thought process. Consequences, mind you, that are beginning to come to light in society at this very moment ala Trump. And yes, mindlessly asking for more laws to control and regulate your neighbors without any thought to the long term consequences vs benefits of said laws is usually what I'm responding to.
And if you don't care for the MM designation then perhaps you'll stop manipulating conversations as if there is only ever one right answer. Understanding the perspective of others is half of the understanding needed to communicate effectively. Clearly you see one and only one perspective, because you regularly make light of any other perspective on a regular basis.
By the way, my last post is 100% factual. Maybe ask yourself why you don't like the way I presented it - something to do with limiting the role of government maybe? ;-)
"let me point out there's barely a post about me where you don't call me a name whereas you never see that level of contempt and bad form from me."
There's not enough copy/paste in the world to re-hash every time you've belittled someone else on here with what you think are "cute" names... both towards other HL users, as well as politicians or whoever else the topic is about.
"This has turned into such a mess, it's difficult to make predictions anymore. And anyone who thinks they have all the answers (ianimal) are full of shit."
Lol. You're the most matter of fact, "I've been studying politics for 25 years; therefore, my opinion means a lot more than yours does" know-everything on here. Of course, you're also the dumbass who predicted that Romney would easily beat Obama two weeks before the 2012 elections...
I've never said my opinion means more than anyone else's- that's not a quote from me. You'll have to try again.
Trump should have called his political rally a "Job Fair". None of the protesters would have shown up.
Tough crowd SD, everyone knows your past, despite the screen name changes, and the reluctance to come clean about changing your names.
Try as you might, but if you don't change the person, changing the name will never work.
On the other side of the fence....WOW....did ianimal get his feathers ruffled? never have heard him talk like that to someone........
Darrin, he does it frequently enough... check out his comment in the "Music Lover's" thread...
I just heard that Donald "Hate Monger" Trump is going to pay the legal fees for the "red-neck hillbilly idiot" who punched the protester in the face last week. WOW! SMH! If he is our next president, we are going to be in sad, sad shape.
botheredbyuu2 "did ianimal get his feathers ruffled? never have heard him talk like that to someone........"
Two and a half hours of waiting in line to get pictures with the Easter Bunny, Darrin. My damned-foolishness tolerance was at an all-time low. Some day you'll know my pain, lol.
"I've never said my opinion means more than anyone else's- that's not a quote from me. You'll have to try again."
Yet, JR, you have on several occasions indicated how your opinions are based on the fact you've been a "student of politics for 25 years". Who cares? Why would you feel the need to even tell people that unless you felt that it somehow bolstered the quality and importance of your opinion? That's the obvious perception to be gleaned and perception is reality, correct?
It's like when you give your opinion about some band and always preface it with "this is coming from someone who has been a musician for thirty years". LOL.
So on the Trump site, I say "Trump does not condone violence. He just advocates it." And in previous posts, I have quoted the man in his own words doing exactly that.
JIT calls me a master manipulator and a hypocrite on this because of my views on government. JIT artfully steers the conversation to me personally expressing that I too advocate violence because of my beliefs on government. Nice non-sequitur ad hominem manipulating the discussion away from Trump and onto me replete with a few choice name calling monikers. Somehow that makes Trump’s transgression equal to mine. Does that still make it OK?
I ask you, who on HL has been manipulated by me? Anyone? Some master of the art of manipulation I am.
Does a person who believes in a more liberal social policy program advocate violence like Donald Trump does? Does a person who believes in the American form of government advocate violence? Is a person’s belief in social programs a call to violence? JIT doesn’t answer any questions, no discussion, just more name calling.
Then Mark piles on and says, it’s OK because I have called people names sometimes including politicians. Most of HL calls politicians names, I will stop when it becomes fashionable on HL to stop. For the personal attacks, sure almost everyone slips at times. But JIT is nailing me on every post reply sometimes augmented with the most vicious of melt downs. It is just plain wrong and very bad form.
Darrin says I have a personality flaw because I have changed my name and did not fess up to an anonymous name change on an anonymous site. Beyond the sheer ridiculousness of such a theory, as I have told him, once directly asked, I answered and it wasn’t really earth shattering. You’re just wrong on this one Darrin or Darrin2 or whatever.
Poor me, poor me, cry me a river. Tell you what. You name the game, I am willing to buckle up and play. Choose, but choose wisely.
"Does a person who believes in a more liberal social policy program advocate violence like Donald Trump does?"
"Does a person who believes in the American form of government advocate violence?"
"Is a person’s belief in social programs a call to violence?"
The answer to all of those questions is the same, and is the basis for nearly every position I take. You already know what I'm going to say, because I've said it all before many times over: You can't disconnect the methods used to implement any government program from the desired results. One derives from the other.
You can choose to ignore, and many people do, that the implementation of any law is backed by force. But that's the reality, is it not? So every single time anyone calls for additional laws they are advocating violence against those who do not follow the proposed law. That's not condoning violence, but advocating it as a solution to a supposed problem. So yes, when you back any law you are advocating violence against those who might not obey said law.
It's one of those things that "just is". There are plenty of justifications for asking for laws, we've agreed about that in the past, but those justification must always keep in mind the forceful nature of law making.
That's nonsense JIT. The logical conclusion to your statement is that all of us are advocating violence, except of course the anarchists.
And? ;-)
Gadfly, I'm simply reminding everyone that without violence we'd have no law enforcement. True or not?
Since true, it's obvious that yes, we all advocate violence. Does that make you uncomfortable? If so, why?
What makes me uncomfortable is you singling out one poster as advocating Violencewhen your logic would condemn us all for the same.
Condemn, no, but yes the comment applies to all of us. I singled out no one, just corrected his comment that he "doesn't advocate violence" because we all do.
bbu, possible good news..the sheriff's office in NC is considering pressing charges against Trump for inciting the incident.
Looks like he might be paying his own legal fees as well as his ignorant groupie.
I agree 4catmom. Before the Trump epidemic..Fox was my main news source, guess I was wearing blinders.
It's become so obvious how biased they are, especially O'Reilly.
Guess I'm a late learner. Lol.
I've come to the conclusion that democrats are very worried about there beloved Clinton not having what it takes to win. This thread, and all the others tell the story. Just look at who spends the most time spitting negatives in here about trump. To spend all the energy and time writing paragraphs on how he is a bad person for this/that. It's unbelievable. If the gop doesn't have a brokered convention, just face the facts. Clinton will not beat him no matter what may think. Bad news for a handful of people in this thread. Although I do believe there is an overwhelming support here for trump and people don't wanna waste time slinging mud in this thread.
I came across this article about Trump's father - an interesting read.
http://theconversation.com/woody-guthrie-old-man-trump-and-a-real-estate-empires-racist-foundations-53026
Bad news. Just found out there will be no charges pressed against Trump, however karma is a b**ch.
So you think Trump should be charged for inciting a riot because one of his supporters sucker punches a protester. Wow, there are some crazy people on here. I am not a Trump supporter but come on get real.
Kb I guess you're behind with what's been going on? He has been an antagonist for quite some time. Encouraging "his people" to stop the protesters. Also, telling "his people" he'd like to punch the protestor in the face, oh almost forgot he told "his people" if they'd stop the protesters he'd pay their legal bills.
If that's not inciting violence than Hitler was just a nice guy giving out free ice cream to the Jews.....
Yep... inciting such violence as one person getting punched is totally worse than killing 5.5 million people...
Those Jews got off easy...I mean who would complain about free train tickets and summer camp?
Not behind the times, my point was that there is no evidence he is inciting a riot which is what the charges were. As I stated I am not a Trump supporter and think his rhetoric is unbecoming a Presidential candidate but trying to charge him for that is just ridiculous.
Read this a couple if times recently and think it's quite true:
"People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."
I doubt the majority will get it. Instead, talk will continue to focus on how big an idiot Trump is (yes, he is) rather than on *why* so many want to support him. It's not his policies IMO, it's that he portends to be an outsider. Reality will likely prove otherwise, but man is it nice to see the mainstream squirming!
Wow Mark you are so good at twisting things around. Hey you like Trump that's fine with me and I respect that, but I'm entitled to my opinion as well.
Kb, I disagree, however I'm mature and respectful enough to respect your opinion.
You won't get suckered punched from me because we don't agree.
Totally agree JIT. Great analogy as always...
Comparing Hitler's actions to handing out ice cream is pretty asinine no matter who I do or do not support in this election, positive. No twisting necessary.
It was an exaggerated comparison Mark. Pretty sure that many people understood my point and weren't insulted, but who knows I could be wrong.
it sure was - I totally agree positive - and as one who lost family in those days - it was pretty offensive and insensitive -
Now I'm being accused of being too sensitive? That's a new one... I've basically been accused of being heartless on other threads.
Maybe I'm just a realist that calls out exceptionally rude comments - exaggeration or not - when I see them.
"Yes, well, I’m polymerised tree sap, and you’re an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory, and adheres to you."
A person of Jewish decent has agreed with me and didn't take offense, she understood what I was trying to articulate. Apparently you've become too PC. What happened..thought you were against that?
Non-PC is not "sugar coating" something to sound nice. Telling it like it is...
It has nothing to do with making derogatory comments to score a jab ( as poorly executed as it was).
JIT wrote:
"Condemn, no, but yes the comment applies to all of us. I singled out no one, just corrected his comment that he "doesn't advocate violence" because we all do."
But earlier you wrote:
"HH/mg/sd/MM does not condone violence. He just advocates it.
There, fixed it for ya by stating the same from your point of view. You know, the government lover's viewpoint, because that's all any government can do is use violence (or the threat of) to achieve an outcome.
Hypocrite! ;-)"
Yes, you did single him out. You didn't say "we all advocates violence". You said that he advocates violence b/c he's a "government lover".
Lol Gadfly, feeling left out or something? How about next time you make the claim that you don't advocate violence and I will respond to you? Would that make you feel better?
Bottom line is that anyone who claims they never advocate violence is flat out lying. They might not realize they do it, but sure enough everyone does if they ask their government to enforce laws.
And those who ask the most of government? They're the biggest advocates of violence! Surely you can't control others without violence or the threat thereof, wouldn't you agree?
But I would have hoped you had asked why I stated the obvious in the first place (and no, it's not because you think I'm picking on SD). It's because acknowledgement of this particular reality might cause reasonable people to question the things they ask of their government. You know, that whole live and let live thing that's kind of important...
Absolutely JIT, I'm advocating violence when I ask that the police enforce the laws against speeding when cars race down my street at twice the legal limit.
Or the town is when they pass a law requiring dogs to be licensed, clearly just another threat of violence on the part of "big brother government."
Where's the "threat of violence" on the part of government when we have laws regarding food safety in restaurants, or ordinances requiring sidewalks to be cleared of snow within 24 hours? Will the police come and beat me up if my sidewalk isn't cleared?
Give me a break, your comment is asinine.
Open your mind Jerry. There's not a stitch of falsehood in my post. If you think there is, I suggest breaking a law or two (or God forbid be falsely accused) and then we can discuss how accurate my statements are.
The entire premise of "enforcement" is predicated on the use of force, the threat of violence being the primary motivator for people to follow the law! Surely you don't deny that, do you?
If the person speeding down your steet doesn't cut it out, what do advocate happens to him? If he resists your wishes and continues a behavior you don't agree with, how do you stop him? Do you just ask him really nicely to stop?
Jerry, in those and every other law enforcement situation you WANT officers to act with the necessary force to stop the offender! It couldn't be any clearer what actions you advocate him/her taking to enforce the law!
Does that reality make you uncomfortable? If so, why?
JIT,
Your argument is absurd, and yes you did single out SD, though your twisted logic would make you just as guilty as him. And you call him the hypocrite? Physician, heal thyself.
"No one here has talked about the size of their genitals yet."
That's because the establishment darling hasn't made any comments about the size of anyone's hands... Trump didn't start that one.
Gadfly, what's your issue? I present no "argument" here, only fact. You seem to be creating an argument when there is nothing to dispute here.
There is no absurdity to the position, whatsoever, that we all advocate violence to impose order in our society. It can't be any other way! Unless you know how to keep the peace without violence, you're being exceptionally hypocritical now.
And I believe I've already clarified that we ALL advocate violence is some shape or form, so yes, that does include me. But now that you've mentioned it, why do you suppose I'm for limited government, anti-war and generally a live and let live guy? It's because I've long understood this very basic concept, and my moral compass dictates that if I want to live as free as possible I have to allow others to do the same, meaning I want to use the least amount of violence possible in society. It's necessary, yes, but not desirable in any way.
"He has been an antagonist for quite some time."
I disagree. The government has been the antagonist for a LONG time. Trump is the REACTION to the govt antagonism.
I agree, there isn't much to pick from. I'm guessing it will be Hillary and Trump. Hummm....A liar or Hitler. Like positive said, Trump will be the most dangerous.
If law enFORCEment doesn't use FORCE, or at least the THREAT of it, then they certainly don't need to be carrying firearms.... right?
JIT is 100% correct on this one - a lot of you just haven't studied history, government, and politics enough to realize the truth yet.
Or- even worse- you LOVE it when the govt uses force when YOU agree with it (Oregon standoff) but not when you don't (foreign wars, hippy protests, etc)
"Trump will be the most dangerous."
Only to those who DON'T want to build a wall, stop illegal immigration, create jobs, and everything else in his platform. That's called, uh, politics.
Trump would certainly affect more CHANGE than Hillary would.... Hillary would just continue Obama's policies.... hmm.... seems to me CHANGE is what so many people wanted the last 2 elections, but now they're not fond of the concept? LOL
The tables turn, the pendulum swings....
I think some of you need to go to your lounge. Caesars world is made up of winners and losers. The winners feel threatened enough to defend. The losers feel threaten enough to fight. It's never been any different. I will just sit here in Gods lounge and wait for directions. Nothing ever changes in the promise Jesus made. The world is always in a state of flux. I pray that no one gets hurt physically. That has happened before in these situations.
"The entire premise of "enforcement" is predicated on the use of force, the threat of violence being the primary motivator for people to follow the law! Surely you don't deny that, do you?
you really believe the threat of violence is the primary motivator for people to follow the law??? wow you really have that low of an opinion of the human race.
most of you NJeans are missing the forest for the trees, the two most important issues in this election are immigration and free trade deals, both of which have eviscerated the middle class over the last 20 years.
it's this systemic loss of job opportunities and declining wages that have got most Americans worried about their futures.
all of this back and forth 'who shot john' stuff on who is fomenting violence is besides the point. Hillary supports continuing the middle class eviscerating polices of the last 20 years that have negatively impacted the middle class. In fact she looks to be doubling down on accelerating the trend. This is bad for America long term, but I do not expect retried public service workers to have a good concept of this. They can't seem to find room in their hearts to empathize with those familes who have seen the loss of jobs and suffered the ravages of declining median wages. (they just want them to still pay ever rising taxes) and most of NJ in fact is blind to it, but I feel strongly that they need to wake up and see it for what it truly is.
Trump is a wild man for sure, but it looks like he has a better handle on these two issues (the out of control immigration polices and the foisting of 'free trade' agreements down our throats) than most of the other candidates, and this is what is resonating with the voting public. And it explains why so many independent and democratic voters in Ohio today are coming out in droves to vote republican, (check the news, it's an important story today and you all should take note of it)
but ignore all of this and continue to bash each other over who said what when under what name and/or who is more empathetic with the horrors of the holocaust. geesh!!
We get someone running for president who doesn't care about being politically correct.....and now we have people panicking calling him Hitler.....SHM
Just because he is not what we are used to, does not mean he is going to kill 6 million Jews........
Darren there were people standing on E Stiger Street in front of Quick Cheq as well as on Rte 57 in front of Shop Rite a few years ago with posters of Obama as Hitler. Comparing anyone to Hitler has been going on for a while and I agree it is lame.
I just think him "asking" his followers to raise their hands in a pledge to create an imagery of people doing the Nazi salute is stupid at best in really bad taste at the least. but I don't think he is Hitler. just an ass
Give me a break this has nothing to do with political correctness. The analogy to Germany in the 1930's and Hitler's manipulation is spot-on. So many supporters are so wrapped up in their own twisted sense of grievance (basically 'entitlement denied') that they love his bias, bigotry and coarseness. It frees them to articulate their most base, shameful instinct. They feel bad about themselves- so America is 'not great' anymore. Trump allows them to blame others for that bad feeling- and on and on....
why are so many independent and democratic voters in Ohio coming out in large numbers and crossing party lines to vote republican?
loose immigration polices and free trade deals, that's why.
I said Trump advocates violence. JIT responded that because of my beliefs about government, I advocate violence too. That’s the discussion.
First my beliefs, whatever they may be, do not exonerate or excuse Trump. JIT's rationalizing aside, Trump is wrong, plain wrong in what he advocates.
We have all heard the quotes about stretchers, punches in the face, and Trump’s willingness to foot the bill for perpetrator’s fines for violent acts. And he has said worse. He says these un-American things in crowds of thousands who willingly salute their allegiance to Trump. He says this in crowds of thousands to incite violence against a few protestors while saying he does not condone violence. I guess he’s just kidding around and some people don’t get the joke.
It’s pretty cut and dry that Trump advocates violence, condones violence and is a liar.
I think JIT’s definition of violence is different than mine.
JIT said I advocate violence because of my beliefs in government and the rule of law. He bases this on the fact that laws are enforced at the point of a gun or by the threat of a gun and I am a liberal so therefore I like lots of laws. He initially left out the part where he is the same in this regard, no doubt due to the matter of degree, in his opinion of greater number of laws I support, an opinion he can't prove with fact.
First, laws are made by representatives of the people through an established due process agreed upon by the people, not authoritarian ruler-wanna-be’s yelling at the top of their lungs to the mob like Trump. Laws are not made just by liberals and no one has said who has passed more laws, them or us, whatever us are. Trump is an authoritarian leader screaming to the crowd, begging for action. Big difference.
Second, there is generally no violence in law except against those who promise or commit violence. For the most part, you break a law you pay a fine. When do you feel threatened with violence over a traffic ticket? For others, someone comes to your door subpoenas you to appear in court where you might pay a fine, community service or be incarcerated. Most often, no violent act will ensure. Now if you resist, and if you are armed, there might be some violence but who’s on first in that case?
If you don’t like our process of laws, or you feel to be free there should be only a minimum of laws that you agree with, there is an alternative for you. But you cannot be an American citizen who does not believe in the Constitution or the rule of law.
The threat of being fined, arrested, etc. is not violence given we follow the Constitution about cruel and unusual. As long as you are not violent, there should be no violence. And yes, accidents happen, mistakes are made and even some people and organizations go rogue breaking the rules and targeting individuals or groups --- that happens for us or them, both sides of the law upon occasion. But that is wrong and not the norm.
Then JIT clarified his statement and said we are all violent in this regard. Again this is apples to oranges with what Trump is doing plus there is no violence unless you brandish a weapon, act threatening, or are engaged in activities where violence is the norm. Law as defined as that which can only be accomplished by the threat of a gun is JIT’s opinion. It is not a fact. Most citizens do no even share this opinion.
Violence: ‘behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” I think JIT has a different definition. Trump has got the definition right and in no way does the American way of government give him a pass on that
"why are so many independent and democratic voters in Ohio coming out in large numbers and crossing party lines to vote republican?"
Because the Democratic nomination (despite media hype to the contrary) is already sewn up and has been since before the primaries began?
Maybe they're crossing party lines to vote for Trump because they want to destroy the GOP and they see the opportunity to do it by supporting the guy who is most likely to push them off the cliff?
Lots of possible reasons. Maybe some of them legitimately support Trump. But... I wouldn't extrapolate that and come to the conclusion that all of those people will be voting Republican in November.
"Trump is a wild man for sure, but it looks like he has a better handle on these two issues (the out of control immigration polices and the foisting of 'free trade' agreements down our throats) than most of the other candidates, and this is what is resonating with the voting public."
Amazing. He's admitted to giving away American jobs to H1B's and during the debate, he said he had no choice but to use them. Really? That's a better handle on the issue?
His products are made offshore. How much has he brought back onshore (if any?) That's a better handle?
Do we need to have a discussion about the illegal Polish demolition crew?
You don't like the left and the Democrats. Fine. But seriously, comments like that are just nonsensical.
emaxxman i also don't like the republicans, i have disassociated myself witht the republcan party, they no longer represent me, the party is in serious trouble, that's obvious to just about everybody right now, including the party bosses and party elites down in the beltway. they're having a collective meltdown over the popularity of trump.
the dems are also in big trouble putting up a serioulsy flawed candidate like hillary, they should be as embarrassed by her malfeasance as they are about the wild man turmp and his crazy statements.
i'm not supporting trump at this point, but he does have a better idea about these two issues that are destroying the middle class in this country, out of control immigration polices and the reduction in good jobs due to the 'free trade' agreements. the outsourcing and offshoring of good paying white collar college level jobs has affected every facet of American society,
and you guys still make a bunch of excuses for it, blinding yourselves with diversionary issues is as non-nonsensically ridiculous as it is self-delusional. wake up and look around you. see what's happening to your families, you neighbors, your towns and your careers.
emaxxman I also like the logic that Trump can't be bought. Those that say that I guess don't seem to care that he was one of ones buying the politicians. he openly admits it. He gave $ to just about anyone who asked. And then when it was time to call in the favor Trump made the call and got what he wanted from them. He brags about it.
That they seem to be fine with. he was just playing the game I guess. and I guess that is fine even if that game helped make him Billions
so you can buy but don't be bought
"So many supporters are so wrapped up in their own twisted sense of grievance (basically 'entitlement denied') that they love his bias, bigotry and coarseness."
Unlike the Obama (and Hillary, and Bernie) supporters who were/are so wrapped up in their own twisted sense of grievance ("free healthcare is a right!" "free college is a right!"), that they love his/their "We'll take care of you cradle to grave" mentality/promises.
See how that works? ;)
MB 
Looks like der Donald has some support overseas as well. Anders Breivik is pledging to vote for him, apparently.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/15/europe/norway-anders-breivik-lawsuit/index.html
I'd guess that some people will vote for professional politicians because they know how to play the game better than Trump with our property and money.
Now that the GOP said their delegates aren't beholden to vote for the primary winner, voting doesn't seem so important anymore.
Was it Karl Rove or Joseph Stalin who said, "it doesn't matter who votes, only who counts the votes"
It's really beginning to show who owns this country. Neither Cruz nor Trump will stand a chance with this bunch.
One-Eyed Poacher By all the cheating and lying and got cha accusations being discussed on the forum now. Trump is now officially, a politician.
For goodness sake, there are more politics associated with being a business leader than a politician and considering some of Trump's deals he mastered the art of politics decades ago. It's hysterical that people make it sound as if Trump is this outsider not at all linked to political parties, people or deals.
That's the ironic part- CRUZ is more of an outsider than Trump has ever been. Cruz is the guy the GOP REALLY DOESN'T want. Because he's a constitutional conservative, guided by his principles, and will not deal. GOP is scared of both Trump & Cruz, but Cruz moreso.
Well then JIT, I guess I better renew my dog's overdue license before the SWAT team surrounds my house.
"Well then JIT, I guess I better renew my dog's overdue license before the SWAT team surrounds my house."
Well Jerry, how about you don't renew as an experiment then come back and make light of the predicament you're in ;-) Seriously, did you do you due-diligence googling before making this comment? I think maybe you should have.
SD, that was a lot of words to justify advocating violence, but still doesn't change the fact that the end game of law enforcement *always* comes down to violence. As I just mentioned to Jerry, feel free to test your theory by disobeying a law then you can tell us how non-violent the results are lol.
"you really believe the threat of violence is the primary motivator for people to follow the law??? wow you really have that low of an opinion of the human race."
Darwin, feel free to conduct your own experiments as well. If my statements are wrong then you've got nothing to worry about! Regarding my opinion of the human race, I think I have a bit more faith than those who turn to laws for everything. I mean, why insist for government control over anything unless you believe that there are people who will cause harm doing the thing you're seeking to control? Interesting comment, but you've got it completely backwards. Limiting laws inherently conveys that most people should be trusted, does it not?
Your responses are pretty entertaining really. I never would have guessed that reality - even one so obvious as violence being the main driver of law enforcement - was so hard to digest. Heck, I'm not even arguing against it because I know LE is quite necessary, but to pretend otherwise? Lol, you folks are funny!
New Trump ad on Trump Talking Bout Women.
In his own words. Probably out of context, hidden camera, I mean it was done by a PAC, like no way could Trump have said thaaaat. No one talks like that. No way......
Waaayyy.
Ladies, are you listening...... priceless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkSRJSUY0vs
@ MB
Ironic John Lennon quote, being that he abused the women in his life and his child. Bravo.
Darrin,
This ought to seal the deal:
Machine Gun Bacon with Ted Cruz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8
"violence being the main driver of law enforcement"
Given all the laws and all the transgressions against the law, that's a lot of violence. Why speeding tickets alone would be a major blood bath.
"If the person speeding down your steet doesn't cut it out, what do advocate happens to him? If he resists your wishes and continues a behavior you don't agree with, how do you stop him? Do you just ask him really nicely to stop?"
Depends. I think he gets a ticket and a fine. If I see him, I will either ask him really nicely to stop or I will call a cop.
"Jerry, in those and every other law enforcement situation you WANT officers to act with the necessary force to stop the offender! It couldn't be any clearer what actions you advocate him/her taking to enforce the law!"
Sure, stop the offender. But amazingly most laws don't require any violence whatsoever to enforce and stop the offender. Yes, we use necessary force. Amazingly violence rarely occurs in the vast majority of traffic stops and other law breaking transactions. There is no force needed whatsoever to enforce the law. I have yet to have force used on me for any traffic ticket, IRS infringement, etc. I have disobeyed many a law and have yet to have any level of physical force used or even hinted at. I have done some ride-alongs, never once was violence used although many lawbreakers were arrested.
Matter of fact, violence rarely occurs in most transgressions of the law.
And when violence does occur, it is usually the lawbreaker as instigator or the crime itself is a normal venue for violence (gun running for example).
Your reality seems to define violence as including the possibility that violence may ensue. Possibility is not actuality. Your reality includes possibility as actuality.
Trump advocates violence as a solution to the handful of protestors at his rallies. Removing and arresting them seems not enough, he wants punches thrown and stretchers needed like the "good ole days."
There's a big difference in advocating violence and a possibility that violence may ensure if you start it.
.
Sorry brother dog but the exit polls are not matching what you were saying. Most Independent and democrats are voting for Kasich
"Most Independent and democrats are voting for Kasich"
In OHIO, that may well be true. But not in the other OPEN republican primaries.
It's funny, I'm from Ohio, most of my family and a lot of old friends there... I don't know ANYONE who likes Kasich.
darwin; i never said who they voted for, i said they crossed over to vote republican, kasich is republican is he not?
thanks for confirming what i posted, appreciate it
OMG SD, you're really trying too hard! All those words to say what? Do as your told, follow all instructions, obey commands and no violence will ensue. Um, ya think!
The only difference between the Trump supporter enforcing adherence to "proper political rally etiquette" by punching someone who wasn't following the proper rules, vs law enforcement doing the same to someone who also wasn't following the rules, is the authority granted to LE's (rightfully so, before this thread takes another wild tangent!) to use force. APPROVED force mind you, by all of you who are arguing otherwise!
It would go something like this: Both would first make a fist. Then, they would both draw their arms back like they are throwing a football. Finally, both would release with astonishing speed, in a blur of fury, their fist into the face of the person whom was not following orders. Identical movements, identical actions, both because the person on the receiving end wasn't doing as they were told!
Now, since this tangent has gone on much farther than ever could have been imagined, here's the definition of advocate - the key word in question above that has been either ignored or whose meaning has been misunderstood and that I think has led to the crazy twists here:
"to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly"
So if you are in favor of, support or recommend any law you are an advocate for that law, yes?
And laws are enforced by whom in our society? Right, the executive, the police, who retains the sole authority for the use of force against the citizenry.
And enforcement, by definition, necessarily means "compulsion; compel obedience to; to impose (a course of action) upon a person" etc.
And what means were given to LE's to compel others? Oh, right, I mentioned it already: the exclusive use of *force* in our society. And I suppose the use of force never results in violence? Ah, ok. Whatever you say.
So after spelling it all out for you in a wayyyyyy-to-long-I-can't-believe-I-spent-this-much-time-on-it passage, exactly what conclusion have you come to again? That enforcement of laws, laws that you've claimed in nearly every previous exchange to be an advocate for, never results in violence?
So sorry man, but this really is nuts. I can't believe that I even have to convey in writing a realty that literally *everyone* already knows. You want law enforcement, you get violence. Period. You can't have one without the other.
One last bit before I calm down from laughing so hard. Not once did I say the old guy was right to punch the protester. Not once did I think it was OK for Trump to pay for any legal bills. Not once did I ever advocate for public violence to achieve any outcome. IOW, I agree with all of you views about the incident! Every one! Well, all but the topic of this post anyway. Finally, and this is my personal opinion here, spinning or manipulating reality isn't a healthy way to view the world we live in as it inherently leads to tunnel vision and blindness to other perspectives, ie closed-mindedness.
(ps: Can't wait to hear how our military is never violent - oh my, the thread we could have about that!)
Well I can only say why the 20+ of my OH friends were saying on FB. They went to vote for Kasich just so Trump wouldn't win the state. They knew the Democratic primary was useless and felt their vote was more important to use in the Republican primary
prediction:
Rubio will endorse Cruz.
If Cruz is smart, he'll pick Rubio for VP.
That MIGHT be able to stop Trump, for those wanting to...
"It's funny, I'm from Ohio, most of my family and a lot of old friends there... I don't know ANYONE who likes Kasich."
Ha we have much different circles here and in OH. Lol All my OH family and friends are big supporters of Kasich. That how he got on my radar before he declared his candidacy
That was the best Rubio speech I've heard since he was elected as a Tea Party candidate. that speech SCREAMED Ted Cruz. I will be surprised if he does not endorse Cruz now.... he may not have a lot of votes to give to Ted, but Ted's a PRINCIPLES guy, and that speech could have been given by Cruz. A Cruz/Rubio alignment would not surprise me now.
And Rubio supporters would have a lot easier time voting Cruz than Trump...
Kasich wins Ohio. But still has ZERO chance of being the nominee.... unless it's brokered, and then it'll burn LOL The guy with the LEAST delegates gets the nomination...... hello, anarchy....
Rubio puts himself in a decent position. He could back either Cruz or Kasich and both of them would be smart to make him their VP. If Rubio's main goal is to one day be President being with Kasich probably get him the most support within the party. Teaming up with Cruz could divide him from the GOP powers to be
I don't give AF who wins, I'm just really looking forward to megyn kelly having long hair again! That short hair sucks!
BTW, why wouldn't Cruz want Kasich as his running mate if it came to that? Ohio is a very important swing state.
JR. Kasich can win NJ, PA, CA, OR and WA. Cruz will take the southwestern states and it can get real interesting. And now with Rubio out all the GOP $ will start flowing to Kasich.
"Kasich can win NJ, PA, CA, OR and WA. "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Got any other jokes?
People in CA, WA, and NJ are saying "who?!?!"
Last I heard Kasich couldn't get on the ballot in PA- not enough signatures. Has that changed?
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/john-kasichs-name-might-not-appear-on-the-pennsylvania-ballot/
Hillary is a cross between Claire Underwood and the Cryptkeeper. Call her Claire Undertaker, lol.
an excellent explanation of why some of us are so opposed to and scared of Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/humans-of-new-yorks-brandon-stanton-on-trump-154634146.html
it just might be worth your time to watch/listen
Old Gent - Trump has officially been a politician for 16 years now ever since he got involved with the bizarre circus known as the Jesse Ventura Reform Party.
Trump kept a' rollin', all night long
Trump kept a' rollin', all night long
lol
We hear that the Dems were afraid of. Trump, Robio and then Cruze. How about learning who the Dems really support. Check Soros Fund Management.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CddeeU5UsAAFFli.jpg
"Kasich has Arnold campaigning for him in CA."
Which would be great if Kasich was releasing a new war-like video game LOL
"spinning or manipulating reality isn't a healthy way to view the world we live in as it inherently leads to tunnel vision and blindness to other perspectives, ie closed-mindedness."
Hmmm, and your find my posts prickly.....
I think this discussion, being over, boils down to two words advocate and violence.
You have defined advocate, I defined violence.
Based on those definitions, Trump advocated violence. I do not advocate the government to conduct violence. The government does not advocate the police use violence.
For the most part, the government does not use violence to enforce the law. Perhaps the threat or possibility of violence, but that is not violence. Violence may occur, upon occasion but only in a small minority of individual enforcements, and governmental violence is usually a reaction to actual or pending violence by the perpetrator.
The armed forces are a different beast, and here I wholeheartedly advocate violence which I have to imagine you do as well. However, the vast majority of this violence is not directed against American citizens on American soil.
SD has left the planet, ladies and gentleman. He's in la-la land now....
Desperation.
BTW- Waco (US military used against US citizens on US soil)
" I do not advocate the government to conduct violence. The government does not advocate the police use violence. "
Ah. So that's why Randy Weaver's wife & son are dead. And LaVoy Finicum is dead. And Michael Brown is dead. Got it. No violence. Whew, that's good.
"Violence may occur, upon occasion but only in a small minority of individual enforcements, and governmental violence is usually a reaction to actual or pending violence by the perpetrator." Guess you missed that part JR. Too many words?
WACO was ATF, not military. You are wrong. Later the siege was conducted by the FBI. Military vehicles were used in the perimeter, not sure the military was driving. Military helicopters provided diversion but no military shots fired. WACO residents had full machine guns, had taken up defensive positions and refused to surrender the illegal weapons. It is unknown who fired the first shot or whether the first shot was even fired at either side. Might have been a discharge or the death of branch members attack dogs in protection of the federal agents.
LaVoy Finicum was armed, asking for death and reaching for his gun.
Michael Brown had already been violent and the officer was found to be in imminent danger for his life.
Well that's three for three so far. Who's in la la land?
Ruby Ridge is closer to your point however again the perpetrators were known to be selling illegal guns: sawed off shotguns, had failed to appear in court, and approached U.S. Marshalls fully armed. However, the agents were not necessarily flashing badges or wearing labeled coats and there is some question as to whether they identified themselves. Hate to say it, but who the heck did the Weavers thing was coming after they didn't appear in court for a gun running case? Again, as to who fired the first shot is questionable. However in this case, government agents would found to have taken shots and lives when not in imminent danger. All violence charges were dropped against the Weavers and the govt. paid out $3.1M for the bad shots.
Existing Government rules of engagement were broken at Ruby Ridge, bad shots for agents not in imminent danger were taken. There were mistakes made, and many changes for further restraint were implemented thereafter.
Still, it's hard to say who fired the first shot and caused the violence to commence. If Weaver had appeared in court, had not holed up in an armed camp, there would have been no violence. To say the government advocated this violence is not correct, the Weavers escalated the situation from a court case to a gun battle through their actions.
So on this one I would say you're closer since governmental violence did occur and some of it was found to be bad judgment calls against the government's own rules of engagement. However the government still did not advocate violence, they responded to violent people, fully armed, and engage in a violent business. The perpetrators were engaged in illegal acts favoring violence, were disregarding court orders to comply, were fully armed, were approaching law enforcement fully armed, and a gunfight ensued.
If that's the government advocating violence, sure, I am in la la land.
Gadzooks Batman! The strangergoogle has actually put forth a cogent and concise statement. Will wonders never cease? Could he be reforming?
Waco wasn't military? You are in la-la land. Keep daydreaming SD. Keep eating what they feed you. Good little sheep. Here's the "grey area":
"The bureau [FBI] continued to deepen its ties with the military, training with the Navy SEALs at the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, based in Dam Neck, Va., and agents completed the diving phase of SEAL training in Coronado, Calif.
Sometimes lines blurred between the HRT and the military. During the 1993 botched assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Tex., three Delta Force operators were on hand to advise. Waco, along with a fiasco the prior year at a white separatist compound at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, put the FBI on the defensive.
“The members of HRT are not commandos,”
[right, technically they are "just" law enforcement with Navy Seal training and military weapons... to quote a favorite person of yours, SD- "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"]
then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh told lawmakers in 1995. “They are special agents of the FBI. Their goal has always been to save lives.”
Not to mention, 3 DELTA operators WERE involved in Waco. "Blurred lines, indeed"
Militarized law enforcement with military training, or regular military? A technicality. A way for the govt to again do whatever the hell they want without TECHNICALLY doing something illegal... a "loophole".... something YOU, SD, usually rant against.... at least you always do in the 2A arguments.
Not that this is news, but a good reminder of how little say we have. Voters don't pick the nominee.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/choose-nominee-not-voters-senior-115420994.html
That's correct, brown bear2. The political parties have always set the rules for how their nominees are picked. That's their right.
Don't like a party's rules? Don't belong to that party.
La la land? What about forest through the trees?
You are intentionally conflating "initiating" violence with "advocating" it's use. Big difference. But you don't care because the "win" is the only thing that matters in your world. MM through and through.
No, the discussion was about advocating violence. Two words. Describing Trump. Frankly you are the only one conflating a number of issues into that discussion including the government, our opinions of beliefs on government, and now merging the distinction of initiating with advocating.
And again, please desist with the petty name calling. It's especially duplicitous when you are the one doing the very act you accuse me of.
If any of you support the Branch Dravidians, the Weavers, Finicum or Brown violence as occurring because the government advocates violence, well that's a belief and you're welcome to it.
Do you think it was because of too many regulations and an overreaching government?
How do you think it should have been handled (beyond not taking those bad shots when not in imminent danger)?
If JR further thinks that military advisors, using big guns, being trained by the military, equates to the government advocating violence, well again, that's a belief. I just call it being prepared to meet folks like the Branch Dravidians, the Weavers, or Finicum, many of which have mil-spec weapons and defensive compounds. JR, how do you suggest the government approach armed camps with individuals who are not complying with the court and are heavily armed?
There you go again! You're inability to see any other perspective other than your own limited one is astounding.
You win. By attrition. I'll have better luck communicating to a wall.
"an excellent explanation of why some of us are so opposed to and scared of Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/humans-of-new-yorks-brandon-stanton-on-trump-154634146.html it just might be worth your time to watch/listen>
OMG>> the 'morality' of it all...so scary to close our Borders and ban all Muslims and Protect our own 'Nation'!
''can a candidate who brings out such violence from all sides be good for the country?
I have to wonder what the consequences would be when dealing with the rest of the world.........."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/toddler-filmed-sawing-teddy-bear-throat-article-1.2333367
This is what scares me > maybe we should just send Planned Parenthood over there!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/16/the-isis-army-that-s-still-unborn.html
TRUMP Can't be Elected Fast Enough!
Sha44ss, I find it so strange that you have proclaimed to be such a devout Christian many times over and over, however you feel so passionate about someone that has made it pretty obvious that he is the total opposite of Jesus.
Jesus is about acceptance, unity and love. Trump stands for bigotry, division and hatred.
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Well said positive. Above all Trump stands for himself and drama. Boy does he love the drama.
Another interesting read - "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" is so true. http://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-gets-away-with-saying-things-other-candidates-cant-55615
Very well said, positive.....and so true, Bonv
Sha...........this is for you........
4 cat says:
''can a candidate who brings out such violence from all sides be good for the country?
I have to wonder what the consequences would be when dealing with the rest of the world.....................
"an excellent explanation of why some of us are so opposed to and scared of Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/humans-of-new-yorks-brandon-stanton-on-trump-154634146.html
it just might be worth your time to watch/listen"
(OMG > the Morality of Donald Trump wanting to Close our Borders is so 'Racist' and so scary!! >>the Bleedin Hearts just want to let ALL of Humanity in to our Country!)
Here is the violence that is really scary!> *
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/16/the-isis-army-that-s-still-unborn.html
Maybe he could just send Planned Parenthood over there NOW!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/toddler-filmed-sawing-teddy-bear-throat-article-1.2333367
*Closed Borders and a Strong Military sounds like Common Sense Candidate to Me!
Donald Trump cant ge't Elected soon enough and put a stop to the Insanity of the Left...and the GOPe that are Sealing our Fate!
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/14/north-korea-threatens-hydrogen-bomb-attack-on-manhattan/
Maybe he'll Nuke them First!
some of Trump's supporters - http://usuncut.com/politics/neo-nazis-trump-supporters/
Great eye opening articles 4catmom and bonv. Unfortunately the blinded will refuse to see to the truth.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
More from Republicans
I know we're talking about different things positive, but "the blinded" don't come out just to vote for Trump. As more time goes by I'm convinced that his popularity has very little to do with the things you and 4catmom have just posted. No, I'm near certain it has to do with voting for someone who *isn't* the same. Trump supporters just don't seem care what he stands for as long as he's anti-establishment.
And I have to tell you, the idiocy that ensued in the tangent above (the absolute lack of understanding of what the application of force in society really means, probably the most basic tenet of how governments operate), where words and definitions are nothing more than things to twist to justify one's desires, tells me that some people will never understand any other perspective other than the current status quo. And you know what? They're the ones screaming the loudest about Trump being bad for this country. That tells me something.
I've long been saying something's going to break, must break, for our current trajectory to change. And maybe this is it. This may be my protest vote. Not at all because I think highly of Trump, the exact opposite really. It's a vote to say enough is enough and let's get on with fixing things already. Yes, I very well may vote for Trump. Holy crap. I can't believe it has come to this in our country.
"JR, how do you suggest the government approach armed camps with individuals who are not complying with the court and are heavily armed?"
Well, since I don't want to "advocate violence" (I want to grow up to be just like SD)... starve them out. Cut the power. Cut all access. Oregon didn't turn into a "Waco", did it?
As for Trump,
JIT said
"As more time goes by I'm convinced that his popularity has very little to do with the things you and 4catmom have just posted. No, I'm near certain it has to do with voting for someone who *isn't* the same. Trump supporters just don't seem care what he stands for as long as he's anti-establishment."
That's really ALL there is too it; I don't understand why so many people aren't getting that. And as I've said already- Trump's popularity WAS MADE BY D.C.- the frustration with , unapproval of, and corruption of D.C. MADE THIS "MONSTER". If the GOP didn't want Trump as a nominee, perhaps they should have done more to REPRESENT their constituency- since that is their job. A President Trump would be nothing more than the people saying "F you political parties, WE will elect who WE want- JUST TO SPITE YOU, and REMIND YOU OF WHO THE BOSS IS, if necessary."
The big question now is, if the GOP goes to a brokered convention, and they don't nominate Trump (assuming Trump has the plurality of votes), will he run 3rd party? I'm betting he will. And with the anger at the GOP for not nominating him (assuming he has the plurality), I'm betting MOST of the GOP voters- even guys like me who are voting for Cruz, and people who were voting for Rubio- will follow him, for the reasons I just described. In a 3-way race, I say Trump COULD win, but the GOP's brokered nominee will finish dead last, unless they can resurrect and run Ronald Reagan. Then he'd win in a landslide- AGAIN. LOL
Even Ted Cruz has said (I paraphrase) "whoever gets to the convention with the most delegates should be the nominee, and I will support that person". I'm telling you- it doesn't matter what the "rules" of the party are; the party elite writing and re-writing it's own rules it's like a king rewriting the bible as he sees fit. The PEOPLE in the party won't stand for it this time, and the GOP is playing russian roulette- this could very well be the death of the republican party as we know it. No one knows what will rise from the ashes. Interesting times.
People are tired with our political system. We are technically a Democratic Republic. The masses vote for people to represent them. These representatives are supposed to be proxies for them. Instead, special interest groups run the show. This is a bastardization of the process outlined by the founding fathers. Period...
Now Trump warns that there will be riots if he doesn't get the republican nomination!
What does that tell you???? Inciting violence!
This is a bastardization of the process outlined by the founding fathers. Period...
PERFECT.
Anyone who thinks Trump is NOT a politician needs to take their blinders off.
His campaign involves telling everyone who he is better than the rest, telling people what they want to hear without any concrete plans to accomplish those objectives, and spending most of his time tearing his opponents down.
If that behavior doesn't make him a politician, what does it make him? He's no better than the other candidates in that regard.
"Anyone who thinks Trump is NOT a politician needs to take their blinders off."
That may be true; I am certainly not "defending" Trump- but perception is reality. His supporters PERCEIVE him as an outsider (and he IS at least MORE of an outsider than the party people are), and that's all that matters.
Just like many of you PERCEIVED Obama as some kind of savior who would actually bring "hope & change" to America, and "fix it"...LOL. We tried to tell you....
"You win. By attrition. I'll have better luck communicating to a wall." Gee Positive, you must be a wall :>)
DJIT: I have no issue with "what the application of force in society really means, probably the most basic tenet of how governments operate." I agree with you 100%. But that was not what the discussion was about, it is a different topic. Once again you twist the discussion with duplicitous tangential spins into other topics and things. It was two words, advocate violence, as applied to Trump. You went in a completely different direction in that discussion and now are extending that into an area where, of course, I agree with you 100%. Laws are force, they compel you to certain actions. Rule of Law is how our government operate, it's Constitutional, something that every citizen is sworn to defend against foreign and domestic abuse.
"And I have to tell you, the idiocy that ensued in the tangent above." Takes two to Tango, dear......
JR: "Well, since I don't want to "advocate violence" (I want to grow up to be just like SD)... starve them out. Cut the power. Cut all access. Oregon didn't turn into a "Waco", did it?" Good point, guess we learned that zealots can mean business and have little respect for the rule of law and human life. Hopefully the improvement will be a roadmap for the future. Still say the government did not advocate violence in this situation, they were just willing participants........
KB: Kent State. Uh oh, think you might have a winner. There is no doubt that Ohio Governor Rhodes called the rock and bottle throwing protestors "brown shirts" and "night riders" promising to eradicate the problem, not fix the symptoms, while pounding and slamming his desk.... There is no doubt that the government felt they were under attack by armed groups of revolutionaries. There is no doubt that bottles and rocks were being thrown, fires set.
But I am not sure that Nixon ever advocated violence. "President Nixon responded to the Kent State incident with a brief statement that began, “This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.” Nixon met with Kent State students and even embarked on an unscheduled, pre-dawn visit to anti-war demonstrators who had gathered in Washington, D.C. to discuss what aides described as, “the ‘war thing’ and other topics.” The stunned student protesters became even more baffled when Nixon sought to talk with one young man about college football and with another about surfing." http://www.iancfriedman.com/?p=1134
The ironic part about Kent State is, is this the good ole days where we carried em out on a stretcher that the Donald is yearning for? "I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy totally disruptive, throwing punches. We're not allowed to punch back anymore ... I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks."
[1 February 2016, Iowa] "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."
[26 February 2016, Oklahoma] "In the good old days, they'd rip him out of that seat so fast. But today, everybody's politically correct. Our country's going to hell with being politically correct."
[29 February 2016, Virginia] "Get him out of here please. Get him out. Get him out ... Are you from Mexico? Are you from Mexico? Huh? Are you from Mexico?"
[4 March 2016, Michigan] "Get out of here. Get out. Out! ... This is amazing. So much fun. I love it. I love it. We having a good time? USA, USA, USA! ... All right, get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it ... We had four guys, they jumped on him, they were swinging and swinging. The next day, we got killed in the press — that we were too rough. Give me a break. You know? Right? We don't want to be too politically correct anymore. Right, folks?"
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-kent-state/
DJIT is right about one thing, If this guy is President, the government will indeed advocate violence to deal with domestic protest. At least that's what he is telling us. Remember, if the Donald looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then The Donald is a duck.
Trump is Brilliant!! I believe There is more to Trump's plan to take back America from the AntiAmerican Elitists than anyone has even imagined!
TODAY:
""Donald Trump’s senior policy adviser Stephen Miller is explaining the detailed role Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80% will play as chairman of Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisory Committee""
For first time, Miller detailed the effort Sessions has poured into this new role. “Jeff Sessions has been meeting for hours now putting together a team of foreign policy advisers, military experts, [and] intelligence experts,” Miller said. “I had a chance to speak to Sen. Sessions today and his military advisers for about half an hour before coming here and we discussed some robust foreign policy ideas.”
Miller informed viewers that Trump has “sat down with Senator Jeff Sessions and has spoken about these [foreign policy] issues at length.”
Miller also discussed the expertise Sessions would be bringing to the role: “Sessions has been for twenty years on the Armed Services Committee” and “is one of the most respected members of the Senate,” Miller said. “Anyone who knows Jeff Sessions will tell you that he is the most straight-shooting, sincere, honest, [and] frankly apolitical person that you will ever meet in Washington.”
BRILLIANT!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/17/trump-campaign-releases-new-details-about-sessions-role-as-foreign-policy-adviser/
Let me add even more positive news for this half arse negative trump thread over taken by the demorats. Emerson poll of NY has trump at 64% nearest competitor (creepy cruZ) 12%. Trump got some Rubio votes and will potentially get all 95 of those delegates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/threatening-letter-sent-to-donald-trump-son-eric-trump/
Idiots all round!! Ridiculous!! Something like this shouldn't happen to anyone, but can't say Donald didn't bring this on himself.
the threat to trumps son couldn't have come from the left, they are completely non-violent and are against using violence, it has be a conservative republican who sent it because that's what all red state conservative republicans want, to foment more and more violence, riots and mayhem,
it's the dems that support law and order not the repubs, come on now, get with it.
ah, the reactionary right demonizing an entire class of individuals when indeed one very bad person did this despicable act.
Let me guess, we started it, it's their fault, etc. etc. etc.
From Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein:
"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics," they wrote. "It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."
Sometimes, just sometimes, things happen that are not "driven" by the left or even the right just people. All sides have extremists and threatening candidates and family members is ridiculous but as SD said not all candidates release the information for the publicity.
Funny rant by a Trump supporter. Lots of coarse language...
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10208568005698691&id=1265333719&refsrc= https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Fharley.bradley%2Fvideos%2F10208568005698691%2F&_rdr
"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."
When the mainstream moves this far from common sense, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
Conservatives haven't moved anywhere... that's why we're called conservatives, remember?
For all you Kasich fans..... I present, Mr. Above-the-Law and name-caller....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTf_qyRXhxk
LOL if that's the only dirt you got on Kasich then I think we are ok. Calling a cop a jerk after getting a ticket? wow!!!
we have a whole thread on HL about people doing that. I guess none of them can be President LOL
"Conservatives haven't moved anywhere... that's why we're called conservatives, remember?"
Think you said it all, again :>)
But as funny as that statement is, the conservative movement really shrunk from embracing far right, center and far left conservatives to the right of center and the new power elite are not inclusive of anything beyond that smaller segment of the entire movement.
Let’s “Make American Grate Again” Some folk’s dream fulfilled soon-to-be leader, Benitowannabee Tramp, believes in an America where, if you work hard, you will succeed and live the America Dream. Like El Duck, pull yourself up by your bootstraps with you own initiative and sweat of your brow. Or better yet, have Daddy pull your bootstraps for you……
“My whole life really has been a ‘no.’ And I fought through it," he responded.
"It has not been easy for me," he continued. "I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back. And I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan. I started buying up properties, and I did great." Trump said that his father doubted him and felt his foray into Manhattan wouldn't work out. "All my life I was told 'no,'" Trump said.
Wow, that’s a harsh truth. Too bad the audit trail does not paint exactly that same picture.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/26/1439535/-Trump-knows-your-pain-his-daddy-once-gave-him-a-1-million-loan-he-had-to-pay-back
Like Donald, to fight through those “no’s,” you have to join your father’s firm while you are still in college in another state to struggle for that all important college job. No, not Wharton Business School, but the Wharton School where you studied business nonetheless --- Daddy’s business. Then start your show. Graduate. Get a "small" Daddy loan for $1M, worth $4.6M today, then have Daddy secure your bank loans so you can go-it-on-your-own, with Daddy and Daddy’s friends, all silent partners on your first Manhattan deal having Daddy back you for $70M co-signing the deal and even Daddy-committing job completion in case The Duck quacked out and failed.
It really helps that Fred, the racist, Trump, couldn’t have gotten this deal on his own with his name being real estate mud by this time for fraud, fines and other business malfeasance. Black lives do matter Fred.
Benito Trump continued to pull on those bootstraps, not his but Daddy’s, to get Daddy’s financial bailouts including the bogus $3.5M cash flow influx for his crashing (I’m gonna save Atlantic City) casinos where Fred bought $3,500,000 in chips that he never cashed in. That’s a cash flow float of $3.5M. In the end it was illegal. But Daddy paid all the fines on probably saying: “go ahead Don Don, cheat and I will cover the fines.” A message The Duck uses today to advocate violence and hate. He is a quick quack study.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/
Trump continues that storybook Horatio Alger childhood instilling a tough love work ethic in his family. Trump Organization’s bootstrap go getters Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump—all serving as EVPs within the Trump Organization prove that the organization only hires the best and the brightest, people who have made it the hard way, the Trump way. Make room for Daddy.
Trump marries brilliant inspirational foreign beauties too. Ivana, former model, rose by her bra straps to be Vice President of Interior Design for The Trump Organization. Post-divorce she leveraged that VP position into being a model again. Melania, another international model, post marriage, designs jewelry for her own company she built herself, with her own hands, a Trump Company no doubt…. Better cash in young while you can still model……:>)
Rumor has it that Baron Trump, age 10, who does not have bootstraps yet, has already shown sure signs of EVP potential. At least he has what it takes for the Trump Organization.
But beyond all the hard work, the inspirational individual effort, all those Trump inventions and innovations we use everyday that will be his legacy, there’s the meteoric rise to fame and fortune at levels that no other top 1% er could ever achieve in the Bush tax cut feed the rich new millennium.
Or could they?
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vs-other-billionaires-2015-8
JR wrote:
"Conservatives haven't moved anywhere... that's why we're called conservatives, remember?"
You're joking, right? Conservatives have moved so far right that positions held by people like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush are now considered liberal. They are extremists trying to pretend that everyone else has changed, not them. Unfortunately, many Anericans are too dumb to realize it.
"You're joking, right? Conservatives have moved so far right that positions held by people like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush are now considered liberal. They are extremists trying to pretend that everyone else has changed, not them. Unfortunately, many Anericans are too dumb to realize it."
Again, perspective is needed. Long term, as a country, haven't we moved very far from a conservative beginning to liberal in all aspects? From strong individual-centric governing to strong collective governing?
Not such a joke if you consider the trend over the long term. Heck, since the path has been consistently more liberal over time how can anyone criticize a conservative viewpoint without appearing to act from a selfish perspective?
Perspective doesn't make things right or wrong, just different.
I'm using the same perspective as those conservatives that hold up Reagan as a conservative hero while not realizing that he would be considered a RINO today.
No, Gadfly. The mainstream has moved left. The conservative right is the same as we have always been- wanting the Constitution adhered to, and government as small as possible. [note I am saying CONSERVATIVES- not Republicans- they are not the same thing]. What is considered "moderate" today is only moderate TODAY. In WWII, it would have been considered progressive liberal.
But then, that's why you're Gadfly and I'm JeffersonRepub.
Look at the news, all trump on every channel haha. Thanks to those pedophile protesters blocking a freakin highway.
Your conservative hero, Reagan, was for gun control, against a wall at the Mexican border, and for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Only you are talking about Reagan- do you have a comment on the constant tack to port (that's a left turn) of the United States over the 20th and 21st centuries?
Yep, I'm talking about conservative poster child Ronald Reagan. A RINO In 2016 politics.
Looks like msnbc is now covering trump instead of the Clinton town hall that was suppose to be on. And it is also covered on cnn instead of what was suppose to be on. Awesomeness for trump huge loss for protesting democrats
How about Nixon? He created the epa, favored affirmative action, and proposed a national healthcare plan. Another total RINO by today's standards.
Agree Gadfly. Both party's are essentially the same except for the emotional subjects.
Also agree about Reagan. Nothing financially conservative in the history books about his administration, especially when it comes to debt creation.
IMO, you're all right and all wrong on this one..... Now not saying I am right (that one's for you JIT), but some ideas to consider when delving into are we more progressive or conservative and the pitfalls of either.......
What galls me about conservatives is this misplaced notion that we have to return to the past in order to forge the future. That and JR's conservative mainstay of conservatives owning "wanting the Constitution adhered to" as if liberals spend all our time trying to figure out how to do the opposite. Word JR --- liberals want the Constitution adhered to also, you don't own that.
When we landed in America, many of our communities were, dare I say it, communistic, socialistic or basically religious communes. The concept of the pioneer did not come for many years.
How did pioneers come about? Well manifest destiny was a strong idea for someone who had little and wanted more. But it really got going with infrastructure; trains, telegraphs and the like. Guess what: the railroad is a socialist creation with much of it initially funded by you know who --- the government. The telegraph was less costly to pursue and private business did so. Basically a mess until AT&T monopolized it and you know the rest. However, one of the first inter-city experiments by Morse was funded by you know who: Congress......
The rest of the pioneer story is replete with Jim Bowie's, Jim Bridger's and all those other Jim's. Those rugged individuals who blazed the trails into the West. However the biggest push came with the Homestead Acts starting in the 1860's where you got free land from Big Brother --- the government. A conservative idea to have the government dole out free land, even Ayn Rand loves the concept. To own it, you had to stay five years and improve it, you know, be progressive.....
Around 50 year's later, these takers of the government dole, being the Ayn Rand individuals that they were, created the Dust Bowl which reached cataclysmic proportions by the 1930's.
But before that in 1929, a stock market bubble caused the crash that became The Great Depression. Soon 50% of our banks ran out of money and crashed. Consumer spending plummeted and unemployment reached bread line levels. Hoover, a conservative, reacted quickly by doing nothing except tightening the money supply --- the exact opposite of Obama. The Republican Hoover thought government had no place in intervening in the U.S. economy. Nor did Hoover feel it was the government's place to either help create jobs or help with any sort of economic relief for citizens. The swallows came home to roost and we had to eat them.
For three years we had to live with this crap until our first progressive, Franklin D. Roosevelt got there in 1933 and started The New Deal. I won't bore you but Social Security, FDIC, CCC, WPA, collective bargaining, minimum wage, and much more all started at this time to jump start us out of the depression and to provide nest egg safety nets for our older citizens.
He was aided in the Dust Bowl by a real progressive, a socialist communistic soil scientist (ha ha) Hugh Hammond Bennett went to a stalled Congress, impeccably timed his speech to coincide with a huge blanket of dust covering the Capitol, and the progressive era had begun in earnest. Soon the government was bailing out failed farmers as well as teaching them how not to repeat their sins of individualism in the future :>)
Bottom line: JIT is right and wrong.... born of the commune, we went individual only to find out it takes a village to protect it's citizens. We have, since 1933, swung progressive thank God and FDR.
JIT talks a big individualistic game but I have yet to hear him say he hates our major social programs of Social Security and Medicare --- the HUGE budget beacons of socialism. Or what he would do in lieu of them. JR, you can add your 2 cents, if you have them, too. Fire away.
JR is also right and wrong. The far right has remained consistent, perhaps growing in number and certainly growing in it's ability to wrest power from moderate conservatives and democrats alike. But that has forced Republicans in general to swing right and embrace the far right segment while disavowing and disowning their less moderate members. It will be their downfall; less exclusive is not necessarily more principled. It's just less popular and populous. 2010 was their year at the state level; 2012 was not. I agree with Trump on this; how could the rigid right lose to Obama in 2012. Oh wait, rigid..... So far no success for the big prize.
If Trump is their finest example for the American Presidency, I'll take the progressive criminal over the what-the-heck-does-he-stand-for- anyway....a wall? conman.
"liberals want the Constitution adhered to also, you don't own that."
Show me.
PLEASE.
"The far right has remained consistent, perhaps growing in number and certainly growing in it's ability to wrest power from moderate conservatives and democrats alike. But that has forced Republicans in general to swing right and embrace the far right segment while disavowing and disowning their less moderate members."
You've got it exactly backwards. Trump proves it- not because he is conservative, but because the republican base is SO FED UP with the GOP ignoring them, not doing what they say they are going to do, that they now want someone NOT IN the GOP. The GOP has been trying to go moderate for decades now- McCain? Romney? Come on.... while W was more moderate than most give him credit for, because of the war he is perceived as farther right wing than he actually is. But Trump's immense popularity -and yes I know more primary voters are voting against him than voting for him, but that's semantics- he's still wiping the floor with everyone, Cruz is the only one even within earshot- is because the GOP base doesn't believe or trust the GOP anymore. Period. It has little to do with Trump's stand on things (altho "building the wall" and "stopping illegal immigration" are certainly a big part of it as well....) but you've seen the Trump supporters: they'll vote for him NO MATTER WHAT. Why? Not because they believe in everything he says- but because HE'S NOT THE GOP. If the GOP DOESN'T want you, then WE do. THAT's Trump.
All this to say, the continued attempt in recent elections to move the GOP more towards the middle is precisely why the anti-establishment backlash of Trump is happening. Because a lot of us don't want the party drug any more center than it already is- the left hasn't moved towards the center at all- they just keep moving more left!!! And the GOP is friggin' chasing them instead of holding ground! The conservatives in the country want their party back- it's been AWOL for quite awhile now.
Or, if the GOP prefers (we'll see by their actions at the convention), we'll just kill the GOP. We'll leave- not vote, vote 3rd party, the GOP will never win another presidential election. (which I know a lot of you hippies would love!)
And, thinking about it- the 2 guys left standing- (Kasich isn't standing, he's groveling), have the 2 most conservative platforms of all the candidates. (with the exception of Rand Paul, the libertarian... it's unfortunate more people don't really know who he is or what he believes yet)... Trump and Cruz. Makes no difference what Trump has done in the past: from the podium, he's conservative: build the wall, stop illegal immigration, deport the illegals that are here, bring jobs back to the US, pro-gun/pro-concealed carry, etc.... it makes no difference if he can deliver or not: his message is conservative. And Cruz of course is an unabashed constitutional conservative.
The two guys with the MOST CONSERVATIVE platforms are getting the lion's share of the primary votes.
The Homestead Act starting in the 1860's where you got free land from Big Brother---the government. You mean the land Big Brother---the government stole from the Native American Indian Tribes.
JR, I know an awful lot of people who call themselves conservatives who would love nothing more than to do away with the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.
If a judge lets a criminal walk because of an illegal search, they all bitch about the "liberal" judge, when he's actually a "constitutional conservative" at least in that particular respect.
"JR, I know an awful lot of people who call themselves conservatives who would love nothing more than to do away with the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. "
They aren't conservatives. Despite what they may think.
Altho I'm going to guess that you weren't speaking literally.... somebody being pissed that a criminal walked due to a technicality is not wanting to abolish the 6th Amendment. Do you know any people who call themselves conservatives who have ACTUALLY SAID they want to abolish the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments?
Because if you do, see above.
ianimal - Not to mention the "constitutional conservative" of all "constitutional conservatives" Mark Levine wants the entire SCOTUS dissolved because the Executive is infallible. Never mind Bork or Meese, they're just "Right". No erosion of rights going on here... ;-)
+100 JR on this column
. "The far right has remained consistent, perhaps growing in number and certainly growing in it's ability to wrest power from moderate conservatives and democrats alike. But that has forced Republicans in general to swing right and embrace the far right segment while disavowing and disowning their less moderate members."
Let the chips fall where they may.
" Not to mention the "constitutional conservative" of all "constitutional conservatives" Mark Levine wants the entire SCOTUS dissolved because the Executive is infallible."
Uh... since when? I'll need proof of that, please. Levin is correct in that SCOTUS has become politicized and agenda-fied like all branches of govt, but I have never heard him call for the dissolution of the supreme court. Term limits perhaps. But dissolution? Show your evidence.
JR - In 'Men in Black' Levin discusses Marbury vs Madison and posits that the SCOTUS role has been wrong ever since then. He says that their single role is supposed to be an essential rubber stamp of the executive. If interpreting the Constitution isn't their job (which is the quintessential result of Marbury), there literally is nothing left. Even worse than that, Levin promotes his admitted protege Bork because of 'Original Intent'. That's the very basis of not being Constitutionally Conservative but changing the meaning to be anything your politics believes because it's not what the Constitution says, but what you *believe* you want it to say. The very definition of 'Activist Judge'. You don't have to believe me or anyone else, just go to Levin's book and he says it himself.
** JR >Here is a very well written explanation by a Army Veteran as to
"Why the Conservative Movement has left alot of people like me behind."
https://ricochet.com/an-open-letter-to-the-conservative-media-explaining-why-i-have-left-the-movement/
Being Older this reflects my view as well:
An excerpt:
"Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition.
***This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity"***
I do find it quite amusing that the same people that are bashing Trump for "condoning violence" are sending Trump's family threatening letters..............Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black
Wow, how does detective Darrin know this letter came from someone bashing Trump for his advocating violence?
If that was even remotely true Darrin, there would be a heck of a lot more mail. But since you're comparing.....
Compared to the level of hate mail the Obama's receive, Trump's a nit. And Obama does not whine about his or his family's constant threats from Trump supporters. Well, at least I think some of them could be Trump supporters.....
"An Open Letter to the Conservative Media Explaining Why I Have Left the Movement"
I have been watching events longer then this writer. I didn't vote for Dole and all the others he voted for. Being older, I was wiser before the writer. I was just a lonesome Pole Cat, in my views on politics. Now about 25% are waking up, but I am afraid to late. We are too far over the cliff to survive on our own.
GC,
So Levin did NOT say he thinks the SCOTUS should be dissolved. Thanks.
BTW, I own and have read Men In Black. Which is why I questioned the statement in the first place. Holding the opinion that the SCOTUS has been legislating from the bench and has gotten corrupted with political agendas is not even in the ballpark of "wanting it dissolved." That's what you WANTED to hear him him say, so you read that into it.
***This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity"***
Code language as usual...
Really yankeefan? I'm sure there are some people who feel that way, but IMO you and others who always seem to fall back to racism as the cause of all ill-will in the world are just wrong. Racism is such an idiotic concept that the percentage of the population believing in it would be statistically too high for your belief to be true. The vast majority of people simply aren't that dumb.
Just saw E. Warren's tweets against Trump. Yeah, that's the way you lead by example and show everyone how a leader takes the high road! Someone should remind her that the term "loser" can be applied many different ways...
Trump has a way of getting people to show their true colors by lowering the bar, that's for sure.
Looks like Trump is definitely the next president...
http://theweek.com/articles/613351/how-sheldon-adelson-burnishing-donald-trumps-image-israel
JIT wrote:
"Really yankeefan? I'm sure there are some people who feel that way, but IMO you and others who always seem to fall back to racism as the cause of all ill-will in the world are just wrong. Racism is such an idiotic concept that the percentage of the population believing in it would be statistically too high for your belief to be true. The vast majority of people simply aren't that dumb."
You act like people just decide whether they should be racist or not, as if they're choosing which brand of cereal to eat. Do you really think it works that way?
Paul Ryan is starting to impress me more and more, such as in this:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/paul-ryan-is-trying-to-1391571762708534.html
I'm even seeing a good point or two in Cruz.
I think what's happening is that Trump is so bad, everyone else is looking good in contrast, LOL!
Cruz really blew it with his xenophobic Muslim community police patrol pledge. First, the President has not control over local police; who you planning to send Ted --- the Army? Second, when NYCPD noted they have 900 Muslims on the force, the military has thousands protecting our country, and what will police on the street do for the radicalized in the basement, looks like Ted is really stupid on this one.
Of course the Donald not only agreed with Ted on this but offered to double down by not ruling out use of nuclear arms in the Middle East. Muslims in the Middle East said, "yeah, we're familiar with those types of rulers, we had Kaddafi, Khomeini, and Hussein."
I have been going through Trump’s plans and of course the first thing one notes is there are not really many plans at all. Missing is education, a real health care plan to replace his revocation of the ACA, or an economic plan beyond his trickle down tax plan. May be some notions from the past but it’s a new Trump this year and what he said before does not matter apparently. NOTE: what he says now does not matter in the future….. Mostly Trump’s plans are some sound bites about making it great and Trump is the greatest, he’s really smart, but nothing tantamount to a plan or direction even.
I have shown that his deportation plan will cost over $600B and leave many job vacancies unable to be filled by our citizens costing the economy billions and perhaps recession. The wall is the wall but can you say boat? Tunnel? Whatever. He say’s Mexico will pay because of a trade imbalance. Out of the other side of his mouth he says all U.S. companies in Mexico will be gigged 35% on their product imported from Mexico. Thus ends the trade imbalance. Mexico has said it will not pay using Trump’s language to say it in four letter words.
His tax plan is reviewed as a total failure by most economists. The words deficit, debt and recession are often used as descriptors. The plan relies on trickle down to work, however first we take the cuts and then we wait, and wait, and wait for the trickle down while the deficit and debt grow dramatically at rates even Obama and Bush Jr. would shrink from. A hallmark I noted was that Trump’s tax plan nets the Trump family over $2.5B in removal of an inheritance tax that only affects the top .2%. That’s not the top 2%, that was point 2%... Trump personally will make out like a bandit on his business tax cuts too.
In lieu of his actual plans, lots of people support Trump. He convinces you of strength, he is brash, and he takes no prisoners. He denigrates and picks on people that people feel need picking on: Mexicans, Muslims, Journalists, Establishment, you name it --- the list is growing. For that I guess you forgive his plans that will obviously bankrupt you faster than his casinos went belly up in A.C.
He is a great businessman amassing great personal wealth while not performing any public service and a paltry history of charity far below any one of his wealth peers. His own charity foundation is funded by quid pro quo donations where the Donald has provided access and actions based on receiving foundation funds. His foundation takes in cash but doles out precious little. None of the money raised for Vets for example has gone farther than Trump’s doors at this point. Trump’s business was created through funding of Trump’s Daddy. Not the million dollar start up but the Daddy-generated $70M start up loan in Manhattan through the Daddy cash bailouts in Trump’s journey to bankruptcy while making Atlantic City great again.
Next I will look at his only other remaining plan, if you can call it that, for foreign policy.
Cruz "blew it" with strangerdanger???? Shocker LOL
That's like Chris Matthews saying "Cruz blew it; I won't be voting for him" LOL
Again- WHO are the only 2 people in the entire republican primary actually getting votes? Trump & Cruz. WHO are the only 2 talking about ACTUALLY policing the border and profiling Muslims? Trump & Cruz.
Obviously, most of the people voting in the republican primary agree with them, and disagree with you, SD. Again.... shocker LOL
For the most part, except for the parts where he disagrees with himself, Trump’s foreign policy plan is non-interventionist, isolationist policy skipping the world while focusing on domestic issues and rebuilding our infrastructure. In light of Paris and Brussels attacks, Trump questions need for NATO, a major global protection treaty outcome of The Greatest Generation.
As an example of this policy: "Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting," Trump said. "They’re not doing anything. And I say: 'Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia." He's got a point but does that mean we should pull out of NATO?
According to Trump, if it does not affect the U.S. directly Trump will back off no matter who else it affects. Except for Muslims. Except for protecting Israel this week but not last week…. But for the rest of the world, it’s KMAYOYO. So long NATO, so long Europe, so long Asia and especially so long Australia you gun hating fools. I wonder what Putin will do given this policy? Goodbye Ukraine, goodbye Crimea.....
For example, “"We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."
So to rebuild the military, Trump plans to tear down NATO and bring forces home from Asia and the Middle East. “South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We’re constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing." I wonder what North Korea will do
For Muslims, Trump will ban all of them from entering the U.S.; he will put boots on the ground to destroy ISIS, and then he will steal the Syrian and Iraqi oil for reparations. Stealing the oil is a polar opposite to isolationism, FYI.
This week Trump announced his foreign policy advisors, a list already available from any other candidate but missing from Trump. Supposedly the best and the brightest according to Trump, basically no one knows who they are. Literally foreign affairs experts had to google Trump’s list.
You got Mr. Phares, a known believer that all Muslim’s are bad. You got Mr. Kellogg whose last job was 2003-2004. There’s Mr. Papadopoulos and a few others who are basically unknowns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/
This week Trump indicated that he would not rule out a nuclear attack in the Middle East saying that all cards are on the table. I guess that's the threat he will use as he pulls out of Europe and Asia. Trouble is when our local support is gone and the threat is issued, one can only guess what happens next.
So basically Trump’s foreign policy is: part A: hands off and let the world run amuck. Part B: Leave the world alone until they attack us directly and then we put boots on the ground, kill them all and their families. Part C: Steal whatever they have for reparations.
Well, it’s a simple plan at least.
"I have shown that his deportation plan will cost over $600B"
Yeah, I've seen this number floated around, and frankly I think it's pure BS. Not a knock on you... I know this number came from some other articles.
Just for perspective... the entire Gulf War cost the U.S. $61B (in 1990). We moved a LOT of stuff back and forth, and you can't say there weren't a ton of administrative costs there. In today's dollars, that's $110B.
$600B would mean each and every illegal alien deportation would average $54,545. That's an expensive bus ticket!
Each state could BUY a brand new 777 aircraft ($320M each - even cheaper used...) dedicated ONLY to flying out each of the illegals for $16B.
It would take 24,390 flights to get all 11,000,000 people out (451 passengers per flight).
Assuming all of the illegals are from countries within 777 range (~6,000 miles) the longest flight would be ~10 hours (plus 10 hours back empty).
777's cost ~$9,000/hour to fly (fuel), so each round trip is $180,000. Total cost for all 24,390 flights is $4.39B. Now we're up to ~$20B total.
If we get one flight per day (per plane) it would take about 1.5 years to finish the job. We could *duplicate* the entire TSA for staffing/admin to make it all run smoothly. Based on their budget that's another $10B. We're hitting $30B now...
Of course, there are other costs... aircraft maintenance, courts, airports, etc... but I've hit some of the big $ items (tangible assets, actual "hands-on" moving costs, security agencies, etc.) and I'm only at 5% of your estimate. Where's the other $570B going?
(Also... a 1.5 year old 777 could be sold for a decent chunk of change when it's all over)
Over time these illegals must go home or be supported by their anchor babies. They don't pay taxes, or if they do it is for someone else's SSN which they cannot collect on...
Mark Mc., you're only accounting for actual transportation costs. Conceivably, each person could need to be detained for up to a year prior to their actual deportation. It costs about $50,000 per year per inmate to house someone in the corrections system. For 11 million people, that's more than $600B right there (in NJ... we can probably due it a lot cheaper in Arpaio's tent city oasis of pink underwear, but the costs will still be significant) and it doesn't even take into account the fact that our current prison system is already overcrowded and we would need to build more facilities. On the bright side, once all the illegals are gone, we'll have all those buildings for the prison-industrial complex to "grow their market share"...
A lot of those prison costs go to health care, education, work release, etc.
The intent here is not long term incarceration and rehabilitation with "benefits".
It depends. But I give you credit for stepping up to defend the numbers. Seem to have engineer in you, no wonder the missing sense of humor :>)
The $600B is based on current costs and includes policing and administration fees, timing and schedule, and who know what else. Sure, if we waived any legal costs, just skipped the court part of it, we would still need to identify, find, and round up. If we could magically have full planes of people arrive as the plane lands, your model might work. If flight crews and planes could work nonstop for two years, your model might work. But it ain't just plane fare and straight-line math based on the totals. We will need multiple crews per plane, maintenance, housing, confinement, whatever even if we forgo the legal part, you know like making sure we're not just sending them to their death.
There are also no economies of scale here necessarily. If anything, there is an increase expense due to size and schedule. One year would be far more costly than two years to conclude the exodus for example.
The Iraq War troop levels were miniscule compared to 11M. Sure, a lot of equipment, but a less than 11,000,000 people. Apples to oranges
Your airline method includes fully loaded planes at maximum capacity seating. To do that you will need to increase temporary accommodation's needed to stage passengers, housing, food, water, etc.
You assume 1 flight per day, 20 hours of airtime, that's tight but your 10 hours is high, your fudge factor no doubt to keep it an "honest" spin. Yet 50 planes is way light and does not compensate for less than 100% loading, zero downtime due to maintenance, etc.. You assume 1 plane per state. You assume one flight per day which even at 5 hours might be reasonable. Even at 5 hours per flight, that alone makes more than one flight a day per state pretty much impossible in your model. Not to mention how do an extra 50 or 100 planes necessarily land in Mexico every day?
Given 24K flights at 50 flights a day, that's 490 flying days which, given a five day week, is close to two years right there. 1.9 to be exact. Given that type of schedule, how many crews per plane do you need? More than one for sure.
Ands that's only transpo, the easy part. It does not include:
It costs $437 to arrest someone in a fist-fight in nowhere's AR and that does not include: finding them (since it was called in to 911) and"other expenses which are necessary to keep the police department running, such as building utilities and maintenance, computer software and office equipment, or salary for support staff. In addition, costs for insurance, Social Security, and other employee benefits are likely to cost the city an approximate 40 percent above base pay rate." http://www.blythevillecourier.com/story/1851176.html
In NYC, it costs $1,800 for a misdemeanor arrest. http://www.newsweek.com/embargoeddec-156-pm-policing-costs-291948
On average, it costs $2,000 across America for each prostitution arrest.
At $1,500 per detainee, that's $17B; at $2,000 it's $22B.
So the costs beyond transpo mount up quickly
I agree the $600B is high but, sorry, it is calculated by conservatives so I went with it :>) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/.
Try the current deportation cost of about $10,000 per for a total of $110B. That's your low end. The high end of $600B is really adding in the size of the project and the expedited schedule. http://www.newsweek.com/how-much-would-it-cost-deport-all-undocumented-immigrants-364316
My bottom line is over $200B++, the plus given the current numbers just won't cover the waste in this project due to size, scope, and expedited schedule.
And none of this includes the economic cost of not being able to backfill the vacant jobs left by these 11 million people. We don't have the numbers to fill the jobs and the numbers we have are in the wrong places and certainly will have a hard time moving, much less moving long distance for minimum wage back breaking work. This is big enough to toss us into recession.
So OK, $200B is way to much to pay to have a recession. I give.
If Trump gets in and I am right, I want your pledge that you will stand at the White House gate, cup in hand, yelling "Please Sir, can I have some more?"
Besides... we've been told that the government could easily go around and confiscate weapons/magazines of some 100 to 150 million gun owners (and presumably arrest those that don't comply).
Rounding up 11 million aliens is at least 10 times easier...
What are you worried about anyway, SD?? All the polls show Hillary beating Trump in the general.... you should be singing Trump's praises! Operation Chaos!
Yeah but the gun confiscation conspiracy folks are the same folks that believe 11 million people can be deported in one or two years. They must all drink Trump Water.
I take back my comment about your lack of a sense of humor though :>)
My worry is not Trump J.R. It's his believers that scare the heck out of me. Given the paucity of plans, the imperfection of plans presented, and his fascist dialog, it's the following that fans my fears. That and a recurring nightmare about a Trump/Cruz Reconciliation Ticket complete with spousal mud wrestling hosted by Vince McMahon.
What can I say. There's a sucker punch born every minute.
I think we need a Clinton/Kasich ticket with too many pages of over thought plans and politically correct indecipherable dialog alluding to the best of everything and saying nothing that you can pin them on. With their believers saying "free, free, free," "kill wall street" and "robin hood the rich" leading to even worse nightmare of Bill and Bernie mud wrestling hosted by Don King only to find out it's Al Sharpton in disguise.
Has anyone mentioned the debt recently?
When Paul Ryan, whose numbers never added up, starts to look like the sanest guy in the room you know we got trouble right here in Potomac City. At least he has consistently focused on the debt. Then again, he still can't get anything done even with a packed house.
But I ask you. Have you gone on the Trump web site and read what's coming? Does not take long, there's not much apparently to talk about.......
MG - Perhaps you missed my part about creating an entire duplicate of TSA in my numbers... I used that as a representation of the "law enforcement" budget which would include the arrest and coordination of travel/security/etc.
Considering there were 850 million airplane passengers in 2014, I think another TSA type of agency could handle 11 million all by themselves.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts015_15
Aircraft maintenance/down-time is not as much as you think. Long haul aircraft get maintenance overnight and just repeat their cycles the next day. Sure, there are mechanics and other personnel to get it done, but United (as an example) currently has 720 planes in their fleet. 50 additional planes and their accompanying support staff isn't an insurmountable goal... besides... it's high tech job creation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks
Are my figures accurate to the nearest dollar? Of course not, but 11 million (while a large number) is still a blip in the grand scheme of air transportation volume, so I probably overestimated on a lot of things.
Surprised you would even want TSA like protections on these flights :>) But current TSA activities and funding has nothing to do with identification, discovery, arrest and extraction so yes, I ignored it.
Sure, maintenance, like everything can look like a nit when viewed against the entire system. Using my numbers of 10 hour round trips, it's only 600 50-man hour Type A maintenance checks or 30,000 maintenance hours. Oh wait, now stretch that across 50 states, bear in mind those plans will be losing a day of travel, and all of a sudden the 1.9 years to complete the plan goes over 2 years via the nit. Or you gonna need more planes, more maintenance men.......
Likewise, the total passenger count increase for this adventure is only about 1% per year for two years. Sounds like a nit. But that's in an industry geared at doing about a 2.5% increase a year. Suddenly a 1% extra growth spurt looks huge, not a nit as you double the growth for two years only to lose it completely in year three. Now apply that growth not against the industry but against a handful of carriers asking not to increase their flights across the board in general, but specifically from 50 states but all to a single destination and no round trips.
For example, Newark handles about a 1% growth rate each year in passengers and we all know what managing Newark Airport is like. What happens to Newark when the growth rate needed doubles for two years. Think it's still a nit and that extra traffic does not result in extra costs?
The costs I provided at about $10,000 a deportation are based on current experience and still do not include added cost for sudden ramp up and ramp down to handle 11,000,000 people in only two years. Pretty conservative estimates which is why I say $200B easy. $600B may be a stretch but, like I said, it was generated by conservatives, I'll let you shoot it down.
I think you're plane view is nice but too simplistic and high level to be accurate and, like I keep saying, the money ain't in the transpo, that's more a logistics nightmare. The money is in getting them to the plane.
And you still need to tackle the real money. That's to repair the damage left behind when 11,000,000 jobs need to be backfilled with less than 11 million workers, most of which are located in the wrong places.
I am trying to shoot it down... $600B is a fear tactic number... my "high level" estimates are basically assuming worst case duplication of entire transportation and security infrastructure, and it barely scratches the surface of the $600B target.
We could build a whole additional United Airlines, TSA, and 10 NYPD'S (all dedicated to nothing but deportation, no distractions with other services that they currently provide) and still be below $100B.
I'm not taking a position on the economic impact of mass deportation. I believe the article you referenced also excluded that.
By the way, I chose the TSA reference because it's an easy visualization of the agency size required to handle 850M passengers a year (as inefficient as they are, I gave them an 80 to 1 benefit of the doubt that they could be useful in other law enforcement areas).
I would rather their $7B budget go to immigration enforcement, rather than simply watching 90% of the bombs roll past on their conveyor.
Not sure why you are wasting your time running numbers for something that's not going to happen. If that gets you off then go for it. " My worry is not Trump JR, it's his followers that scare the check out of me". What has me bewildered is the amount of lemmings that are following Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton looking for the government to be their caretaker throughout life. Not a Trump supporter but see the anger and distrust they have of the status quo going on in Washington. Unfortunately he happens to be the mouthpiece that is channeling that anger and distrust.
"My worry is not Trump J.R. It's his believers that scare the heck out of me."
Welcome to the club many of US have been in for the last 2 elections.
Yahoo has this article on it's page today. It's very long making an attempt to answer your questions on Trump supporters
.. http://news.yahoo.com/who-s-really-voting-for-trump---portraits-beyond-the-polls-061622809.html;_ylt=AwrBT73lcfRWjp8ARh5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyaDkyMWp1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE3OTNfMQRzZWMDc2M-
Yeah JR, like I have not been scared in your politics before :>) We just won to big one, that's all.
KB, I just like running the numbers especially against Trump who runs his mouth without checking the math. More factual than calling one side "lemmings" looking for a caretaker and the other seeing the "anger and distrust they have of the status quo going on in Washington." Gosh, wonder who I should support based on that.....
I'll stick to the numbers.
I applaud Mark for his bottoms up view. It's a great start showing directionally that transportation of 11 million people is not insurmountable, to use your words. Problem is Mark that you avoid everything that isn't in a direct line to an airfare to Mexico.
I'll get to the numbers and a better view from the tops down, but imagine planes carrying folks to Mexico. You got that part down, and I checked, there are plenty of places to land in Mexico, I see no logistics nightmare there. Imagine the process being like a giant Mexican funnel with your estimates taking advantage of a steady stream of full capacity plans at the needle end of the funnel. Sure, I still say you have underestimated breakage by using fully loaded planes, zero overlap and unbalanced loads over geography, and even plane inventory and staffing. But you have shown that if you double the cost, still a nit.
You also haven't covered the costs of ramping up and ramping down imaging that all inventory and staffing is in place; and you start day 1 at 100%. Even stating you can make a pile of money by selling the planes afterwards. All extra costs to your model.
But go to the other end of the funnel, the big end. Here you queue folks up to get your 100% full capacity planes. To do that, there's food, shelter, and transportation, all transportation costs. Still a nit, but probably another doubling or tripling of costs.
But still a nit. Because what you missed is the lion's share of the equation: identification, discovery, arrest, detention, legal, etc. etc.
Here's the bottom line. The $600B is an estimate done by a conservative think tank. It's actually $400 - 600 so quite a range. The bottom estimate is $100M which I, IMHO, say double due to size and expedited schedule for the project.
But here's the real bottom line. The simple answer to all this: e-verify. With e-verify, no citizenship, no work. No work, no stay, no need to buy airplanes. System is 94% effective and getting better every day. Problem solved through BBB, Better Big Brother tactics. But deporting 11 million people is a bigger headline for El Duckchee so the master dealmaker mister business avoids the obvious effective efficient less costly solution.
I will cover the costs in-depth in after lunch.
Really Good Article from Yahoo Old Gent....one of the best I have read. Show's the True picture of real life Americans and and not the Media's Propaganda and leftist **infiltration. Almost any American can relate to someone they profiled!
Especially interesting is the profile & Opinion of the Latino Lawyer:
"Delgado is offended by the assumption that expanding immigration is the main concern of America’s Latinos. She says the community has “all the same concerns, and needs, and wants, and worries as Anglo Americans.” Moreover, since many Latinos share her “blue collar” roots, she believes they are especially concerned about losing jobs to illegal immigrants.
According to Delgado, many people she knows in Little Havana feel they’ve lost work to illegal immigrants willing to take lower wages.
“There’s a myth that … they do work that Americans won’t do. ... No, they do work for a price that Americans won’t do it at,” Delgado said. “They’re willing to do work at third world rates, so you’re obviously going to displace an entire demographic.”
Delgado says she sees the “reality” of immigration every day in her neighborhood and “it’s not the rosy, romantic ideal.”
It is NOT about Racism...it is about the Survival of our NATION and OUR LAWS!
This is our last chance to turn this Country around... and Trump is the only one that WILL do it ** IF **he can beat the Establishment at their own game!
And it is going to be a ugly game.... Americans are not going to stand for this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/24/scott-walker-nominee-at-brokered-convention-will-be-someone-not-currently-running/
Take an extended lunch as I and many others on here do not need to see more projected numbers on something that isn't going to happen.
You know there's a solution to not wanting to read stuff KB.... And why isn't it going to happen?
Mark, like I said: “I agree the $600B is high but, sorry, it is calculated by conservatives so I went with it :>) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-conservative-case-against-enforcing-immigration-laws/387004/.
Try the current deportation cost of about $10,000 per for a total of $110B. That's your low end. The high end of $600B is really adding in the size of the project and the expedited schedule. http://www.newsweek.com/how-much-would-it-cost-deport-all-undocumented-immigrants-364316
My bottom line is over $200B++, the plus given the current numbers just won't cover the waste in this project due to size, scope, and expedited schedule.”
I suggest you read the links and follow up on the $600B with the conservative think tank that generated it. Incidentally, they put the economic downturn at $1.6 Trillion for the deportation; it is not excluded as you thought. My own bottoms up economic view is provided above centering on massive numbers of unfilled job vacancies caused by the deportations.
.
To help better understand deportation costs from a top down view, Politico used 10 years of current data to conclude $.6.2K to $8.2K per removal; ICE generated an estimate of $8,661 for 2013 removals. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/immigration-debate-price-115050
They do note that a ramp up could lower costs, I say BS to that, Instead, the ramp up to expedite removals will double costs, IMHO. Speed kills and you don't make it up with volume (that's the Trump Tax plan :>)
The $10,000 number was generated by CAP, no doubt a leftist group. There is an explanation of why it’s higher than ICE or DHS numbers. Plus there’s a great breakout showing that transportation is the lowest cost factor in deportation, about 11% of the total cost. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/02/23/106983/what-would-it-cost-to-deport-all-5-million-beneficiaries-of-executive-action-on-immigration/
These are top down numbers taken by looking at the total actual current costs for deportation and dividing by the number of deportees.
Your bottoms-up number for the transportation portion of deportation first does not account for any breakage, assuming all flights are 100% loaded, planes are literally flying 24x7, no transportation costs for staging and moving individuals needed to load each plane at 100% capacity and numerous other transportation-related costs.
You presuppose that either an additional 11 million passengers can be piggy-backed on existing airlines or, more costly, form an organization is formed to handle it. In either case it’s a two year project and you include no additional costs for ramp up and ramp down. It’s not as if you are moving at full speed on day one, you ramp. It’s not as if there isn’t a cost for offering flight crews a two-year gig. Current airline ticket price from the middle of the country is around $400; that’s $44M in airline tickets alone. Economies of scale you say? I say the opposite; you ask someone to ferry 5.5M people per year for two years only and the price goes up. Not to mention the ancillary transportation fees like getting folks to the airport for example.
Most important, transportation is only 11% of deportation costs, a nit. Suggesting the TSA budget for checking bags is comparable or lining up numerous organizations to say, see your number is too high is an apples and oranges comparison with little relevance to the costs making up the other 89% of deportation fees.
Yet your numbers, and the ones I did earlier on buses, agree --- basic transportation is pretty low costs and for planes, logistics is not insurmountable. I think buses are a little tougher logistically, but probably doable too.
Hope that helps and that KB avoided the pain :>)
For the Trump supporters, you might want to check this out... FWIW.... (might be worth nothing, at this point Trump supporters might not care, heck it might be a hoax...)
http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector
News stories and blogs of trump bashing and anti trump this/that. The article means absolutely nothing even if it was real. Pretty clear he wants to win. Cruz is a sleaze and Kasich is a lost cause. Even if Clinton beats trump in a landslide it's gonna be great entertainment!
So, Trump bashing means absolutely nothing, but Cruz bashing is 100% valid?
That makes perfect sense...if you're one of those blind rabid Trump supporters.
(and not all of them are blind and rabid- probably not even most of them, but we sure have heard from a lot of them that are, on social media and at the rallies). And I'm not "against" Trump...
Probably won't matter anyway- the GOP supposedly has a plan in place to broker the convention and deny the 2 candidates most wanted (Trump and Cruz) the nomination anyway. The GOP will nominate someone else- Kasich, Rubio, who knows. And they'll lose. Because most of the Trump supporters will walk. Heck, I'm not even voting for Trump in the primary and I'll walk. I can no longer be a part of a party that will not listen to their constituency. As I have said previously, the GOP needs to be careful or it will be the death of their party... but I don't think they care. As long as the individuals keep their own cushy jobs, that's that's all they care about- they certainly don't care about the country or the American people- just THEIR slice of the pie. And they'll say anything they have to to keep it. Their party losing is fine as long as THEY stay fat & happy. But then, that attitude, by a majority of the voters, is what got us into this mess over the years.
AND THAT GOES FOR BOTH PARTIES.
JR, cruz is stuuupid. He is letting the gop walk all over him. So he's getting the insider endorsements, great. He is on Romney's side of the stop trump effort. How dumb can he be? The whole point of the effort, if it works, will just kill both cruz and trumps chance of nominee. Cruz will never hit 1237. All he is doing is screwing each other and letting the gop get what they want. A brokered convention that will by no means allow trump or cruz to be the nominee. So yeah cruz is a sleaze ball and don't understand how he thinks he has any chance to win, except sabotage everything.
JR- my hunch is the GOP will put in Bush. They have a lot of money invested in him. He is their party angel. Everyone knows Bush can not beat Clinton. The GOP is very willing to lose the Presidency so they can keep their hands in the cookie jar. Until the American voter starts voting for a President instead of a D/R Party nothing will ever change.
Thats right auntiel. And cruz will be to blame for that. There is no way he would win the general election even if for some ungodly reason the gop picked him as the runner. The whole thing is garbage.
Trump's popularity is the result of the GOP turning their backs on the average American blue collar Joe who feels disenfranchised now.
I usually wait until both conventions are over to decide how I'll vote in the general election. In the primary, I may just go for Trump ... just to shake up that old boy network of theirs.
Cruz is stuuuupid...... yup, that must be how he argued the SCOTUS - NINE times. What a dumbass.
How many times has Trump argued a court case? Oh wait- that makes you stuuuuupid, sorry I forgot. Doing big business deals and letting companies go bankrupt, THAT makes you smart. My bad. LOL
Whatever reservations I have against Trump, I'll still vote for him in the general (IF he's the nominee, which is still highly in question) over criminal Clinton or lunatic (quite literally) Bernie. Frankly, I'd likely vote for Trump before any of the other possibles- Rubio, Kasich, Ryan, Bush. One thing I will no longer do is have a candidate shoved down my throat. Want people to stay home? The GOP is certainly doing a good job of that in recent elections.
SO..... if the GOP doesn't make Trump the nominee (the convention rules are irrelevant to the answer)... does he run independent? Ross Perot redux?
"Thats right auntiel. And cruz will be to blame for that. There is no way he would win the general election even if for some ungodly reason the gop picked him as the runner. The whole thing is garbage."
hmm.....
While most polls show Clinton winning, they do seem to be changing as of late.... Fox has Cruz beating her by 3, CNN has them in a tie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
But none of that matters- GOP doesn't want Trump OR Cruz. EITHER. And frankly, they want Cruz EVEN LESS than Trump. But I have a feeling neither will be the nominee. I guess if Trump gets 1237, they technically HAVE to give him the nomination..... that's his best shot. I think he has to win something like 55% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237.
You actually believe the polls? Most of them are propaganda try to steer people one way or the other, especially the general election polls. They mean nothing until it's actually down to 2 people. Just take a look at Kasich, he's won his home state, that's it. He is a terrible candidate with very little votes. They poll him killing hitlary. Now don't you think that's fishy... obviously the people don't like Kasich. Nuts right? Not facts just my opinion :-)
And JR cruz would never get my vote he slowly has evolved into almost every one of trumps policies because he found how popular they are. Almost down told the same wording. Trumps always been the first to make a radical sounding policy, then you hear Ted with very similar if not identical proposals. I have a hunch, obviously the polls don't show it, but I bet you cruz does worse with woman voters than trump does. His creepiness is to blame.
I think the last dozen posts or so show that conservatives come in many colors......except not much black of course :>) Makes you wonder, are all progressives really the same?
Cruz is most certainly not dumb. His career achievements and management have been brilliant. I was very hopeful that he might break this Tea Party morass in Congress as he left Texas with a good record of team playing across all aisle. I said as much on HL before most people could spell Ted.
Unfortunately he is a bit of a zealot and that trait took over once he landed in Washington where he became the biggest obstructionist of them all unable to work across the aisle. Heck, unable to work even his side of the aisle. It was Ted's way or stop the buses. Somehow he thought this would propel him to the top.......until he met a duck who could take his act even farther.
Republicans have forgotten that the first rule of being President is to win the election. To do that, you need the most electoral college votes, people's votes, SCOTUS votes or some combination of those. To do that people have to like you, what you stand for, and what you plan to do. Lots of people.
Being the party of exclusion will not get you there unless everyone agrees with your exclusions which, as the last dozen posts show, is a tough trick in your own party much less getting Independents and moderates in the other party to hate the same things and people that you do.
By your own words and deeds, you're killing your own chances. Anti-Muslim, anti-Latino, Anti-black, anti, anti, anti. It's an ever shrinking pool of despair.
On the other hand, Progressives don't hate anyone, we're the love party. We just love to have rich people and profitable businesses love to buy us a few more lower income votes. Luckily that's a pretty small group to pick on in order to get many more votes when we do it. And because the rich and big business love creating more lower income people and because they are so good at doing it, it's an ever growing pool of voters to entitle to love to vote progressive.
Yet here's the real question you should be asking. How come we can't take our guns to the Republican National Convention? What's up with that?
Because the FBI said no guns. The Federal Government, not the state. The same guys that protect the president.
What business does the Secret Service have at the Republican National Convention? It's not like there's any chance that a President is going to be found there ever again.
Unless there are metal detectors and/or pat downs of every attendee, there will be guns there. Concealed means concealed...
While I generally oppose "gun free" zones (by signage alone) the difference here is there will be actual security.
You mean some of the 5+ million individual citizens that comprise the NRA? Probably...
I'm watching cruz on the cnn townhall thingy. He dodged and did not give a single specific to A. Coopers first few questions. Check it out. There all the same bs crap. Least trump doesn't worry about the negative media effect after he truthfully answers a question whether it's good or if it sounds radical.
"Least trump doesn't worry about the negative media effect after he truthfully answers a question whether it's good or if it sounds radical."
Or if it's him talking out of his ass. "I consult ... my brain.... for foreign policy; I have a really good brain" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (paraphrase)
He was 100% right on Brussels tho.... he called that back in January; and he's 100% right on that same muslim/immigration issue for the USA.
Cruz suffers from Mitt Romney stuffed shirt syndrome. Except add kinda creepy.
Separate issue, question on the town hall was about how Cruz would ensure that there were qualified manufacturing employees. Really? BS, there are plenty!
JR, That's exactly what I mean. Any other politician would have dodged the hell out of that question if they didn't have a bunch of advisors. As crazy as that answer was he wasn't afraid to say it. I think we all know that the potus will be provided the Intel on all the major issues at hand. Trump would be there to make the final decision and tweaks before action is taken just like any other president. He seems to have a decent vision of cause/effect.
Commenting is no longer available.