The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

(As for Walker’s record, you need to show where the state was prior to him compared to the rest of the country, because they tried the same shit with Romney. “He had the lowest job growth in MA”. Well, yes he did, but MA was already light years ahead of the rest of the nation in unemployment, therefore yes he had low job growth, seeing as we were pretty damn close to fully employed, that happens. “He cut education”. Yup, and remained one of the best states in the nation in that department afterwards… People have pulled the same bullshit spin with Brownback…)
[/quote]

Beat me to it. Drives me nuts. Asymptotes. Basic derivatives. The closer you get to the limit, the slower the rate of change becomes.

And it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at a problem, what matters is if it gets results. If you keep getting good results with less money spent, that’s called efficiency.

382

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? How did they do that? Oh his team inflated numbers which once reviewed were proven to be…inaccurate). You may like Walkers anti-government. anti- union, anti-education stance, but American voters probably won’t since nearly 70% of Wisconsin voters are unhappy with his education cuts. Walker actually has a 45% approval rate in Wisconsin, he may very well lose his home state in a general elction. You’re better off putting your energy behind Jeb (because he’s electable) or Rubio (for the same reason). Walker, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Perry etc are all basically unelectable, The best news for the GOP is that people may be sick of a Dem in the white house (though not THAT sick), You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. Also the Dems are running out retreads and avowed Socialists so… if the GOP loses this time they will have to change their party name.[/quote]

Don’t love Walker, never said I did. In fact, I don’t love any of them. But the democrats are so very bad I don’t have to love the GOP to support them. As for Wisconsin, they will end up with a structural surplus of $499 million. I’d say he’s doing quite a bit better than the many loser democrat Governors. Take a look at Jerry Brown’s tax and spend record in California. Or, Andrew Cuomo who is trying to drive business and many working families out of the state of New York. For that matter look at just about every democrat Mayor of a large City. Detroit, Baltimore, or any city where the democrats have been in power for 40 plus years. What do you have? Poverty, discontent and very high unemployment. Why anyone would vote for a democrat is totally beyond me at this point. They must like pain.

As for Walkers chances of taking the Presidency. I read a poll recently. It asked who would you vote for Hillary Clinton or any republican? You know what the answer was? She lose by a few percentage points to um…any old republican. Granted polls don’t matter too much this early but I do know one thing Hillary’s not winning! Too old, yesterdays news, no charisma and bogged down with ample scandal. The dems only wish they had another unknown charismatic candidate with no experience like Obumster…but…they don’t :slight_smile:

Back to Walker who is not my first pick. I am all over this site saying that Marco Rubio with John Kasich on the bottom of the ticket is as close to a lock as anyone can get in politics. Florida and Ohio being two states that are must win for the GOP.

But, as I have also said many times, just about any of the top tier candidates can beat Hillary in a general election.

383

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? How did they do that? Oh his team inflated numbers which once reviewed were proven to be…inaccurate). You may like Walkers anti-government. anti- union, anti-education stance, but American voters probably won’t since nearly 70% of Wisconsin voters are unhappy with his education cuts. Walker actually has a 45% approval rate in Wisconsin, he may very well lose his home state in a general elction. You’re better off putting your energy behind Jeb (because he’s electable) or Rubio (for the same reason). Walker, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Perry etc are all basically unelectable, The best news for the GOP is that people may be sick of a Dem in the white house (though not THAT sick), You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. Also the Dems are running out retreads and avowed Socialists so… if the GOP loses this time they will have to change their party name.[/quote]

Don’t love Walker, never said I did. In fact, I don’t love any of them. But the democrats are so very bad I don’t have to love the GOP to support them. As for Wisconsin, they will end up with a structural surplus of $499 million. I’d say he’s doing quite a bit better than the many loser democrat Governors. Take a look at Jerry Brown’s tax and spend record in California. Or, Andrew Cuomo who is trying to drive business and many working families out of the state of New York. For that matter look at just about every democrat Mayor of a large City. Detroit, Baltimore, or any city where the democrats have been in power for 40 plus years. What do you have? Poverty, discontent and very high unemployment. Why anyone would vote for a democrat is totally beyond me at this point. They must like pain.

As for Walkers chances of taking the Presidency. I read a poll recently. It asked who would you vote for Hillary Clinton or any republican? You know what the answer was? She lose by a few percentage points to um…any old republican. Granted polls don’t matter too much this early but I do know one thing Hillary’s winning! Too old, yesterdays news, no charisma and bogged down with ample scandal. The dems only wish they had another unknown charismatic candidate with no experience like Obumster…but…they don’t :slight_smile:

Back to Walker who is not my first pick. I am all over this site saying that Marco Rubio with John Kasich on the bottom of the ticket is as close to a lock as anyone can get in politics. Florida and Ohio being two states that are must win for the GOP.

But, as I have also said many times, just about any of the top tier candidates can beat Hillary in a general election.

384

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I like Walker. (Is that a “Vote Killer” for you, Zeb, since that may make him a “liberal”?)

[/quote]

No, you’re confused my friend. I didn’t call you out on John Huntsman because you supported him. I called you out because Huntsman is absolutely not a conservative.

As for Walker, sure I like him. Are there better candidates? Yes. But as I have been saying out of the 20+ candidates who have announced probably 16 or 17 can beat Hillary. So…I don’t really mind if my top pick is not nominated.

385

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%

Mufasa

[/quote]

I like him as a speaker. As a Senator, rep or even a Governor? Sure. As a POTUS? Not a shot in hell. His stance on the 2nd (no I don’t buy his “clarifications”) and his foot in his mouth statements of “being gay is a choice” rule him out for me.

I don’t want the CIC anti-gun or speaking about gay people at all really, because NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT SHOULD FUCKING CARE WHAT CONCENTING ADULTS DO WITH THEIR SEX LIFE!!!ONE!!!ELEEVEN!!![/quote]

I agree with you Beans. But, it seems like it’s the gay folk who want to tell us on a continual basis that they are in fact gay not the other way around.

386

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? How did they do that? Oh his team inflated numbers which once reviewed were proven to be…inaccurate). You may like Walkers anti-government. anti- union, anti-education stance, but American voters probably won’t since nearly 70% of Wisconsin voters are unhappy with his education cuts. Walker actually has a 45% approval rate in Wisconsin, he may very well lose his home state in a general elction. You’re better off putting your energy behind Jeb (because he’s electable) or Rubio (for the same reason). Walker, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Perry etc are all basically unelectable, The best news for the GOP is that people may be sick of a Dem in the white house (though not THAT sick), You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. Also the Dems are running out retreads and avowed Socialists so… if the GOP loses this time they will have to change their party name.[/quote]

Don’t love Walker, never said I did. In fact, I don’t love any of them. But the democrats are so very bad I don’t have to love the GOP to support them. As for Wisconsin, they will end up with a structural surplus of $499 million. I’d say he’s doing quite a bit better than the many loser democrat Governors. Take a look at Jerry Brown’s tax and spend record in California. Or, Andrew Cuomo who is trying to drive business and many working families out of the state of New York. For that matter look at just about every democrat Mayor of a large City. Detroit, Baltimore, or any city where the democrats have been in power for 40 plus years. What do you have? Poverty, discontent and very high unemployment. Why anyone would vote for a democrat is totally beyond me at this point. They must like pain.

As for Walkers chances of taking the Presidency. I read a poll recently. It asked who would you vote for Hillary Clinton or any republican? You know what the answer was? She lose by a few percentage points to um…any old republican. Granted polls don’t matter too much this early but I do know one thing Hillary’s winning! Too old, yesterdays news, no charisma and bogged down with ample scandal. The dems only wish they had another unknown charismatic candidate with no experience like Obumster…but…they don’t :slight_smile:

Back to Walker who is not my first pick. I am all over this site saying that Marco Rubio with John Kasich on the bottom of the ticket is as close to a lock as anyone can get in politics. Florida and Ohio being two states that are must win for the GOP.

But, as I have also said many times, just about any of the top tier candidates can beat Hillary in a general election.

[/quote]

ZEB,

It makes me think the world is coming to an end, but we actually agree on Rubio, unless some major scandal hits him, he seems to be the best bet for a solid GOP win. Right now the Dems don’t have anyone (outside of Clinton) with his name recognition, and Clinton has more baggage than a Samsonite warehouse so she’s probably not going to win their nomination.

387

4064×2704 7.85 MB

I could be wrong…but I just think that if Rubio does not change position, and begins to take a “tougher/true Conservative” stand on immigration…he will never make it through the Primary.

That puts him in a VERY tough spot. A tougher stand would alienate him to many Hispanic Voters…but that won’t matter if he can’t make it through the Primary.

Tough call.

Mufasa

388

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I could be wrong…but I just think that if Rubio does not change position, and begins to take a “tougher/true Conservative” stand on immigration…he will never make it through the Primary.

That puts him in a VERY tough spot. A tougher stand would alienate him to many Hispanic Voters…but that won’t matter if he can’t make it through the Primary.

Tough call.

Mufasa[/quote]

He is going to have to get creative about it, but so is any GOP candidate.

I’ve listed what my solution would be plenty of times, and there are people who would still be upset with it, and it is far from amnesty. But I’m not claiming to be hardline boarder control either. I’m not dealing with it to the degree people in the boarder states are.

389

I’m with you, Beans…

That’s why I don’t get so “High and Mighty” about the “solutions”.

I think that there should be a “Commission” of some sort consisting of 1) Border State GOVERNORS 2) A select group of individuals with the certain knowledge and expertise (like those knowledgeable of Immigration Law) 3) Immigration…maybe even some activist…

Keep it small and tight…and have them come up with REAL solutions.

With the will, it COULD be done…but I doubt it WILL be done.

Mufasa

390

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m with you, Beans…

That’s why I don’t get so “High and Mighty” about the “solutions”.

I think that there should be a “Commission” of some sort consisting of 1) Border State GOVERNORS 2) A select group of individuals with the certain knowledge and expertise (like those knowledgeable of Immigration Law) 3) Immigration…maybe even some activist…

Keep it small and tight…and have them come up with REAL solutions.

With the will, it COULD be done…but I doubt it WILL be done.

Mufasa[/quote]

Solving the problem isn’t really in any politicians best interest, so it won’t be done anytime soon.

“Close the boarders” wins votes for GOP, and “amnesty/compassion” wins votes for Dems.

Like a lot of politics, it’s a lose/lose for us and the immigrants, and a win/win for vote seekers.

391

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? How did they do that? Oh his team inflated numbers which once reviewed were proven to be…inaccurate). You may like Walkers anti-government. anti- union, anti-education stance, but American voters probably won’t since nearly 70% of Wisconsin voters are unhappy with his education cuts. Walker actually has a 45% approval rate in Wisconsin, he may very well lose his home state in a general elction. You’re better off putting your energy behind Jeb (because he’s electable) or Rubio (for the same reason). Walker, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Perry etc are all basically unelectable, The best news for the GOP is that people may be sick of a Dem in the white house (though not THAT sick), You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. Also the Dems are running out retreads and avowed Socialists so… if the GOP loses this time they will have to change their party name.[/quote]

Don’t love Walker, never said I did. In fact, I don’t love any of them. But the democrats are so very bad I don’t have to love the GOP to support them. As for Wisconsin, they will end up with a structural surplus of $499 million. I’d say he’s doing quite a bit better than the many loser democrat Governors. Take a look at Jerry Brown’s tax and spend record in California. Or, Andrew Cuomo who is trying to drive business and many working families out of the state of New York. For that matter look at just about every democrat Mayor of a large City. Detroit, Baltimore, or any city where the democrats have been in power for 40 plus years. What do you have? Poverty, discontent and very high unemployment. Why anyone would vote for a democrat is totally beyond me at this point. They must like pain.

As for Walkers chances of taking the Presidency. I read a poll recently. It asked who would you vote for Hillary Clinton or any republican? You know what the answer was? She lose by a few percentage points to um…any old republican. Granted polls don’t matter too much this early but I do know one thing Hillary’s winning! Too old, yesterdays news, no charisma and bogged down with ample scandal. The dems only wish they had another unknown charismatic candidate with no experience like Obumster…but…they don’t :slight_smile:

Back to Walker who is not my first pick. I am all over this site saying that Marco Rubio with John Kasich on the bottom of the ticket is as close to a lock as anyone can get in politics. Florida and Ohio being two states that are must win for the GOP.

But, as I have also said many times, just about any of the top tier candidates can beat Hillary in a general election.

[/quote]

ZEB,

It makes me think the world is coming to an end, but we actually agree on Rubio, unless some major scandal hits him, he seems to be the best bet for a solid GOP win. Right now the Dems don’t have anyone (outside of Clinton) with his name recognition, and Clinton has more baggage than a Samsonite warehouse so she’s probably not going to win their nomination.[/quote]

Other’s to her left will push her during the primary process. But, I think Hillary will prevail and become her parties nominee. Don’t get me wrong if God decides to smile on the republican party, and the nation, someone like Elizabeth Warren will win the nomination and the republicans will win the general election in a landslide. You have to search far and wide to find someone who has less charisma than Hillary but there she is Elizabeth Warren. The nasty female Principal that you really hated…the former (or current) mother in law you just can’t stand. Yep…she’s someone many love to hate. She’s Hillary X 2.

392

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I could be wrong…but I just think that if Rubio does not change position, and begins to take a “tougher/true Conservative” stand on immigration…he will never make it through the Primary.

That puts him in a VERY tough spot. A tougher stand would alienate him to many Hispanic Voters…but that won’t matter if he can’t make it through the Primary.

Tough call.

Mufasa[/quote]

Most Americans are not in favor of granting a general immunity to the many illegal aliens. And moreover most (legal) Hispanic Americans are not in favor of it either. Rubio will not be hurt by a slight shift right on illegal immigration.

393

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I could be wrong…but I just think that if Rubio does not change position, and begins to take a “tougher/true Conservative” stand on immigration…he will never make it through the Primary.

That puts him in a VERY tough spot. A tougher stand would alienate him to many Hispanic Voters…but that won’t matter if he can’t make it through the Primary.

Tough call.

Mufasa[/quote]

Immigration didn’t help Republicans in 1988, just two years after the Reagan Amnesty.

In 1988, exit polls showed Latinos still voted Dem by a 70-30 split.

More than immigration, it’s the economic policies that are more impactful on the immigrant vote. Newly arrived immigrants tend to be lower income when starting out and do better with government help that Democrats support.

394

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-meets-key-patriot-act-provisions-ropes-070238067--politics.html

I would vote for Rand Paul if the man actually became the Republican nominee, just to see how the libertarian wing of the Republican Party acts if they gain some real power.

And also hopefully because it’ll give the Republican Party a real kick in the ass. Because, and I can’t emphasize this enough, I HAVE NO IDEA WTF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ABOUT AND I REALLY WANNA KNOW.

395

[quote]magick wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-meets-key-patriot-act-provisions-ropes-070238067--politics.html

I would vote for Rand Paul if the man actually became the Republican nominee, just to see how the libertarian wing of the Republican Party acts if they gain some real power.

And also hopefully because it’ll give the Republican Party a real kick in the ass. Because, and I can’t emphasize this enough, I HAVE NO IDEA WTF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ABOUT AND I REALLY WANNA KNOW.[/quote]

It’s quite telling that so many Republicans are fighting against him on this issue. We shouldn’t forget that they were in charge when it came about in the first place. Many of them talk the small government game when the Democrats are running the show. Get a bit of power back though and they don’t mind playing the “we gotta stay safe so fuck your liberty” card to justify massive intrusion or massive defense spending.

What concerns me about Rand (and this is from someone who in all likelihood will vote libertarian again for President( is I think to win he will have to become more “conservative” and less libertarian. Even if he is right on foreign policy no one is winning the nomination with his views. The base doesn’t want to think about past Republican mistakes in foreign policy. They don’t want someone like him calling them out on it. They just want to hear Democrats bad and more military good.

I’m glad that he is bringing some attention to certain libertarian ideas, but he’s not going to win unless he changes his views on some of those (already has in some areas). The GOP may have a more libertarian tilt than it did 10 years ago, but not big enough that a true one wins it.

396

[quote]magick wrote:
I HAVE NO IDEA WTF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ABOUT AND I REALLY WANNA KNOW.[/quote]

Job Creation: Getting Americans Back to Work
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Tax Relief to Grow the Economy and Create Jobs
American Competitiveness in a Global Economy
Reining in Out-of-Control Spending, Balancing the Budget, and Ensuring Sound Monetary Policy
Balancing the Budget
Inflation and the Federal Reserve
Ending the Housing Crisis and Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership
Rebuilding Homeownership
Infrastructure: Building the Future
More American Jobs, Higher Wages, and A Better Standard of Living
Supporting our foreign friends like Israel
anti abortion

There are other things.

Basically doing the opposite of what Obummer has been doing.

Granted they are not always successful and that’s where the cry “they’re all the same” comes from. But in reality the two parties are in fact very different. But various circumstances play out to where occasionally they look very much alike. For example, when a good republican President has to deal with the House and Senate being controlled by democrats. There are other circumstances as well. But rest assured the two parties are very much different almost polar opposites on most things.

397

[quote]H factor wrote:

What concerns me about Rand (and this is from someone who in all likelihood will vote libertarian again for President( is I think to win he will have to become more “conservative” and less libertarian. Even if he is right on foreign policy no one is winning the nomination with his views. The base doesn’t want to think about past Republican mistakes[/quote]

He wouldn’t win if he did a complete about face on most of his ideas. He’s just not winning. There are many candidates in the race that espouse some of his good ideas and leave the nutty ones out.

Especially when he’s dead wrong on his call out.

In short Rand Paul is not really a republican. I think he agrees more with the left.

398

A new CNN Poll has Hillary underwater for the first time.

399

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Job Creation: Getting Americans Back to Work
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Tax Relief to Grow the Economy and Create Jobs
American Competitiveness in a Global Economy
Reining in Out-of-Control Spending, Balancing the Budget, and Ensuring Sound Monetary Policy
Balancing the Budget
Inflation and the Federal Reserve
Ending the Housing Crisis and Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership
Rebuilding Homeownership
Infrastructure: Building the Future
More American Jobs, Higher Wages, and A Better Standard of Living
Supporting our foreign friends like Israel
anti abortion

There are other things.
[/quote]

Eh, the only one that is actually concrete among that list is anti-abortion. The rest read like sound-bites.

Perhaps I should have specified. What does the Republican Party plan to do to achieve those things? I’m pretty sure the Democratic Party would sound pretty cool too if you just reduce their plans to sound-bites.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Granted they are not always successful and that’s where the cry “they’re all the same” comes from. But in reality the two parties are in fact very different. But various circumstances play out to where occasionally they look very much alike. For example, when a good republican President has to deal with the House and Senate being controlled by democrats. There are other circumstances as well. But rest assured the two parties are very much different almost polar opposites on most things.

[/quote]

Then why did Bush II and the Republican House/Senate enact No Child Left Behind, created the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act?

Why did Mitch Mcconnell and a bunch of Republican senators try to get the Patriot Act refunded?

400

[quote]magick wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Job Creation: Getting Americans Back to Work
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Tax Relief to Grow the Economy and Create Jobs
American Competitiveness in a Global Economy
Reining in Out-of-Control Spending, Balancing the Budget, and Ensuring Sound Monetary Policy
Balancing the Budget
Inflation and the Federal Reserve
Ending the Housing Crisis and Expanding Opportunities for Homeownership
Rebuilding Homeownership
Infrastructure: Building the Future
More American Jobs, Higher Wages, and A Better Standard of Living
Supporting our foreign friends like Israel
anti abortion

There are other things.

Eh, the only one that is actually concrete among that list is anti-abortion. The rest read like sound-bites.[/quote]

Not true! There has only been one republican President that has raised taxes in modern times all the others lowered taxes. On the other side of the isle every democrat President has raised taxes in modern times. See…that is one big difference that you fail to acknowledge. Possibly because you are unaware. I don’t know your age but I’ve probably been mega paying taxes longer than you have been alive and I fully understand the ramifications of electing democrats to the oval office. Forgive me if I assumed you to be younger than you are. But, everyone, even those who are staunchly democrat are aware that democrats never met a tax they didn’t like or one they didn’t want to hike.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Granted they are not always successful and that’s where the cry “they’re all the same” comes from. But in reality the two parties are in fact very different. But various circumstances play out to where occasionally they look very much alike. For example, when a good republican President has to deal with the House and Senate being controlled by democrats. There are other circumstances as well. But rest assured the two parties are very much different almost polar opposites on most things.

Then why did Bush II and the Republican House/Senate enact No Child Left Behind, created the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act?

Why did Mitch Mcconnell and a bunch of Republican senators try to get the Patriot Act refunded?[/quote]

This is a matter of your false perception, not reality. Republicans are well known to be strong on national security affairs. They like to build up the military etc. Therefore, the Patriot Act is almost in lock step with what republicans would do in the face of terror attacks. Remember strong defense has always been a republican issue.

The question that you should be asking instead is this: “Why did Obama go along with the Patriot Act and other such things enacted by a republican President?”

In other words how come democrats are acting like republicans? Not the other way around…

By the way I don’t like the Patriot Act either.