One thing about Rubio.
Other than some attacks by Trump; Rubio hasn’t really come under the blistering attack and scrutiny that will surely come the closer and closer he comes to being a presumptive nominee (or even by becoming a Primary Frontrunner).
With greater Front-runner status will come much greater scrutiny.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One thing about Rubio.
Other than some attacks by Trump; Rubio hasn’t really come under the blistering attack and scrutiny that will surely come the closer and closer he comes to being a presumptive nominee (or even by becoming a Primary Frontrunner).
With greater Front-runner status will come much greater scrutiny.
Mufasa[/quote]
True enough and well said
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins. [/quote]
I hope you’re right, and I’m more confident than not that you are.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins. [/quote]
I hope you’re right[/quote]
Because you think that it will occasion open rebellion?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Post your odds, TB. Not who you are supporting but how you think it shakes out.[/quote]
Hmm. I honestly believe Hillary won’t be the nominee of her party. I think some news erupts that invalidates her as a candidate. So I predict Biden (no way Sanders will be the nominee).
For the GOP, at this point, I predict Bush. He has the money (pretty much all of the money) and others haven’t distinguished themselves. Cruz and Rubio are lightweights, and the idiocy currently occurring in the House will push the “safe” candidate to the front. I think that’s where Bush gets it.
Bush wins, say 60-40.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins. [/quote]
I hope you’re right[/quote]
Because you think that it will occasion open rebellion?[/quote]
No, I doubt that more than about 10% of the United States would go for something like that even if jus primae noctis were to be inserted into the Constitution. I just think it will be somewhat humorous that eight years of change net a return to the previous 20. Everyone will really have to buckle down and fix things in 2020 after that.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since. [/quote]
The TPP is a free trade agreement. Why would a staunch free market capitalist like yourself take issue with it?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since. [/quote]
The TPP is a free trade agreement. Why would a staunch free market capitalist like yourself take issue with it? [/quote]
You don’t understand the legitimate argument against it? Arguments that warrant waiver of “staunchness?”
Should ANY conceivable trade agreement receive support from staunch free market capitalists as long as it contains free trade?[/quote]
I want to hear it from him (and now you). Why are you personally against it? If that isn’t the case, what reservations do you have?
Trade should be based on comparative advantage. Protectionism harms overall national economic welfare.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins. [/quote]
What leads you to give Clinton the edge?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll go with the money: Clinton Bush. Election is a toss-up, but if I have to choose I’ll say Clinton wins. [/quote]
What leads you to give Clinton the edge? [/quote]
Just intuition, really.
There is, of course, a lot of ambiguity. I think it’s too early to consider Clinton-Bush anything but a toss-up; I would not be surprised to see Rubio beat Jeb! in the primary; I would not be surprised to see TB’s prediction come true (i.e., some big new scandal, or an accumulation of small new scandals, plaguing Clinton).
But given the way things stand at this very moment, I think Hillary edges Bush for a couple of reasons. Demographics advantage the Democratic candidate in presidential elections much more than they do during midterms, and she will skew women even further left. I predict a measurable return rate among young and black voters who would not have gone to the polls without eight years of Obama, if for no other reason than that political participation tends to take on the character of a habit in many people. The American people approve of Bill more than they do of George. Given the superficial prism through which so many voters consider presidential politics, lack of charisma is one of Hillary’s biggest weaknesses. But it will be all but nullified by the fact of Jeb’s having the same weakness, and almost as drastically (note: I myself would like a president with Jeb’s temperament).
Normally, I’d say all this would be counterbalanced and more by the three-term rule and by Clinton’s general slimy aura of corruption. But no – as I’ve said a few times in the past months, I am increasingly expecting the GOP to find a way to fuck this election up. The updrafts of utter and unabashed stupidity on which Trump has risen to and remained at the top of the polls are not going to be contained, and they are not going to disappear. These are idiots, and their idiocy will only do damage, both by tainting the party’s image (this is already accomplished) and forcing other candidates into stupid positions. I cannot stress this enough: a reality-TV buffoon who literally throws early-morning temper tantrums on Twitter has been at the top of the polls for months. That is a party in serious trouble.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since. [/quote]
The TPP is a free trade agreement. Why would a staunch free market capitalist like yourself take issue with it? [/quote]
TPP is a free trade agreement like the Patriot act is patriotic, or how the SAFE act keeps New Yorkers safe. Just because they call it free trade, doesn’t make it so.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since. [/quote]
The TPP is a free trade agreement. Why would a staunch free market capitalist like yourself take issue with it? [/quote]
TPP is a free trade agreement like the Patriot act is patriotic, or how the SAFE act keeps New Yorkers safe. Just because they call it free trade, doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
Yet when you analyze it through the lens of international political economy, that’s exactly what the agreement is. Do you have a reasoned argument supported by evidence (i.e., text from the agreement) tht demonstrates otherwise?
In today’s highly competitive global marketplace, even small increases in a product’s cost due to tariffs or non-tariff barriers can mean the difference between success and failure for a business. The TPP reduces lowers barriers to trade, that is, tariffs and quotas. It is by definition a free trade agreement. The I.S. economy will only benefit from the agreement.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Some thoughts:
[/quote]
Rubio will become one of the good ole boys. Gang of eight, TPP. He was sent to Washington with the Tea party wave, and has been slowly corrupted ever since. [/quote]
The TPP is a free trade agreement. Why would a staunch free market capitalist like yourself take issue with it? [/quote]
TPP is a free trade agreement like the Patriot act is patriotic, or how the SAFE act keeps New Yorkers safe. Just because they call it free trade, doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
Bis, I can’t do better than this in answer to your question to me.[/quote]
You can’t do better than an emotive, partisan critique of a document neither of you had read? The TPP is by definition a free trade agreement. It lowers tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers. You won’t find a reputable international or political economist that states otherwise.