Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ppulatie

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23
201
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 03:04:11 PM »
Fox poll just released....

Trump 39%
Cruz 18%
Rubio 11%
Carson 9%
Bush 3%

All polling done after the debate.

More confirmation that the Party base is moving towards Trump.

202
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 02:52:00 PM »
The PPP poll now showing Trump increasing in strength.  This is the most comprehensive PPP poll yet. It is supporting a surge for Trump seen in other polls in both support and favorability.

PPP has had, along with IBD and NBC, the worst polls for Trump. Now they are catching up.  Have they changed methodology? If not, then this just collaborates a surge for Trump.

Carson is now "over" with this. Just more confirmation that he is through. Rubio? No change in support. Cruz an increase in support.

It is definitely a three person race. Trump, Cruz and Rubio.  If Rubio did not pick up any support from the last debate, it is not good for him at all. Yet, he is the only GOPe favorable candidate left.

Quote
Trump is the biggest gainer since our last national poll in mid-November, going from 26% to 34%. He’s also become more broadly popular with GOP voters, with his favorability rating going from 51/37 up to 58/34.

Trump’s hold on the Republican electorate holds true with most segments of the party. He leads with 36% among voters most concerned with having a nominee who’s conservative on the issues, and with 34% among voters most concerned about being able to beat a Democrat in the fall. He leads among both Evangelicals with 35%, and among non-Evangelicals with 33%.

He leads with both women (34%) and men (also 34%). He leads with both younger voters (38%) and seniors (32%).

There are only 2 groups of the electorate Trump doesn’t lead with- the closely related groups of Tea Party and ‘very conservative’ voters. Cruz has the upper hand with each of those. He’s at 38% with ‘very conservative’ voters to 32% for Trump, with no one else getting more than 8%. And he’s at 41% with Tea Party voters to 32% for Trump with no one else getting more than 9%.

Cruz has been the second biggest gainer since our last poll, going from 14% to 18%. There are other positive signs for Cruz in the poll. He’s the most frequent second choice of GOP voters with 14% picking him on that front to 10% each for Carson and Trump. He’s also the second pick of Trump voters specifically (25% to 13% for Carson) so he’s well positioned to benefit if Trump ever does falter.

Marco Rubio is really treading water. He was at 13% last month, and he’s at 13% this month. He’s losing second choice support- 13% said he was their next man up in November, now it’s just 9%.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/293631794/PPP-National-GOP-Poll-12-18-15



203
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 02:31:46 PM »
Interesting thought for Rubio to try and claim that he was the front runner. However, Trump would come back and claim that other polls show him as being the front runner. Also, Trump would hit him with all the polls showing him in the primaries at from 35 to 41% and Rubio in the low teens. And then, "son, you gotta win the primary first".

As to TRIAD, how many people in the country actually understand what TRIAD means? Unless you were in the military, you would generally not know much about it. So as an issue, it is nothing to worry about. And if it was and ever came up again, I would answer if I were Trump, "you mean the sub force, the missile force and the air force..........we make our military strong enough, then we don't have to use TRIAD".


204
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 12:33:36 PM »
 Running for President is “Marketing”. You go out and

1.   Build initial interest and Create Initial Demand.

2.   Solidify the base of supporters.

3.   Appeal to others by shifting the marketing strategy which he is beginning now.

4.   Continue to create new demand and interest by improving the product (issues), and then introducing new products.

With a Marketing Strategy, you never let the product get to the Mature Phase. A Mature Product does not increase demand and actually loses demand after a period of time. When in the Mature stage, you reinvent yourself, or you go into decline.

At this point:

Snarly has matured and gone into decline. She must reinvent or drop out.

Carson has matured, declined and is now about gone. He must reinvent himself or drop out. It is doubtful he can reinvent himself.

Kasich, Huckabee, and Graham came in as matured and quickly went into decline. Kasich did try to reinvent himself, but the old product image was too strong and that has failed.

Christie came in matured, but in the debates has reinvented himself. But he must now increase demand and there is doubt that he can increase it much at this stage, though New Hampshire is looking good for him at this point. But will that transfer to other states? Not likely.

Rubio and Cruz both came in as new products. They have finally managed to create demand, and are gaining support. But how much further can they increase support, especially if they keep going after each other?  What new product can they insert into their campaigns at this point that would increase further demand?  I expect some additional growth from one or the other, but a mature product stage should soon materialize and the new product brought in.

As to Trump, he came in as a new product, saying the things that others were afraid to say, but believed. He gained initial support, but still garnered heavy resistance. Once it was confirmed that he was in to stay, support increased because the product was gaining acceptance and credibility.

Promotional marketing continued with a massive media campaign, funded by the media itself, increasing product exposure and gaining more support. Product comparison  tests (the debates) further cemented the differences over competing products, gaining further acceptance.  Current events (San Bermardino) reflected a further need for the product and support edged upward.

Now, the promotional phase has ended so a new marketing strategy must be implemented to keep from going stale and maturing.  There is evidence of it already being implemented……..

1.   The statement that the product would not challenge as a 3rd party candidate, but would work and believed in the party.

2.   A mellowing of statements in rallies and showing a more subdued personality that previously exhibited.

3.   Smaller Town Hall meetings where in more intimate settings, the products true personality showed through.

4.   Today’s statement that the product would be less devisive.

5.   Going after the other Party candidate.

The purpose of these changes are to expand market segment and favorability.

What is interesting is that he is now transitioning himself to being the Party Leader. This transition is being helped by the other candidates themselves by echoing his positions after having had other positions. 

Interesting also is that this transition is taking place while he is still gaining support. He is doing this before he hits the mature stage, the mark of a master marketeer.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to his comments about Ryan and the new budget. This should drive him higher and if others echo his position later, it make him even stronger.


205
Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« on: December 18, 2015, 09:16:16 AM »
I don't like the Goldman relationship in the least,  not to say the CFR relationship.  But if you look at the actual working paper, it spends excessive effort talking about free flow of labor across borders, lessened controls and other things. 

Hell no to that.

206
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 09:13:18 AM »
The polls are using the same population sample and asking preference in the Primary and then doing Head to Head Samples.  So how can there be such a difference?

207
Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« on: December 18, 2015, 07:45:11 AM »
And worth remembering that Cruz wife is:

1. Works for Goldman Sachs in real life.

2. Previously, she was an investment banker at JP Morgan Chase.

3. Work on the Dubya campaign in 2000.

4.  Served in the Dubya Admin as Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council.

5.  Director at Treasury.

6.  Special Policy Assistant to Robert Zoellick, Chief US International Trade Negotiator. javascript:void(0)

7. Term member on Council for Foreign Relations.

8. Co-author of Building a North American Community, a paper for the CFR. 

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102   Can be downloaded here....

From the paper:

 
Quote
Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in
the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.

The strategy needs to be integrated in its approach, recognizing the extent to which progress on each individual component enhances
achievement of the others. Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people;
progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administrations and release resources to boost security. North
American solutions could ultimately serve as the basis for initiatives involving other like-minded countries, either in our hemisphere or more
broadly.

Read the above, and isn't that what is happening now? This is the EEU.

Do ya think that Cruz is against wifey on this?

208
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 18, 2015, 07:19:37 AM »
So let me get this straight.  You say that Primary Voters are not representative of the GOP electorate.  How do you account for:

1. Prior to Trump, Jeb was the general leader. Now he can't muster enough support to fill a McDonalds.

2. Since before announcing when his support was no more than 5-7%, Trump has increased in support to over 40% in some polls.

3. Trump's unfavorables have fallen from over 60% down to the low 30's.

4. Trump versus Hillary has had him closing the gap in most polls.


Now, what has accounted for this change?  Has:

1. The mix of Primary voters suddenly changed so that those who would normally vote in primaries no longer are going to vote so other candidates support are down?

2. Have those who have decided not to vote in the Primary been replaced by people suddenly deciding to vote in the Primary and they will all be Trump supporters?

3. Have the models suddenly changed to unfairly represent Trump support?


Nowhere in the internals am I seeing anything that could account for those changes...........

209
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 17, 2015, 07:19:18 PM »
This whole election is going to be about turnout and the get out the vote effort. Nothing else. Unfortunately, the assumptions made on the models will not reflect turnout.

Isn't it amazing that Trump is kicking ass in most states, leading by more than double the other candidates, but versus Hillary, others are leading and not him? It tells you that something is wrong in the polling and the assumptions being made, or else the GOP will simply sit out if Trump is the nominee. 

After the Senate vote on the Omnibus Bill, I am even more convinced that the GOP needs to collapse and another party take its place. Since that won't happen...........

LET IT BURN!!!!

210
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 17, 2015, 07:11:25 PM »
Obama was an inevitable after Bush as Carter was after Nixon/Ford.  It did not matter who the competition would be, none could win.  For Hillary, that is not the case.


211
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 17, 2015, 07:07:42 PM »

212
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 17, 2015, 02:48:56 PM »
CD,

Alternatives only if you believe that Rubio and Cruz will stop illegal immigration and will not allow Amnesty.


213
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 17, 2015, 02:47:32 PM »
Here is the Front Line video on the Immigration Battle. Very interesting because Immigration lost because not Cruz, but when Brat beat Cantor that night in Virginia. Otherwise, it would have passed.

https://youtu.be/-SeQdreN4MQ

Go to 5:38 in the video. Not good for Cruz.

214
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:40:20 AM »
What Hinderaker is missing out on is the obvious.....................the Trump supporters no longer care about the term conservative. They are voting important issues that concern them. And they are voting anti-party because the party is no longer conservative. 

Just look at the new budget proposal voted on in the Senate under Ryan? Is it a conservative budget? Hell, it gave Obama everything he wanted and  without opposition.

Hinderaker stated that only GHW Bush was the only non conservative in many cycles. What is his definition of conservative?

Dole?
McCain?
Romney?

They have liberal leanings in every which way.

Even Dubya was not much of a conservative. He passed Medicare Plan 4 and Prescription Drugs, let the budget go all to hell and all else.  Compassionate Conservatism..............Rockefeller Republican.

215
My fear with Rubio besides disagreeing with many of his positions...........in five words

McCain
Romney

The electable candidates.


Where have I heard this before???

216
Aren't those that came in illegally already Democrat?

So maybe we should just provide the Latino's more and more benefits, turn them into the wards of the state, a new supported class, and then win their vote that way.

Just what we need............


217
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 17, 2015, 08:46:39 AM »
That is why Trump would be so successful and fun to watch in a debate with Clinton. He would provoke her into a full blown melt down. No one else would do that because they are afraid of the PC police.

218
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 16, 2015, 04:29:57 PM »
Here is a thought for everyone.  Scenario is that Trump and Hillary are the nominees.  Hillary agrees with doing a debate.  (She may have a headache and have to cancel, if she even dared to agree with having one.)

Trump to Hillary

1.  You talk about violence against women and rape.  What about Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones? 

2.  I made money by working and building things. How did you make your money?

3.  What has your Foundation really done?

4.  What caused you to fall in Dec 2012 when you were going to have to testify?  How you been out drinking and dancing again like in Columbia?

5.  When Stevens was killed in Bengazi, were you sober enough to take the call?

6.  What happened to all your wrinkles? More botox?

7.  And I thought I was having a "bad hair" day! You could take some advice from me.

The PC candidate with  all the bagged versus the Non PC candidate who doesn't give a damn. Isn't that worth a vote for Trump?

I would pay money to see that.......

219
Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz
« on: December 16, 2015, 01:01:19 PM »
DMG,

You and I agree on this about Cruz and the Right. He can't win the election as it stands. His conservatism will be endlessly attacked and the Tea Party support will be a part of it.

Purity candidates will not win. The electorate has changed significantly and conservative purity is left behind. Today, people are willing to accept past divisive issues like gays and abortion. Just take me:

Don't care either way about abortion.
Gays - I don't care. Just don't shove it in my face any longer.
Balanced Budget - The government will never change. Just try and reduce the amount of growth.
Close Department like the EPA - Not going to happen. Just try to restrict the ability to make administrative law.

For me, Immigration, Terrorism, and a couple of other items are critical. The rest, you can't change everything at once. Just try stopping drinking, smoking, drugs and overeating all at once. Ain't gonna happen.


220
Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio
« on: December 16, 2015, 12:48:08 PM »
DMG, you are correct that there will be more shake ups, primarily changing positions with Rubio and Cruz, unless Trump really screws up.

After the debate, I think that we shall see Cruz strengthen some. Rubio and Trump, not much movement until the next major event affecting the public like another attack. time for the others to go.....

221
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 16, 2015, 12:44:46 PM »
Actually I would not have cared whether Carson knew what TRIAD was or not. And I did mention first that I thought Trump did not know what TRIAD was.

As to the Internet, we could shut down overseas ISPs so that people in the US did not have access to them. China does it all the time.  So there are ways to cut off communication that would not affect general use of the Internet.

As to Russia, lI am all in favor of letting Russia do the heavy lifting. We are not going to engage in Jacksonian warfare to stop them, so what the hell?  Ally with Iran, Iraq, etc? You reap what you sow and if you are not going to do what it takes to win, then others will step in and form what alliances are needed.

What I heard in the debate are a bunch of fools who would restart the Cold War and likely start a shooting war with Russia?  Do we need that? Not with our present leadership and not with those who are running and advocating more engagement.


222
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:42:59 AM »
I don't know people say that Trump can't get Mexico to pay for the wall?

He has gotten the media to pay for his campaign. :-D :-D :-D

223
Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:06:35 AM »
It begins!!!

Fed raised .25%.  I shall be watching the 30 Year Fixed.

If she continues, rate could be at 5% by end of 2016.

224
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:03:05 AM »
Did anyone hear Pataki say President Trump?    :-D

I have heard this said "mistakenly" several times now. Don't hear President Rubio?

I am a Proud Trumpeter!

225
Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio
« on: December 16, 2015, 10:58:21 AM »
CD,

Let's see about the numbers.

Trump is showing 41% versus with Rubio either a high of 17% or a low of 7% and every other poll in between. Clearly Trump is winning there.

Now to the Hillary match up. 

Rubio is ahead and Trump behind. What this means is that there are a lot of people who are no opinion at this time on either against Hillary. And it suggests that the GOP regulars are not going to support Trump in the General Election. Same as Trump supporters with Rubio.  But the Trump supporters are supposed to fall in line and support Rubio for the good of the Party, yet the same does not apply to the non Trump supporters.

Of course, for Rubio to be the nominee, he must win the primaries and based upon the numbers, he can't win at this time unless Trump got caught in bed with a man. Or the GOP and the Convention changes the rules to let Rubio in.

Can you show me a road map for Rubio to get the nomination with his numbers? I can't see one.................

And.......Screw the Party. They no longer speak for me. In fact, they haven't spoken for me in almost two decades.


226
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:02:39 AM »
When Jeb brought up the Kurds on the Trump immigration plan, Trump should have come back with "The Kurds don't want to come here. They want to stay and fight."

227
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:49:07 AM »
But Syria is against ISIS!!!  So they are our allies!  And the Russians too.

Except in Obama World where the enemy of our enemy is our enemy.


228
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 08:56:16 PM »
Agreed.

What is funny is that it is easy to see that Trump is totally in  Jeb's head. Jeb just goes nuts and can't think or speak straight, he is so flustered.

Carly was the Snarly Ex Wife much of the time.

You are right that Trump probably did not understand TRIAD.

Take back the land to win, that is correct. But who has the will for Jacksonian warfare. And that is what it will take. Interesting reading the article on Wilsonian and Jacksonian warfare, and then watching the debate. You could see the difference. Though I still think that most of them would start WW III.

229
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:27:01 PM »
Great line by Cruz.

I will build a wall and I will get Trump to pay for it.

Trump says..........I will do it.


Rubio trying to hide his position on Amnesty. Trying to also claim Cruz was for Amnesty also.

230
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:22:56 PM »
Idiots with the debate.

1. Take out Hassad in Syria and it will be more stable. Try another Libya.

2. Bomb ISIS with only a few Spec Forces on the ground.  Air power does not win wars.

3. Be nice and avoid killing family members. No collateral damage.  Maybe we can also pay them for their losses of their terrorist family members.

4. Have a no fly zone in Syria.  ISIS does not have aircraft. Who are they trying to stop?  This is cold war surrogate parties.

5. Jeb is so desperate, attacking Trump every second. And he started to lie on his stance with immigration. His "anger" looks almost deranged.

6. Audience needs to shut up.

7. Christie now for the No Fly Zone and challenging Russia.  "That is not reckless."

8. No one in the audience realizes that we can stop other countries internet.

9. CNN trying to knock out Trump. 

10. Jeb deranged. Trump lets him have it. I am at 42%, you are at 3%.

11. Trump even smacked down the audience.  :-D  Now he goes after CNN.....every question to others, Trump said this. Trump said that.

12. Say goodbye Carson.




231
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:19:17 PM »
I would like to see it as well.............I saw it somewhere, but while posting here and getting my ass chewed, and then working on a lawsuit, I forgot where I saw it.


232
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:17:18 PM »
Aaah....but what if the Free Speech is designed to provoke the violence?

Essentially, what I trying to say in a poor manner obviously, is that even with the Bill of Rights, there is no absolute black or white. They are not absolute, but filled with potential exceptions that must be taken on a case by case basis.

99.99% of Freedom of Speech complaints have no merit. But there a cases where there is merit, at least in my opinion. But I differ from most here with my views in case you have not noticed. Just look at ED. I do have different viewpoints for sure.

Maybe it is because of what I do now, consulting on lawsuits in the financial arena. I look at both sides of the issue, determine the facts and what arguments exist on either side. Then I advise based upon case law, current regulations and the circumstances of the case. The one thing I have learned in this, for every compelling argument, there is usually one for the opposition and I just try to point it out.

I am only doing the same thing with Gellar. Does she have a right to free speech? Absolutely so! But can free speech cross a line? SCOTUS has rule it can.

So did it cross the line with Gellar?  Based upon my own opinions, when she deliberately acted in a manner to incite violence and knew it would happen, at least for me it crossed the line. However, others may have different opinions.


233
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 02:03:00 PM »
If it puts innocents in harm's way with an unnecessary threat, and is an invitation to violence, then it has gone too far in my opinion.

She knew what was going to happen and prepped for it.

There is no absolute right to Freedom of Speech.

234
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 01:48:19 PM »
Come on.........apples to oranges.............

Yes, James Meredith and others were engaged in legitimate protests, but the protests were not designed to provoke a violent response. That is the difference between them and Gellar.

Take BLM and Ferguson. That was absolutely a direct provocation with Freedom of Speech used as an excuse. Should BLM be forgiven?


235
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 01:21:25 PM »
There is a hell of a difference between cowering and self censoring, exercising Freedom of Speech, and with deliberating challenging and inviting them to attack.

Gellar did a deliberate act of provocation designed to lead to an attack. She knew what the expected response would be and planned for it.  Notice all of the people there who were armed and ready.  And the only two who died were the terrorists.

Again, what would have happened if innocents had been killed? Would Gellar also be held responsible? Should she be?

You don't and deliberately poke the bee hive...........

236
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 01:15:43 PM »
You mention first Carson, then Cruz. Is this a mistake or intended. 

Declaration of War by Congress?  Carson's lack of understanding scares the hell out of me.

Cruz is against involvement there.

237
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 01:12:04 PM »
CD,

I said that with Gellar, her actions were completely irresponsible and led to potential harm to the others with her, so it is all on her. Especially if there were participants who did not know that the objective was to in cite and invite threats.

Does Freedom of Speech allow you to directly put others into harm's way no matter what?

There is an assumption that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct, and that each amendment applies in every circumstance. But the courts have ruled that there are instances when the amendment may be rendered moot.

What if in the ensuing gun battle that some innocents had been killed? Does Gellar have any responsibility especially if she knew that the threat of violence could occur?  Now Gellar is talking about another similar event. She knows the potential outcome. Should she be allowed to still conduct the event with the likelihood of violence?

There has to be common sense with the Freedom of Speech, especially since the threat of violence with Islamic nuts is likelihood, and even more so when the intent is to rile them up to commit violence. This is not intimidation succeeding as you suggest. This is plain common sense.


238
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 10:41:01 AM »
You have ore faith in  the party than I do. 

As to the Supreme Court Justice appointees, let's just say

Kennedy,
Souter
Roberts

They were nominated by Republican Presidents. Each appeared to be strong Constitution supporters, but certainly their decisions often go astray.

As to Kelo, though the Supremes ruled the wrong way according to you, they also cited that states had the authority to pass laws that further defined use of ED. This would suggest that they also viewed it as a States Rights issue. So it is up for the states to take action.

And, the question that comes to mind is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in a world of a different time. The Founding Fathers could not see how society would change. So they left in methods that would allow for changes as the world changed. 

How would the Father's interpret Public Interest? In a very narrow view, or a more open view? Especially in light of today's urban cities and development.

Of course, the Courts have held that the Bill of Rights is not all encompassing. There can be restrictions on each right.

1. Crying fire in a crowded theater.

2. Felons and other not allowed to own firearms.

3. Search and Seizure exceptions.

If these types of exceptions that trampled on an individual's rights are allowed for the public good, why not with ED?

239
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 09:05:37 AM »
None are going to throw in the towel until after the first four primaries. The "lure" of the campaign and the ego trip, plus the money, will not allow the losers to do so.

And Jeb? He is still the choice of the Party Rulers.  He can't give in.

240
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 09:03:29 AM »
Outlier poll? 

ABC Post  38%
IPSOS/Reuters  37%
Gravis 42%
Zogby 38%
Morning Consult 41%

Let's see, Trumps ceiling was

15%
then 20%
then 25%
then 30%
then 35%

Guess this is it now.........he is finished and should drop out.

To quote Reagan, "Now there you go again" on Kelo. The Supreme Court was specific on this, and what the states needed to do to clarify things. Some states have enacted new laws and others have not. The question that remains is whether the needs of the one is more important that the needs of many in an interconnected society. Of course, you and I will never see this in the same light.

Everyone assumes that Cruz would make a great VP choice, or each Snarly.  Why not let Trump chose who he wants? Just because either Cruz or Snarly might look good on paper, that means nothing. After all, Reagan chose Bush, and win Bush became President, he began to unwind what Reagan started.

Trump needs to win over the rest of the Party to win.........maybe, but as in any primary, you run for the nomination and after the nomination is one, you run to win the rest of them.

What I do notice is that you have said nothing about Carly Hoaglund's article about the base and about the Convention delegates? Doesn't this bother you? The Party insiders having such a negative view of the base? And not caring what they want? If Trump has to win over the non Trump supporters, doesn't the RNC need to do the same with the Trump supporters? Instead, they want to screw them, put in their own candidate and expect the base to follow.

Sorry, did that with McCain and then with Romney. Look what happened. I will not do that again.

I want a party that respects the base, not one that has no use for them except as a voter in the general election.

241
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:56:32 AM »
So let's see. Pam Gellar puts together a "convention" that renders drawings of Mohhamad that she knows will provoke a violent response.  This puts peoples lives at unnecessary risk.

I understand Freedom of Speech, but isn't this like shouting of fire in a crowded theater?  You can have Freedom of Speech which is provocative, but to engage in Speech designed to provoke a violent response is just completely irresponsible.

242
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:51:59 AM »
Alienates people?  

Monmouth showing Trump at 41%.  Cruz at 14%. And Monmouth's owner does not like Trump......

The people who are "alienated" are the same people who were not going to support Trump anyway. They were simply looking for another reason to bash him.

Cruz cannot win the national election. He will be hammered with Tea Party attacks and his religious/conservative positions. Plus, he will not have any crossover appeal. And crossovers will be the key to winning the election.

If/when Trump hits 51%, what happens?  Oh, he is losing to Hillary so we can't have him. Well, what does losing to Hillary tell anyone?  

I have been criticized for saying that if the GOP manipulates the results of the convention, I will not support the nominee and not vote in the general election. At least I would do that based upon the fact that Trump had the base behind him, and the base was ignored.

If Trump has 51% of the vote and cannot beat Hillary, it means that the rest are not going to support Trump either. Yet is it for good cause simply because they do not like him? They would throw the election to Hillary out of spite?  

So what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? So the GOP elites can do it, but not the Trumpkins?

This is the end of the GOPe as we know it, and good riddance.



243
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:22:00 AM »
Here is another poll that is obviously flawed,,,,,,,it cannot be correct. It shows Trump at 38% and Cruz at 15% and is some rinky dinky outfit called ABC/WAPO.

Just can't be correct. 


244
Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:18:25 AM »
I bet you did not even listen to the speech and interview where this was said. Well, I did:

The maniac portion was actually in reference to Cruz and what he has done in the Senate. Cruz has done his filibustering, which is fine. but Cruz has alienated all the Senate as well. To show how bad it is, on a "second" procedural type vote yesterday, Cruz wanted to have a "second" vote. The entire Senate, both sides, completely rebuked him.

With this type of Cruzitute, how in the hell could he ever work with either side and both sides to get his programs passed?

As to the Scalia question, it was a gotcha type question. One had to know exactly what Scalia said and how it was referenced. And unless one saw a few specific sites that covered it, a person would not know the full context of the statement. Maybe Trump should not have responded without knowing the full sound bite, but this is not a big deal.

As to Ruch, he is a Cruzbot in the full blown mode. He likes Trump for the disruption that is caused, but he is Cruz all the way. And this was expected to happen at some point. And BTW, at the end of the show, Rush was backing down from all the flack.

As for Levin, he went there as well. And with his website, he bans anyone who challenges him and his position on Cruz. Say something anti-Cruz, and you are gone for good.

None of this matters though. The All Powerful Delegates to the Convention are going to change the rules so that their guy can win. After all, the primary voters and their choices mean nothing. We are simply lo info voters who are not smart enough to know what is good for us.


245
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:06:55 AM »
More from the Convention article I posted above.

Hoaglund writes: 

Quote
In the 2000 National Convention, the order of the Rules of the Republican Party was inexplicably reversed.  Prior to 2000, the rules were in proper chronological order with the PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL CONVENTION first, then followed by THE RULES FOR THE ELECTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE until the next convention.

This subtle change gives the false impression that the rules printed AHEAD of the temporary rules for the next convention actually apply to the next convention!

They simply do not. The preamble is clear and unambiguous, even given the reversal of the rules order, where it states “…the following…are adopted as the Rules of the Republican Party, composed of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention…” Keep in mind, these are the 2012 party rules.

In other words, the current Republican National Committee ceases to exist when the 2016 Republican National Convention convenes and, if re-authorized, a new Republican National Committee will re-organize following the convention to govern the party until the 2020 convention.

In short, the Progressive Republicans have attempted to transfer the act of official voting for the purpose of determining the party’s nominee from the convention delegates to the voters in primaries and caucuses.

This destruction of the rights of the Republican individuals who have succeeded in earning the high honor of becoming a delegate to the National Convention of their chosen party is unconscionable.

What the above section is saying (along with other portions of the article) all the current rules for the Convention ease to exist when the Convention opens and the delegates vote on new rules. So the delegates can change the rules to whatever they want and install whomever as their Dictator Nominee.

It also reveals the absolute DISDAIN that the delegates have for the party members and voters as a whole. They know better than everyone else and don't care what the primary voters want. If this is the type of party that the GOPe wants, then they can keep it.

If anyone other than the vote winner and delegate winner from the primary process is chosen, I will never vote for a major Pub candidate again. And as more Trumpkins see this, they will feel the same way.

The GOP deserves to go the way of the Whigs.

246
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 14, 2015, 05:59:34 PM »
Interesting article and perspective by an RNC delegate and North Dakota committeeman.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/14/gop-field-must-use-2016-to-force-conservative-primary-reform/

He writes that the primaries should only be "beauty contests" and the RNC must save the Party from lo-info voters.   He admits that the rule changes in 2012 were to protect the Romney candidacy. And he does not to give up the power of the delegates to pick the candidate by primary results.

As he writes:

Quote
In short, the Progressive Republicans have attempted to transfer the act of official voting for the purpose of determining the party’s nominee from the convention delegates to the voters in primaries and caucuses.

This destruction of the rights of the Republican individuals who have succeeded in earning the high honor of becoming a delegate to the National Convention of their chosen party is unconscionable.

Each delegate to the Republican National Convention has a rules protected right and a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote their conscience on all matters that come before the convention.

Like the other First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion, the freedom to choose those with whom you associate politically carries with it the right to participate in the private affairs of that association without interference from the government or others who are not associated with you, such as non-Republican primary voters.

This only proves the arrogance of the GOPe and confirms to me that even if Trump wins all the primaries, he will not be the nominee.  lf this is the typical attitude of the RNC/GOP towards the base and those who vote in the primary, then the GOP and RNC can go to hell.

Let Hillary win.

Let it burn.


247
Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio
« on: December 14, 2015, 03:01:26 PM »
 :-D  Rubio can't even get to 20%.  How can he even win the nomination?  Oh, I forgot............The GOPe will install him, and then he beats Hillary.

248
Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio
« on: December 14, 2015, 12:13:25 PM »


Everyone believes that Rubio is such a staunch conservative..............wait until the RINO comes out if he is elected.........I will not be "let down" again.

249
Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio
« on: December 14, 2015, 11:22:43 AM »
The problem for this with Rubio is that most other Senators have refused the subsidy.

250
Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential
« on: December 14, 2015, 10:48:11 AM »
New  Monmouth Poll (which I have previously questioned their methodology)

Trump 41% up from 28%  in Oct 15 poll

Cruz 14% up from 10%

Carson 9% down from 18%

I need to check the methodology and compare to previous polls they have done. If there has been no change, then this is either an outlier with some unlucky statistical variation in calls, or else there is a strong movement to Trump.  Other polls this week will be very interesting.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23