Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471583 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1100 on: March 07, 2016, 08:45:29 AM »
I confess to being more than a tad proud  :-D :-D :-D

He is scary-good at this!  I take back my proposal to raise the voting age to 30.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1101 on: March 07, 2016, 10:07:29 AM »
Bringing some of this over from the Clinton Crime Family thread.

"Donald is who brought this down, single-handedly"

I meant the tone, profanity and vulgarity.  The fault is Trump, the media, and Trump's mastery of the media.  We ought to be able to invite the children to watch a "Presidential" Debate.  Rubio made the hands joke but it was more subtle.  He joked that hand size correlates with trustworthiness, got bad feedback and dropped it.  Then Trump went on national television and started making public assurances about his manhood.  Coincidentally, he is close friends with the guy who "did not have sexual relations with that woman...", and is still the most popular of the living former Presidents.

But before that Rubio and others went after him on every issue only to be ignored while the media attention was going to Trump by a ratio of 58:1.

Case in point, Crafty asked why no one is bringing up China's provocations in the South China Sea, but Rubio has made that point is every stump speech he has given - to the brink of being disqualified for repetition - and the reporter following speech tells his editor nothing newsworthy happened there, no gaffes and no over the top rhetoric, and they switch back to Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering.   He went to the levity and the edge of the gutter only after everything else failed in a 17 way race and then a 4 way race.  Compare the coverage of defending the South China Sea with a hand joke.  Trump knows where people want there reassurances.  Trump is right unless people vote either for the guy who would defend the South China Sea (or the one was against legalization from the beginning).

On immigration, there is no doubt that Trump brought this up with a landmine in his opening, linking illegals to crimes committed here - taking real data right out of Ann Coulter's book and making it sound like all of them are rapists.  Ever since he didn't back down on the followup to that, the media has been addicted to him.  He constantly attracts more attention than he deserves - even here!

Crafty:  "Certainly he brought spotlight to the [immigration] issue, but as Cruz says, he was donating to 5 of the Gang of Eight when they were looking to pass Amnesty while Cruz was fighting it."

True, but that is not what is visible to the casual viewer.  The cameras don't follow Cruz or Rubio except to wait for a gaffe or an overstep and then they are disqualified, not worshipped.  Trump brings out the issue by saying it irresponsibly and insincerely.  He knows they aren't all rapists and he knows he was giving money to Pelosi-Reid just a minute ago and that just adds to the shock value.  His way is better (in the current media world) than Cruz being right and consistent or Rubio struggling to address both sides and solve the issue.  The boldness of his talk makes people think he will get it done, but as Crafty mentioned, the "off the record" tapes along with his previous opposing positions might make you think otherwise. 

But ccp is right.  The party has ignored these people and the law on this issue, taken our country down the tubes out of fear that Democrats would take it down the tubes without them.  25-40% would rather lose and be heard and represented than be part of the RINO liberal ruling coalition.  Same goes for shutting down destructive and counterproductive programs and agencies like the Fannie Mae CRAp that brought down our economy last time.  But the ones who would actually do that get no voice, no audience and no coverage.

Trump saw an unaddressed market and knew that 25-40% is yuuuge in a crowded field.   He knew something powerful in terms of media manipulation but what he knew is ugly.  We are worse off for the tone of Donald and like other societal decay, the country will never be the same again.  "Bleeding from wherever"[Kelly], "just look at her! [Fiorina]", "He's a nasty, nasty guy"[Cruz], "Bush Lied and People Died", "believe me, there's no problem [down] there", "little Marco" [a former college football player of average height], "Third rate radio show, nobody listens" [Hugh Hewitt radio show where Trump has been a guest at least a dozen times].

The best chance we have to control the border now is to nominate someone who would do that, is electable, can help hold the Senate, and can work something acceptable through Congress.  Trump brought it to the spotlight; someone else can see it through.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1102 on: March 07, 2016, 10:48:57 AM »
These could go under media and professional journalism.

1.  Hillary needs to release Wall Street speeches.  Bernie says that at a quarter million each, these must be great speeches.  Why can't we see her at her very best?

2.  Trump needs to direct NY Times to release off the record conversation with their editorial board.  Why can't we know now he plans to run in the general election and how he plans to govern?  It might affect our vote...

3.  Trump needs to release his tax returns.  HE is the one who makes a big deal out of his finances.  They are great.  They are huge.  It's Missouri primary time, show us!  Show us now!  You know they'l be 'leaked' in the general election.

4.  Obama needs to release his college transcripts.  I had to throw that in there, point being that when it doesn't favor the media agenda, nobody makes it happen.  Young students ought to know what it takes to get into Columbia, Harvard Law School and elected President.

5.  None of this will happen.  Let's vote without knowing the most important things about the most important people.  What could possibly go wrong.  The media thinks it is the opponents' responsibility to press these (when it doesn't fit their agenda) and then they don't cover the opponents when they do so.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1103 on: March 07, 2016, 11:26:07 PM »
Be warned-- you will not be able to unsee this!  :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/darren.kendrick.18/videos/10153991752484993/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 12, 2016, 07:55:29 PM by Crafty_Dog »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: "We stopped Trump!"
« Reply #1107 on: March 12, 2016, 09:41:47 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
MoveOn takes credit?
« Reply #1108 on: March 12, 2016, 10:45:27 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Soros
« Reply #1109 on: March 13, 2016, 04:07:38 AM »
Surviving the holocaust partly by giving up information on his own people to the Nazis messed up his brain.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: "We stopped Trump!"
« Reply #1110 on: March 13, 2016, 07:21:03 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-protesters-20160312-story.html

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-shut-down-donald-trump-rally-chicago#


The protestors are going to regret that. This will get ugly.

So, in America in 2016, violence is the proper response to speech you don't like. Lovely.

Evidently, I'm not alone in that thought, "Frauke Petry, who leads the Eurosceptic party, has suggested German border guards should open fire on illegal immigrants."

And neither are you... you carry a weapon, in order to protect yourself against, or impose yourself (depending upon a certain point of view of what is right or wrong, depending on the individual), against thugs.....do you not? If you don't, you certainly support people who do.

The world is a violent place, and in lieu of me whining about people that might be violent against me.... I say "let them.... they better be better at it than I am, and I make it my living to do so."

Not being smug.... just very matter of fact.

Liberals....

Not so much on Trump..... but a great reflection on what is going on with US politics currently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3489936/Angela-Merkel-set-punished-voters-open-door-refugee-policy-Germany-s-Super-Sunday-state-elections.html

As I have stated previously.... I'd have zero problem serving a military totalitarian that I agreed with.... to the death..... I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.... in fact....you serve one too whether you know it or not. If someone resisted arrest sufficiently.... would you take the force continuum all the way to the top? ;) I know my answer. It's the same thing.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris: Cruz surging
« Reply #1111 on: March 14, 2016, 02:50:16 PM »
Polling begun and completed after the March 10th Republican debate shows radical changes in Ohio and Illinois ahead of their March 15 primaries. In both primaries, Ted Cruz is surging, on the strength of a strong debate performance.

In Ohio, a winner take all primary with 66 delegates on the line, the latest poll by CBS, conducted from March 9-11, shows Trump and Kasich tied at 33% each with Ted Cruz surging to 27% up from his pre-debate showing of 19%.

Easy to dismiss as an outlier? Not if you also look at CBS’ Illinois poll that has Trump leading by 38-34 over Cruz after he had held a 34-25 lead earlier in the week.

And then there is Wyoming. Not a poll, but an actual caucus where Cruz won with an overwhelming 68% of the vote. Rubio ran second with 20% and Trump finished third — his first third place finish — with only 7%.

All these findings suggest that the March 10th debate may have been a big winner for Cruz. When Trump said that there were only two candidates who could win — him and Cruz — he may have unintentionally caused a massive exodus from Kasich and Rubio to the Texan.

Now, Cruz has a real shot at winning Ohio and Illinois. Coupled with North Carolina and Missouri — in both he has been polling a close second — March 15th could be the turning point of the race.
- See more at: http://www.dickmorris.com/cruz-surging-ohio-illinois-wyoming/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports#sthash.R4mdwmRD.dpuf

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Trump = Electoral Defeat of Epic Proportions
« Reply #1112 on: March 15, 2016, 08:18:23 AM »
My Latest Exercise in Telling People Something They Don’t Want to Believe

Right now all indications are that Hillary Clinton will crush Donald Trump in a general election, and there will be no big surge for Trump in longtime blue states like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

In New York, the most recent Siena poll has Clinton beating Trump, 57 percent to 34 percent. This is not a reflection of phenomenal popularity on her part; the survey finds 48 percent of registered voters in the Empire State feel favorable to her, and the same percentage feels unfavorable. But, the protestations of Root and other boosters aside, voters in Trump’s home state like him even less than Clinton; only 29 percent have a favorable view of him, compared with 59 percent who see him unfavorably. And what limited support Trump does get in New York doesn’t come from blue-collar voters, either: He does best among those who make more than $100,000 per year, and a full 64 percent of voters in that group still have an unfavorable opinion of him.

The outlook is equally grim across the river in New Jersey, where Trump’s Atlantic City casinos once made him a key employer. Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind survey, conducted last week, shows Clinton leading Trump 52 percent to 36 percent among registered voters in the Garden State. When asked to offer one word that describes Trump, New Jerseyans most commonly answered “arrogant,” “idiot,” “good,” “bad,” “obnoxious,” and “ass.”
In Michigan, the latest Marist poll has Clinton ahead of Trump, 52 percent to 36 percent. The exit poll from that state’s GOP primary found that 48 percent of its participants would be “dissatisfied” if Trump won the nomination, and 50 percent did not think Trump was “honest and trustworthy.”

Trump is at least within single digits of Clinton in the two biggest Rust-Belt states. The Republican firm Harper Polling finds Clinton ahead of Trump, 45 percent to 40 percent, in Pennsylvania, while in Ohio, PPP has Clinton ahead by the same margin and CNN has her ahead 50 percent to 43 percent.
When you say this to a Trump fan, they insist, “those polls mean nothing right now.” Even if the head-to-head numbers are not necessarily predictive, the favorable-unfavorable numbers are pretty relevant. Right now Donald Trump is detested by the general electorate -- the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, an astonishing 56 percent of respondents had a strongly unfavorable opinion of Trump -- and he would begin the general election as the most unpopular figure ever nominated to be the presidential candidate for a major party.

Or they point to the fact that 4.3 million people have already voted for him as a sign that he’s popular, blissfully ignoring the fact that the general election will feature around 130 million voters.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1113 on: March 15, 2016, 08:42:47 AM »
Yup.  We are doomed.

Even if hillary is indicted (very unlikely) it won't mean squat.  She will continue to run or at best Biden jumps in and he trounces Trump.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Arrest the Thugs...
« Reply #1114 on: March 15, 2016, 02:19:09 PM »
Arrest the Thugs

The Left’s bullies cannot be allowed to hijack freedom of speech for an entire nation.

March 15, 2016

Frontpage Editors

First the Left unleashed anti-war rallies against President Bush in support of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Then it brought out Occupy Wall Street to push the radical Marxist agenda that Bernie Sanders is now riding like a red wave through the Democratic Party. Finally, it unleashed the racist hate mobs that looted and burned neighborhoods and cities, singled out white people for harassment over the color of their skin, terrorized campuses and incited the murder of police officers.

The common agenda of all these hateful campaigns was to radicalize, intimidate and terrorize Americans into submitting to the totalitarians of the Left. From the inner city neighborhood to the Ivy League campus, from a couple having brunch in the morning to a police officer on patrol being shot in the head, from a political rally to the Thanksgiving Day parade, these thugs of the Left are out to enforce their tyrannical Party Line through political terror.

While the media call these so-called protesters “non-violent,” they completely ignore the fact that suppressing someone else's free speech is an act of intimidation. To prevent someone else from speaking is not a debate. It's the refusal to have a debate. Protesters have the right to be heard, but silencing views you disagree with is not a protest. It is the exercise of totalitarian power. And the Left’s organized efforts to prevent opposing points of view from being heard have now migrated from the campus to the city. The media call these crybullies the victims. But they are not victims. They are thugs who are using brute force to suppress the free speech and political freedoms of others.

Donald Trump has as much right to hold a rally as Bernie Sanders. His supporters have as much right to come out to hear him speak. The Left's refusal to accept this is a definitive rejection of freedom of speech and democracy.

For all his faults, Donald Trump is to be commended for standing up against all this, and for his cool under fire. When a leftist fascist attempted to attack him recently at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, and succeeded in grabbing his foot before he was subdued by Secret Service agents, Trump quipped: “I was ready for him but it’s much easier if the cops do it, don’t we agree?”

Trump’s opponents, both Republican and Democrat, and the Obama administration should realize what’s at stake – if, that is, they have any interest in preserving the American tradition of non-violent political disagreement. The unseemly haste of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the violent shutdown of his Chicago rally is extraordinarily disappointing: they should realize that the same violence can and will be turned against them if they stray too far from the thugs’ idea of what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

There is only one answer to a movement that is determined to thuggishly shut down the speech of others. And that is prison. We can either have speech democracy or speech tyranny in which the biggest thugs and the nastiest bullies decide who gets to speak and who has to shut up. The leftist fascists who shut down Trump’s Chicago rally should be arrested and energetically prosecuted. Barack Obama, so quick to issue statements about black and Muslim victimhood, should (if he cared at all about the principles that allow for a republic) immediately issue a statement stressing the importance of civility and respect for political dissent, and decry the shutdown of the Trump rally.

Obama won’t issue any such statement, of course, and that’s a large part of the problem. Much, much more is at stake in the shutdown of Trump’s rally than most Americans realize. As it becomes increasingly perilous to dissent from the leftist line in America, we can only hope that a sufficient number of Americans will awaken to what is happening in time to hold today’s political and media elites to account for the damage they have done and are doing to the American public square.

The political thugs of the Left cannot be allowed to hijack freedom of speech for an entire nation. Either we arrest the thugs or we will all exist confined in a prison where a handful of thugs can tell us what to we may say and what we may think.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1116 on: March 15, 2016, 07:11:56 PM »
Trump is Darth Vader. He just grows stronger the more you hate him.  :mrgreen:


Dahnoled..... I am yo Fadah!

Dying with laughter.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1117 on: March 15, 2016, 07:25:44 PM »
I don't think so.


DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1118 on: March 15, 2016, 07:27:33 PM »
I don't think so.



It's a free country. I know this is making a lot of people quite upset. Me? I love chaos.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
kasich is now looking like a jerk
« Reply #1119 on: March 15, 2016, 07:30:29 PM »
And Kasich sounds like a fool

He can only win 43 % of *Republicans* in his state when 54 % vote against him and he gets slaughtered in every other primary and yet he stands there and gives a speech  like he is a victor?!   What a schmuck.

Get our of the race damnit !  Clear the road for Cruz.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1120 on: March 15, 2016, 07:36:48 PM »
"I don't think so."

DDF ,

Trump has 67 % negatives.  Many *republicans* will never vote for him.

He is getting crushed in the national election.  The numbers against Hillary or Sanders are WIDENING in their favor.

He has yet to garner 50% of any Republican electorate.

I don't want to spend the next 8 years with another Clinton.  That is what we are headed for.  We will lose the Senate too.  And the Supreme Court.

If Trump supporters have a better view of the planet then I do good luck.



DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1121 on: March 15, 2016, 07:37:01 PM »
Cruz can't win.....

"Trump has won at least 159 delegates in Tuesday's contests. John Kasich has picked up at least 73 delegates — most of them for winning Ohio — while Ted Cruz has won at least 24 and Marco Rubio will get at least four.

There are still 107 delegates left to be allocated.

The overall race for delegates:

Trump: 619.

Cruz: 394.

Rubio: 167.

Kasich: 136.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president."


The only way Cruz can even get on the ballot is for the RNC to steal the nomination from Trump, in which case.... the GOP will be sending a Clinton (God help us all), or a Communist (equally distasteful), to the Whitehouse.


I posted this a while ago. Trump will be the next president, or the GOP has to accept something even worse. The complete evisceration of the GOP party as we know it.

Pretty simple.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: kasich is now looking like a jerk
« Reply #1122 on: March 15, 2016, 07:38:17 PM »
And Kasich sounds like a fool

He can only win 43 % of *Republicans* in his state when 54 % vote against him and he gets slaughtered in every other primary and yet he stands there and gives a speech  like he is a victor?!   What a schmuck.

Get our of the race damnit !  Clear the road for Cruz.

CCP.....Love to play you a game of correspondence chess sometime.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Hillary beats Trump and takes the Senate too
« Reply #1123 on: March 16, 2016, 08:25:59 AM »
Rubio lost his home state by 19 points.  Kasich won his with less than a majority.  Judge by that standard, Trump loses his home state NY to Hillary by 20, not exactly bringing more states into play as promised.

A sad moment for me.  My endorsement now goes to Cruz, but I can't see a path to victory for him even though he has beaten all expectations I had for him earlier.  

Yes, Kasich is playing the role of jerk and spoiler, but he us right on one thing.  Paraphrasing, if you are in school and you know all semester that 90% is required for an A and you get 87, 88 or 89% your grade is not an A.

1237 delegates is an arbitrary number but not a random one.  It is a majority, 50% +1 just like the party has had for 160 years.  In state and local politics, the threshold to nominate is often 60%.  To be extreme, let's say Trump gets 1236 but pisses of all of the others.  Does he get the nomination?  That depends.  If 'the party' then 'throws' it to someone else after the first ballot, his supporters will call that stealing it.  But if Trump wins the extra vote by threatening riots as he is, that is endorsement by extortion or intimidation.  A political convention is run by the 'seated' delegates, not the people who sent them there -after the first ballot.  On the second, third ballots etc. they will do what they think is right or best.  If not-Trump becomes a team and has more votes than Trump, so be it.  Either way we are divided and screwed.  To leave Cleveland without making an endorsement is another (obscure) possibility.

Reagan said someone who agrees with you 80% of the time, agrees with you.  Trump isn't there for me.  His tax plan is good (but he can't enact it).  But he won't cut spending to make up the difference.  The wall is good, but most of his immigration talk is hype.  Where else do I agree with him?  Or trust him?  Did he call for shrinking the size and scope of government?  If so, I missed it.  He is courting the trade protectionists, running against free trade, which also happens to be the Sanders view.  His view on Kelo and private property is abominable.  Small issue, says Pat?  No, it is core foundation of private property rights vs crony government power.  It defines where he would go with judicial appointments which is to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor, making constitutional limits on power even more meaningless.  He sides with the Bush Lied People Died Left on foreign policy and doesn't know what a nuclear triad is much less whether to rebuild it.  Basically stay home until attacked.  Good luck with that.  Planned Parenthood does good work; he would federally fund it. 50 million slaughtered, 50 million injured.   Under the authority of what Article or Amendment is the rest of the work they do authorized under the constitution?  Who cares about that when you are a living, breathing, shrinking constitutionalist.

His politics ensures a loss in the Senate meaning that enacting his tax plan and the rest is not do-able.  What is he going to do now, go from state to state campaigning for the Republican establishment Senate candidates, hyping up their records to the electorate while running against them?  The Senate for 2017-2018 is 50-50 if you count 3 tossups as going to the Democrats.  http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/  Pres. Hillary gets the majority (but not 60).  Pres. Trump does worse than 50-50 in the Senate if he continues running against his own party.  Whether he wins or loses the Presidency, he already lost the Senate.

The likely outcome now is that Trump gets the endorsement by virtue of his lead, and twice as many conservatives and Republicans stay home as did with Romney and the Republicans lose the Presidency, Senate, Supreme Court and possibly the House.  But hey, the Trumpests got what they wanted.  They sent a message to Washington and that message is that the R establishment sucks and Republicans will never unite and get their act together.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 08:35:48 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1124 on: March 16, 2016, 10:37:14 AM »
There Will Be No Republican Unity in 2016

The Alliance wins the Battle of Serenity Valley. Agent Cooper gets trapped in the Black Lodge. Kylo Ren kills Han Solo. Buffy’s mother dies. Jon Snow gets stabbed in the back. Dan Conner suffers a heart attack. Jack can’t save Teri Bauer. Chinatown remains Chinatown. Bambi’s mom gets shot.
And Marco Rubio loses Florida to Donald Trump.

This year should tell us that nothing in politics is certain, but right now, there’s just no way for the Republican party to leave the convention in Cleveland unified. You can’t square this circle. A certain percentage of Trump voters won’t support anyone but their man as the nominee. On the flip side, 37 percent of Republican voters yesterday said they would “seriously consider” voting for a third party or other candidate if Trump is the nominee.

Barring a sudden Ted Cruz surge in the final 20 contests, the Trump folks will argue their guy won the most votes, the most states, and has the most delegates. We know how quick Trump is to hurl accusations he’s being cheated -- even when they’re baseless. Nothing we’ve seen in Trump’s behavior going back years indicates he’s capable of graciously conceding defeat and pledging to do his part to help elect the Republican nominee. Nothing we’ve seen from his supporters suggests they’re amenable to voting for Cruz or some other Republican.

On the flip side, the #NeverTrump crowd believes that voting for Trump is selling their souls, reducing themselves to the humiliating subservience of Chris Christie. They’ve seen religious leaders compare Trump to King David, Senator Jeff Sessions endorse the guy who hired illegal immigrants for construction jobs and off-the-cuff endorsed expanding the H-1B visa program, journalistic institutions turn themselves into propaganda outlets for him, and the media turn themselves into an all-Trump, all-the-time frenzy of alternating adulation and denunciation. (“Nothing too hard, Mika.”) The allegedly conservative party is now ready to sign on to the guy who defends Planned Parenthood, opposes entitlement reform, speaks warmly of Vladimir Putin, boasts he’ll be able to get the military to violate the law, won’t rip up the Iranian nuclear deal, mocks Carly Fiorina’s appearance, and lies constantly, obviously, and shamelessly. Trump corrupts everything he touches, and one plurality in the party can’t believe the other plurality is eager to give him the powers of the presidency and authority over the FBI, Department of Justice, and IRS.

And despite the overwhelming hype, he’s won 37 percent of the cast votes so far.

All the polling indicates Rubio would have crushed Hillary Clinton in a general election. Cruz looks like he’s got a shot -- not a great shot, but a shot. Donald Trump’s general-election numbers are sinking like a stone. (If you can stand him, John Kasich matches up quite well.)

Trump’s fans walk around with great confidence about his general election strengths for which there is no real evidence. They’re convinced he will win over traditional blue-collar Democrats. So far, he doesn’t. They’re convinced he will win over African Americans. Polling in February puts his support among African Americans between 4 and 10 percent. (Romney won 6 percent.) They’re convinced he’ll win a lot more Latinos than everyone thinks. (He’s currently at less than half Mitt Romney’s level of support.) They’re convinced he’ll win Democratic states like New York, New Jersey, and Michigan. (He trails by 18 to 23 points in those states in the most recent polls.)

Trump fans gleefully point to his 7.5 million votes in the primary so far, and forget that the universe of voters in the general election will be on a completely different scale -- probably 130 million voters. (Mitt Romney won 10 million primary votes.)

When you mention Trump’s awful head-to-head polling with Hillary Clinton, you hear a lot of references to Ronald Reagan’s trailing Jimmy Carter in March 1980. Ronald Reagan never had the unfavorable numbers Trump has now.

When everybody says, “Oh, the pundits and the elected officials and the other campaigns didn’t see the GOP grassroots embrace of Trump coming . . .” well, yeah; the pundits and the elected officials and the other campaigns thought better of the GOP grassroots.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1125 on: March 16, 2016, 02:03:40 PM »
Many important points in that post.

"despite the overwhelming hype, he’s won 37 percent of the cast votes so far."

"Trump fans gleefully point to his 7.5 million votes in the primary so far, and forget that the universe of voters in the general election will be on a completely different scale -- probably 130 million voters"

"We know how quick Trump is to hurl accusations he’s being cheated -- even when they’re baseless."


We also heard he is the world's greatest deal maker.  What 'deal' does he offer me if I am a Rubio-Cruz-Kasich delegate that would cause me to back him versus forming an alternative coalition in the later ballots of a contested convention?  The only offer on the table is the promise of riots if I don't switch to him against my will.

For the record, I don't have an answer for the dilemma.  At this point, I wouldn't want Rubio offered up as an illegitimate candidate sure to piss off all Cruz and Trump supporters and lose.  Making it Cruz doesn't get us a win. Kasich is unacceptable unless he won it outright.  There are no uniters available or we would already have heard from them.  A third party conservative cannot beat Hillary with Trump still in, endorsed or not.  As already stated endlessly, we are screwed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1126 on: March 18, 2016, 07:50:54 AM »
Is Ted Cruz Going to Be Able to Pull This Off?

Right now, as a #NeverTrump guy, I’m rooting hard for Ted Cruz. We haven’t seen any polls conducted after Rubio’s departure from the race -- either in key upcoming states or nationally -- so we don’t have a good sense of whether anti-Trump Republicans are coalescing around him.

Tuesday Arizona holds its primary and Utah holds its caucus. At first glance, those are natural Cruz states, right?

[Cue ominous music.]

Notice that we’ve had two polls of Arizona Republicans -- you know, right next to Texas -- and Trump’s well ahead of Cruz in both. The two polls were conducted before Rubio dropped out, so maybe Rubio’s 10 to 12 percent will shift to Cruz and help the Texas senator make up the deficit of . . . 12–14 points. Uh-oh.

The last Utah poll was in mid-February, and had Rubio 24, Cruz 22, Trump 18. Caucuses usually have low turnout, but the Utah one may turn out quite different:

For its presidential preference caucus next week, the Beehive State’s Republican Party will allow any Utahn outside or inside the state to vote online. This will be the first time any political party has allowed online voting for a presidential primary election in the nation.

“We’re stepping out on the national stage in a way we never have before,” Bryan J. Smith, the executive director of the Utah Republican Party, said during a recent Utah caucus preparatory meeting. “This time it matters in more ways than you think.”

The Utah Republican Party said its new method of voting will mainly help families, workers, missionaries and military workers throughout the world, who can’t
be in town for voting. It also may help Utah mothers, who find themselves swamped with child care and work.  A week from now, if Trump wins Arizona and Cruz wins Utah . . . do people begin to doubt whether Cruz can win a one-on-one race against Trump? Or do anti-Trump Republicans begin to really turn their ire on Kasich for sticking around?

Politico reports, “Marco Rubio is close to endorsing Ted Cruz, but the two proud senators -- and recent fierce rivals -- have some details to work out first. Cruz has to ask for the Rubio’s endorsement, and both sides need to decide that it will make a difference, according to sources familiar with the thinking of both senators.”

If you’re Cruz, why wouldn’t you ask?

Meanwhile, one more ominous note for the #NeverTrump forces. According to the Associated Press count, Trump has 678 delegates, and needs 1,237. He’s 559 delegates away from winning the nomination, and 1,059 remain. Can Trump win 53 percent of the remaining delegates?

Even if you feel confident in saying “No, Trump won’t win that many delegates” -- and yeah, that’s a high bar to clear going forward -- so far Trump has won about 46 percent of the delegates available so far. (He’s done so with 37 percent of the votes cast in Republican primaries and caucuses so far.) Assume Trump maintains his current level of support throughout the rest of the process, and he’ll get 46 percent of the remaining 1,059 delegates. That gives him 492 more delegates.

Trump would enter the convention in Cleveland with 1,170 delegates, just 67 short of what he needs. (It’s easy to picture Trump’s first phone call going to John Kasich, currently sitting there with 144 delegates.) Yes, you might hear talk or calls for a Cruz–Rubio ticket, but Trump will argue, with justification, he’s won 94 percent of what was needed to be the nominee.

Derailing Trump will require a big surge from Cruz from here on out. Can he do it?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1127 on: March 18, 2016, 08:08:57 AM »
I don't think it's going to happen. I expect the GOPe to pull a "brokered convention" and serve us a giant shiite sammich. Which will shatter the pubs.

Is Ted Cruz Going to Be Able to Pull This Off?

Right now, as a #NeverTrump guy, I’m rooting hard for Ted Cruz. We haven’t seen any polls conducted after Rubio’s departure from the race -- either in key upcoming states or nationally -- so we don’t have a good sense of whether anti-Trump Republicans are coalescing around him.

Tuesday Arizona holds its primary and Utah holds its caucus. At first glance, those are natural Cruz states, right?

[Cue ominous music.]

Notice that we’ve had two polls of Arizona Republicans -- you know, right next to Texas -- and Trump’s well ahead of Cruz in both. The two polls were conducted before Rubio dropped out, so maybe Rubio’s 10 to 12 percent will shift to Cruz and help the Texas senator make up the deficit of . . . 12–14 points. Uh-oh.

The last Utah poll was in mid-February, and had Rubio 24, Cruz 22, Trump 18. Caucuses usually have low turnout, but the Utah one may turn out quite different:

For its presidential preference caucus next week, the Beehive State’s Republican Party will allow any Utahn outside or inside the state to vote online. This will be the first time any political party has allowed online voting for a presidential primary election in the nation.

“We’re stepping out on the national stage in a way we never have before,” Bryan J. Smith, the executive director of the Utah Republican Party, said during a recent Utah caucus preparatory meeting. “This time it matters in more ways than you think.”

The Utah Republican Party said its new method of voting will mainly help families, workers, missionaries and military workers throughout the world, who can’t
be in town for voting. It also may help Utah mothers, who find themselves swamped with child care and work.  A week from now, if Trump wins Arizona and Cruz wins Utah . . . do people begin to doubt whether Cruz can win a one-on-one race against Trump? Or do anti-Trump Republicans begin to really turn their ire on Kasich for sticking around?

Politico reports, “Marco Rubio is close to endorsing Ted Cruz, but the two proud senators -- and recent fierce rivals -- have some details to work out first. Cruz has to ask for the Rubio’s endorsement, and both sides need to decide that it will make a difference, according to sources familiar with the thinking of both senators.”

If you’re Cruz, why wouldn’t you ask?

Meanwhile, one more ominous note for the #NeverTrump forces. According to the Associated Press count, Trump has 678 delegates, and needs 1,237. He’s 559 delegates away from winning the nomination, and 1,059 remain. Can Trump win 53 percent of the remaining delegates?

Even if you feel confident in saying “No, Trump won’t win that many delegates” -- and yeah, that’s a high bar to clear going forward -- so far Trump has won about 46 percent of the delegates available so far. (He’s done so with 37 percent of the votes cast in Republican primaries and caucuses so far.) Assume Trump maintains his current level of support throughout the rest of the process, and he’ll get 46 percent of the remaining 1,059 delegates. That gives him 492 more delegates.

Trump would enter the convention in Cleveland with 1,170 delegates, just 67 short of what he needs. (It’s easy to picture Trump’s first phone call going to John Kasich, currently sitting there with 144 delegates.) Yes, you might hear talk or calls for a Cruz–Rubio ticket, but Trump will argue, with justification, he’s won 94 percent of what was needed to be the nominee.

Derailing Trump will require a big surge from Cruz from here on out. Can he do it?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1128 on: March 18, 2016, 08:28:36 AM »
I think there IS a chance for Cruz. 

Ideally for an outright win, but at the least to force an open convention with Trump a goodly distance from the finish line, allowing Cruz to shoot for majority status by getting Rubio and Kasich's delegates on the second round.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1129 on: March 18, 2016, 08:59:06 AM »
'Trump has won 37% of 'GOP' votes cast'
"...Trump would enter the convention in Cleveland with 1,170 delegates"

And his only shot at 1237 is to bully delegates who vehemently oppose him to switch their vote.

I have attended as a delegate many state conventions that were 'contested'.  And hardly anyone has experience with a national convention that was truly contested.  (I believe Gerald Ford in 1976 was nominated on the first ballot though the convention was considered 'contested'.  Maybe Crafty remembers the Dems in 1968.  Wikipedia shows results of a 'final ballot' and violence but nothing on ballot result sequence.

Back to Trump, 2016.  He called Fiorina a what? "Just look at her!"  Ugly hag might be the words he meant if you listen to his rant.  He called Cruz "a nasty, nasty guy".  Among other things he called Rubio, "Little Marco", and so on.  Christie and Carson have endorsed Trump, neither has many delegates.  Kasich is the wild card with maybe or maybe not enough votes to swing Trump over the top if he tried.

Before the deal making begins (as I understand it), the first ballot goes the way of the scorecard.  Guessing from current trends, Trump in first, a little short of 1237, Cruz in second a few hundred back.  Kasich and Rubio have most of the remainder.

On the second ballot, if no deals were made and delegates just vote their preference, my guess is that Trump's numbers go slightly down.

Then what?  None of the anti-Trump people want the VP slot.  Kasich is the one who might take it for the country.  I guess any of them could.  Otherwise, what deal does Trump offer other than his promise to bring down the whole party if not awarded what he did not win.

Lindsey Graham's thinking is that the deadlock opens up the elevation of Kasich.  My earlier thinking was that it opens up the elevation of Rubio, but not after losing Florida and losing momentum everywhere else first.

More likely, the only alternative to 1st place short of a majority is second place, Ted Cruz.  Will Rubio endorse Cruz (yes) and will the Cruz and Rubio delegates combined be more than Trump?  (I don't know.)  Would Rubio want his delegates to go to Cruz for better governance or to Trump for legitimacy, finishing in first place?  I don't know.

Between ballots, there are delays and speeches.  Rubio, for one, steps up to the podium and "releases" his delegates to vote for (Trump or Cruz).  [Bush has delegates, probably doesn't make a long speech] Kasich is the wild card, probably keeps campaigning for himself on the second ballot, hoping to win on the 15th.  Then they vote again and delegates vote for whomever they please.  Slow process, results are announced and so on.

At the state level, delegates tend to be more conservative than the constituency.  That favors Cruz.  Cruz supporters probably also tend to be more involved in the party than Trump people, also favoring Cruz.  At the national level, you might find more of the so-called 'GOPe' types, more likely to favor Kasich.  Kasich polls better against Hillary; that becomes more relevant as time goes on and the other two can't get to 1237.

The question of stealing is to ignore the rules established for the process.  All along, Trump has wanted to use the benefits of the party while trashing it and its workers who made it all possible.

Where this ends, no one knows, but my point is that whatever the delegates decide on is the legitimate result, more so than elevating someone short of a majority who is (deservedly) strongly opposed by the majority.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 10:36:35 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 07:01:18 AM by Crafty_Dog »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1133 on: March 20, 2016, 08:40:49 AM »
And she will have Monica back to work  at her old job.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Cruz's stealth delegate hunt
« Reply #1134 on: March 22, 2016, 09:27:55 AM »
Ted Cruz’s Stealth Delegate Hunt
Senator’s campaign operates under-the-radar effort to prepare for contested Republican convention against Trump
Ted Cruz’s campaign has been laying the groundwork at local political events that choose delegates to the national GOP convention in case that gathering doesn’t select a candidate on the first vote. ENLARGE
Ted Cruz’s campaign has been laying the groundwork at local political events that choose delegates to the national GOP convention in case that gathering doesn’t select a candidate on the first vote. Photo: Courtney Pedroza/The Arizona Republic/Associated Press
By Janet Hook and
Reid J. Epstein
Updated March 21, 2016 8:05 p.m. ET
139 COMMENTS

MORELAND, Ga.—Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign has been operating an under-the-radar effort to prepare for a contested Republican convention this summer, and those moves appear to be bearing fruit in places such as this Atlanta exurb.

Though front-runner Donald Trump carried Georgia’s Coweta County by 12 percentage points three weeks ago, it was Cruz supporters who dominated an early stage of the arcane process of choosing the people who will serve as delegates at the Republican National Convention.

The goal: If Mr. Trump doesn’t win on the first ballot—freeing most delegates from voting for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus—Cruz supporters would dominate the convention, paving the way for the Texas senator to win the nomination on a later vote.

It is at events like the Coweta County Republican Convention last weekend where Mr. Cruz must prevail to have any reasonable chance of wresting the GOP nomination away from Mr. Trump. “We started preparing to get our folks to the convention in 2015,” said Scott Johnson, a top Cruz organizer in Georgia.

Heading into Tuesday’s contests in Arizona and Utah, Mr. Trump has secured 678 delegate slots—255 more than Mr. Cruz, who is a distant second. Mr. Trump needs to take about 56% of the delegates in the 22 states left to allocate them to reach the 1,237-delegate threshold to win the nomination on the convention’s first ballot.

Mr. Cruz’s path to a first-ballot victory is far harder: He must secure 81% of the remaining delegates—a herculean task in a three-man race given that many of the remaining states award delegates proportionally or by congressional district.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has gathered 143 delegates, has no mathematical chance of winning a first-ballot vote. His only hope is for a contested convention that turns most of the delegates bound to candidates into free agents.

But Mr. Trump’s rivals have another, less visible path to influence over the national convention. In Georgia and elsewhere, the campaigns are navigating a little-known political process that occurs after each state’s primary or caucus sets out how many delegate slots each candidate is allotted.
ENLARGE

In precinct, county, district and state meetings, Republicans now are determining which people will get delegate slots at the national convention. These party activists will fill the arena floor in Cleveland and be called on to shout out the number of delegates awarded to each candidate from their state, until one hits 1,237.

At a Washington news conference Monday, Mr. Trump predicted he would win enough delegates in the remaining state votes to avoid a contested convention, but he said he has a delegate-selection team in place in case he doesn’t.

“I think I’ll get the votes. We’ll see what happens. Maybe I won’t,” Mr. Trump told about 200 reporters at the site of a hotel he is developing five blocks from the White House.

Mr. Cruz’s presidential hopes increasingly rest on a convention scenario not seen since 1948, when New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey won the GOP nomination on the third ballot. To succeed, he is relying on organizers like Brant Frost, a 25-year-old mortgage broker in Georgia who began volunteering for his campaign last July.


Mr. Frost estimates that Cruz supporters will make up 90% of Coweta County’s delegates at Georgia’s coming state and district gatherings, from which delegates to the national convention will be chosen. “We’re trying to get Cruz supporters there so when delegates can vote for whoever they want, they will vote for Ted,’’ Mr. Frost said.

As for Mr. Kasich, for weeks his campaign had focused entirely on last Tuesday’s Ohio primary. The day after he won, Mr. Kasich’s aides held a five-hour meeting to adopt a strategy to secure delegate slots for supporters. The aides declined to disclose any details.

“Were plotting all that out,” said John Weaver, Mr. Kasich’s senior strategist. “We’ll have people at every state convention and at every district convention. It’s going to be hand-to-hand combat.”

Meantime, Mr. Trump will try to harness the same voter energy he used to win 20 primaries and caucuses to capture seats for supporters at the national convention, said Ed Brookover, a former Ben Carson strategist who now serves as the New York businessman’s head of a delegate-selection team.

“This is not difficult to figure out in any one state,” Mr. Brookover said. “It only sort of begins to get complicated when you’re talking about 56 different places,” he added, referring to every state and the U.S. territories that participate in the nomination contest.
Utah's Republican party is attempting one of the biggest online voting rollouts in U.S. history, allowing residents to cast ballots on phones, tablets and computers. WSJ's Shelby Holliday explains how the process works in WSJ's Campaign Q&A. Photo: iStock

Even before Mr. Trump romped to victory in Georgia’s March 1 primary, Cruz supporters dominated the first stages of the complex process for selecting the state’s delegation to the national convention. The Texas senator’s supporters made up the preponderance of would-be delegates who on Feb. 20 attended precinct and county meetings to enroll at county conventions.

In straw polls that day conducted by the Georgia Association of Republican County Chairmen, 63% of attendees backed Mr. Cruz, compared with 13% who were Trump supporters.

It was more a measure of organizational strength than electoral clout; Mr. Trump went on to win the Georgia primary with 38.8% of the vote. Mr. Cruz was third, at 23.6%.

“A lot of Trump supporters are new,” and so didn’t know they had to be at Georgia precinct meetings a month ago, said Phoebe Hobbs, a Trump backer attending a GOP convention Saturday in Cobb County, northeast of Atlanta. “There’s a reason they are upset [with the political system]. They don’t know how the party is run.”

After his primary victory, Mr. Trump sent his top Georgia organizer to Florida, an indication his campaign didn’t put a premium on the post-primary delegate-selection process.

Last week, Mr. Trump’s campaign tried to play catch-up. An email Thursday evening from the campaign’s Georgia state director urged supporters to attend the Saturday county conventions and explained the rules.


“Just because we won the primary election, doesn’t mean our job is finished,” wrote Brandon Phillips, Mr. Trump’s Georgia chief. “Media reports indicate that career politicians and the political class are plotting to deny Mr. Trump the nomination by preventing our supporters from representing Mr. Trump as his delegates at the Republican National Convention.”

On Saturday, dozens of people arrived at the Cobb County convention without having met the party’s requirement of attending prior precinct and county meetings. Most of them were likely Trump supporters.

Randy Evans, a veteran party official who was chairman of the convention, waived those and other requirements.

But it remains unclear how many of them will be able to attend the state and district conventions at which national convention delegates will be selected, because most delegate slots were already allocated.

That seemed not to matter to Trump supporters like Yvonne Malin, a 62-year-old retiree from Marietta, Ga., whose presence at the Cobb County convention marked her first attendance at such a Republican gathering.

“The country is falling apart; I don’t feel safe anymore in my own country,” Ms. Malin said, adding she is so anxious that she bought a gun for the first time.

Ms. Malin probably will qualify to be an alternate at the next-level congressional district convention in April, but she may have joined the effort too late to gain access to the state convention in May. “I am so excited just to be here,” she said.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, weak opponents
« Reply #1135 on: March 24, 2016, 10:26:51 AM »
This illustrates the problem for Republicans:

President Obama Job Approval (Real Clear Politics)
Approve 48.8
Disapprove 46.8
Approve +2.0

He was at a significant negative when 17 pretty good Republicans set out to replace him.  With available and obvious facts, they should have been able to drive his approval to rock-bottom.  Hillary running and winning on a platform of more-of-the-same was inconceivable.

60% of Republican voters are embarrassed by this campaign while the persuadable in the middle see it worse.  Caliphate it the Middle East, ISIS in Europe, global stagnation and the worst US economic recovery in history are all the new normal, the results of this governance, and the Republicans are seen as offering a circus sideshow instead of an about-face change of direction in policy and results.

First place for the Republicans is the guy who matches up worst against Hillary and second place is the one who matches up second to the worst.

She could beat these guys wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Is there some good news I missed in this?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1136 on: March 24, 2016, 01:00:47 PM »
We keep hearing rumors about brokered conventions. 

I don't know which is worse.  We nominate Trump and almost certainly lose. 

Or nominate someone else and he goes 3rd party like the vindictive guy he can be and his  followers will vote for him out of spite and we lose the election anyway.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1137 on: March 24, 2016, 02:10:24 PM »
Umm , , , forgive me but as far as I can tell it is a matter of "open" or "contested" but not "brokered" convention.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1138 on: March 24, 2016, 02:25:58 PM »
IMHO, Trump will beat Hillary or any Democrat easily.  I know this directly contradicts the poll data that is being reported - but I simply don't trust it.
Say what you will, but I simply don't believe Trump's negatives are anywhere near as bad as they are being portrayed by the media.  I am highly suspicious - since a Trump presidency would demonstrate that current presidential campaign advisors are devoid of value.  Add this to the fact that many K Street lobbyists would no longer be able to buy influence, and you have a recipe for the wholesale destruction of many high-dollar advisory, media, and influence-peddling careers inside the beltway.

The people who will be directly affected by this are NOT going to go quietly into the night.  They will fight tooth and nail to maintain relevancy.  Thus I believe you have a  massive disinformation campaign regarding Trump on the part of the media and traditional paid consultants.

Rush Limbaugh spoke about this at length on the air a couple of days ago.  Time will tell - but my gut tells me the idea that Trump will necessarily lose the general election to Hillary or any other Democrat is pure manufactured B.S.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1139 on: March 24, 2016, 06:09:58 PM »
objectivist: 

With due respect I think you are mistaken to think that every poll if way off mark.

I for one am getting more offended every day by Trump.  I started out very open minded and agreed with immigration etc but his behavior is getting really ridiculous as is this latest back and forth with Ted Cruz about the wives. 

I want a President not a reality show or a gossip column.

You are with all due respect very mistaken on how many other Republicans very much dislike him and mean what they say when they will not vote for him

Probably nearly every Black most Latinos and Asian will vote against him. 

He is driving voters away at least as fast as he brings them in. 

Hillary will run even in the unlikely event of an indictment in my humble opinion.

Even if indicted she will have her terror lawyers go after a misdemeanor "just like Petreaus".

And she will still run.

Either way to just ignore sky high negatives for Trump is putting one's head in the sand.

If I am wrong Doug McG will buy you breakfast   :-D


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1141 on: March 24, 2016, 07:28:48 PM »
Yet, if I am not mistaken, the EDC has more votes in her primaries than Drumpf has in his.

Yes, Rep vote totals are up dramatically, but perhaps Drumpf is a bit of the rooster who thinks his crowing caused the sun to rise.

OTOH
a) LOTS of Americans are REALLY concerned about where the country is headed; and
b)  Plenty of Americans are plenty worried about Drumpf and are voting to stop him.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: appears dick morris agrees with objectivist
« Reply #1142 on: March 25, 2016, 07:31:18 AM »
http://www.dickmorris.com/trump-draws-14-million-new-republican-voters/#more-17539

"The Trump voter is exactly the type that stayed home in 2012."

Yes, his support comes from new or alienated voters but it comes at the cost of 70% disapproval of all women and many other negative factors.  He loses nationwide by double digits (current polling), loses NY by 19 points.  I was wrong about him not bringing new states into play; he could be the first Republican to lose Utah.

Some polls are wrong, but Republicans can believe all polls are wrong to their peril. 

Trump supporters believe that with his talent he will change those polls, we have 7 months to go.  He hasn't fought that fight yet.  But just as supporters stand by him, detractors are pretty set in their opinion of him too.

No one here may vote for Hillary but I might admit she is better on foreign policy and on trade policy.  Trump won't be competitive in my state.  He will cost us the state house and 2 congressional seats.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Why a Contested Convention Favors Cruz
« Reply #1143 on: March 25, 2016, 07:45:02 AM »
The GOP nomination now comes down to process.  If Trump has 1237 before the election, he wins on the first ballot.  Experts say that will be really really close.  If the rest of the states were proportional he would fail, but he wins NY, leads in Calif, etc.

If Trump fails to win on the first ballot, the advantage goes to Cruz:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

Why a Contested Convention Favors Cruz
...
there are states such as New Hampshire, Georgia, and Ohio, which have open primaries that allow Trump-leaning Democrats and independents to cast ballots, but where delegates are elected through processes set up by state Republican parties who are by definition, well, Republicans.
...
There is perhaps no better example of Trump’s potential weakness on the floor in Cleveland, and of Cruz’s strength, than South Carolina. Trump won every single one of the 50 delegates up for grabs in the state’s February 20 primary, which was open. But to serve as a delegate from South Carolina, one has to have been a delegate to the 2015 state convention, held before Trump even announced his candidacy.
...
[Arizona] Trump won the state’s primary on Tuesday evening, but regardless of what any campaign does, the majority of Arizona’s 58 delegates, who are unbound after the first ballot, are likely to defect to Cruz on subsequent votes.





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1145 on: March 27, 2016, 08:51:40 AM »
I just read the number of Muslims in the US in now 7 million not 3.

It was obvious to me it is more than just 3 because here in NJ there is an explosion of Muslims from Northern Africa and the Middle East.

The problem is that it is hard if not impossible which ones harbor a hatred of the US, Christians, and Jews.

I lot of the Hindu Indians also have huge frictions with the Muslims from ancient wars etc.

Trump has driven any hope of attracting or keeping any Muslims in or to the Republican party down the whirlpool.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Mexico's Glass House
« Reply #1146 on: March 28, 2016, 06:01:36 AM »
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/01/13/mexicos-glass-house-2/
J. Michael Waller
Mexico’s Glass House
mexico_southern_border
Articles | January 13, 2009 | Borders

     EmailPrint
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

 

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.  Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country."  Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

 

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States – as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny.  The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

– – –

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

 

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1148 on: March 28, 2016, 12:41:29 PM »
Pasting Doug's post from the Trump thread here:

The polls are right - except for the little preface, if the election were held today.  Hs supporters have the belief that when Trump turns his attention to Hillary, he will destroy her.  (Just as I know Rubio is the best communicator, won Florida by a million votes, etc.) Trump supporters may be right, but the polls today already take all that into consideration, her felonious existence and his own pluses and minuses.  There isn't much left to say about either one of them (that hasn't already been said).


"November will be a blood bath.  Even Alexander the Great couldn't get us out of this jam."
BEGIN
Isn't it strange that with 7 months to go, no one can think of a solution.
Our alternatives:
1) Go with Trump now, hope he runs and governs well.
2) Go with Trump after he hits 1237 delegates, hope he runs and governs well.
3) Go with second place Cruz on the second ballot.  Lose all Trump supporters.  Lose the election.
4) Take Rubio, Kasich, Ryan or somebody else on the second (or 50th) ballot, Lose all and Cruz and Trump supporters.  Lose the election.
5) Run a conservative 3rd party candidate against Hillary and Trump, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, anyone who wasn't on the primary ballots.  Trump Supporters stay with Trump.  Hillary wins.
6) Merge a ticket, Trump-Cruz, Trump-Rubio, Trump-Kasich.  But the only one who gains from that is Trump, offering the false promise that any veep will have 2 cents of influence over how he governs.

I lean toward 3) , 4) and 5) above, the not-Trump options.
END

I go with Cruz.  It is not impossible he wins on the first round.  He has a very good chance of winning on the second round.  He has been doing the hard backroom work that means that delegates that are committed to Trump on the first round are his on the second.  The establishment has already conceded that it can live with him in order to stop Drumpf.

In addition to his hard line Constitutional principles, his positions, I think Cruz's tactics during the campaign leave the door open for him to appeal to Trump voters.  Cruz too has not yet turned his sights on the Empress Dowager, (nor has the FBI?). 

Cruz can beat Hillary.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1149 on: March 28, 2016, 01:40:42 PM »
Crafty:  "I go with Cruz.  It is not impossible he wins on the first round.  He has a very good chance of winning on the second round.  He has been doing the hard backroom work that means that delegates that are committed to Trump on the first round are his on the second.  The establishment has already conceded that it can live with him in order to stop Drumpf.

In addition to his hard line Constitutional principles, his positions, I think Cruz's tactics during the campaign leave the door open for him to appeal to Trump voters.  Cruz too has not yet turned his sights on the Empress Dowager, (nor has the FBI?). 

Cruz can beat Hillary."


Agree.  First, hold Trump short of 1237. 
I agree Cruz is in a good position to win on the following ballots if he gets that far. 
His nomination in this way is totally legitimate, but won't be seen that way by opponents.
Start now by separating Trump supporters from Trump.  We want Trump supporters; we don't want Trump (as the nominee).  We didn't create his negatives.  He did.
Because this endorsement would be totally legitimate, whoever gets to 1237 first, I see Trump eventually endorsing Cruz.  (Probably didn't want the job anyway, or why would he act like this?)

Once Republicans unify, Cruz is at about -3% in the popular vote against a failed Democratic felon, losing the electoral college by about 40-50 votes.  That is a better starting point than all the other remaining alternatives.