twa Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I am sorry, why is there an "if"? Cruz has already demonstrated himself as someone with issues with "effective governance" as "Senator shutdown." Additionally, most of his own party members and leaders hate his guts. Seems fairly popular with the House and voters though, if effective governance is what we have seen before he interjected I'll pass The shutdown resulted in the only slowdown in spending we have had in years....of course I can understand how slowing govt spending might upset some folk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Come on. Endulge me. Elaborate. Seriously. Unlimited money spent. He can't get to 270 against those two asshats? Where would he win? Bloomberg will lose the NRA/Gunowners voters. That issue alone would be enough to prevent him from winning. His nanny state policies- ie banning large soda drinks. He could make it interesting for a little while and maybe do well as Perot did in 92 but he would help Trump win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Socrates, the only way Bernie wins is by winning. He has to win a majority of the Super Tuesday states. He can last all the way to the convention but if Hillary is the winning; she will have delegate lead. It would be somewhat similair to Hillary in 2008. She wons states later on but Obama already had a lead that; she never could make up. No matter how many states she won. Also, the Super Delegates favored Obama then and will favor Hillary now. California you know is the last day of the primary season- June 7th. Too late impact much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Well the most likely outcome is a Corrupt Female politician vs a Demagogue with slogans and no rule serious thought. Hillary is dishonest and not trustworthy and is in the back pockets of her donors. Donald hasn't really given to much thought on the things he says. How exactly would he do what he says and the real impact of what he wishes to do. Also, his temperament is so dangerous; he could start WW3, just by getting made at something said in a tweet. Yes, there's enthusiasm for Bernie but will it show up to beat Hillary? Unlikely. Hillary is a lock to have a much lower turnout because some people will stay home. Trump in some ways, reminds me of Obama's popularity in 2008. You are seeing that same excitement for him; though for vastly different reasons for Trump. Republican turnout is high now but come the general election; I think it will be lower. There will almost certainly be Republicans staying home on election day. I wonder, could all those minor third parties see an upticking in votes this year? No, they won't win anything but with a certain percentage of people not liking Clinton or Trump and wanting to vote; could they find a minor more to their liking and vote in protest that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Can you imagine the Republican convention this year? Conventions are made up with party insiders and lot of corporate donors. Those donors aren't going to be feeling the love from Trump. I wonder if Trump will insist his supporters be allowed to attend the convention or he holds his own convention for them; only coming to the Republican convention to accept his nomination. Will those donors even attend if Trump is the nominee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 The shutdown resulted in the only slowdown in spending we have had in years....of course I can understand how slowing govt spending might upset some folk Cruz is most associated with the shutdowns which he orchestrated to repeal Obama care. Also Orchestration which was the joint agreement to cut 10% spending across the board was worked out prior to the government shutdown not because of it. Can you imagine the Republican convention this year? Conventions are made up with party insiders and lot of corporate donors. Those donors aren't going to be feeling the love from Trump. I wonder if Trump will insist his supporters be allowed to attend the convention or he holds his own convention for them; only coming to the Republican convention to accept his nomination. Will those donors even attend if Trump is the nominee? Well if trump wins the most delegates all them will be there. Socrates, the only way Bernie wins is by winning. He has to win a majority of the Super Tuesday states. He can last all the way to the convention but if Hillary is the winning; she will have delegate lead. It would be somewhat similair to Hillary in 2008. She wons states later on but Obama already had a lead that; she never could make up. No matter how many states she won. Also, the Super Delegates favored Obama then and will favor Hillary now. California you know is the last day of the primary season- June 7th. Too late impact much. I don't know.. the way the voting going right now is Bernie has more than half the votes cast or caucused. That makes bernie pretty powerful. He's not getting out anytime soon and hillary has to listen to him or he'll not help her in the general. If he's got half the democrats in his pocket.. he's in a pretty powerful position.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Lol @ orchestration... sequestration? Boehner and House Rs are the ones I closely link to sequestration. Cruz should get minimal credit for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Socrates, the only way Bernie wins is by winning. I agree. He has to win to win. Obviously. He has to win a majority of the Super Tuesday states. Not necessarily. He has to win 2,380 delegates. He can do that without winning a majority of Super Tuesday states. I agree he needs a good showing on Super Tuesday though. He should win Massachusetts (+7 in the latest poll) and Vermont (+76) easily. Oklahoma is a toss up (-2). After that things get tricky, but there's still time for Bernie to close the gap, as he's been doing all along. He has a fighting chance in Colorado (-6), where he just got a big endorsement, and Michigan (-10), where he has a lot of support from union members. Everything else on Super Tuesday looks like a long shot, but hopefully Bernie can make some inroads there. I think he'll do enough to keep up the fight beyond March 2nd. He can last all the way to the convention but if Hillary is the winning; she will have delegate lead. Yes obviously, but notice you're not claiming Bernie has already lost, which is the proposition that was in dispute. People have been telling me there is no hope ever since Bernie started this campaign, and they've been wrong all along. There is hope, it may be a slim hope, but it is better than no hope at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/21/1482841/-Is-Bernie-Sanders-the-new-Ronald-Reagan Is Bernie Sanders the new Ronald Reagan? I won't kid you, I detested Ronald Reagan. The smarmy aww-shucks act set my teeth on edge. The twisting of old Winthrop sermons into explosions of jingoistic please-get-these-poor-people-out-of-my-shiny-city nationalism made me despair for my country. There was the constant blowing of the racism dog whistle, the stream of weapons flowing to wherever death squads were squadding, the mythology that lauded hard work while denigrating workers. The $#!@*ing way he said "well" as a space filler and wandered into nonsense while reporters were lauding him as "the great communicator." While the moderators were chuckling over "there you go again," I was shaking my 19" B&W set in rage. I did not like the man. Still, I understand why conservatives love him. I understand why, given the chance, we’d be flying into Reagan National Airport in Reagan, D.C., capital of these here Ronnie States of Reagan. It's not because Reagan was the purest conservative ever to conflate Ayn Rand and Jesus. It’s because he carried them out of the wilderness in his Bonzo-lovin’ arms and set them on the throne. He didn’t just capture the country's leadership, he seized it's imagination. He rewrote the story. Redefined "American." But can Bernie do the same? . . . Thirty plus years after Mondale's defeat, the liberals can't win mythology is still pervasive enough that any attempt to return the Democratic Party to the territory where it successfully governed for fully half the Twentieth Century is regarded as a revolution. Like that TV commercial about people who put up with poor television service, Democrats are expected to be "settlers," who assume at the outset that compromise and holding actions are the best they can do. Only… there are two things wrong with that idea. First, Republicans certainly aren't doing it. Not only are they willing to dream off the charts, they are not interested in compromise. They've moved the national conversation so far to the right, that somewhere back there in a distance is a pile of smashed Overton windows. Second, the evidence that liberalism is what kept Democrats from office is… is… hang on, I must have left it over here in my coat. No? Hmm, that's right. It's non-existent. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/bernie-sanders-and-the-danish-example.html?referer= Letters Bernie Sanders and the Danish Example Brooks is aghast at Bernie Sanders’s rise. Mr. Brooks fears that young Americans are forsaking the virtues of economic dynamism in their desire for greater economic security. He suggests that this is not the American way. But he doesn’t grapple with why so many Americans have soured on our economic order. Too many American cities — indeed whole regions — have been devastated by mass job losses. More thriving metropolitan areas are increasingly unaffordable places to live. Real suffering accompanies our galloping inequality: Note the shocking uptick in drug- and despair-induced mortality among middle-age white Americans. Mr. Brooks wants to protect the conditions that nurture “disruptive dynamos” like Walmart and Google. But as globalization and new technologies disrupt our economy, we need government to ensure that the gains aren’t all going straight to the top, with American workers left behind paying the price. One need not be a Sanders-style democratic socialist to be nostalgic for the higher top marginal tax rates, more modest college costs and the broader union membership not of Denmark but of Eisenhower-era America. . . . See link for a half dozen more letters. The Times may not like Bernie much, but apparently its readers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 And just as an aside to that last line...Denmark (not Disneyworld) is considered the "happiest place on Earth". I'm just guessing it's because the citizens actually get what they pay big tax money for. I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 And just as an aside to that last line...Denmark (not Disneyworld) is considered the "happiest place on Earth". I'm just guessing it's because the citizens actually get what they pay big tax money for. I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. That's a fantastic point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 And just as an aside to that last line...Denmark (not Disneyworld) is considered the "happiest place on Earth". I'm just guessing it's because the citizens actually get what they pay big tax money for. I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. Well I'm glad its not because they have sex with animals or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump The reason that Ted Cruz lost the Evangelicals in S.C. is because he is a world class LIAR, and Evangelicals do not like liars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 On another note, this is my first General Election I am actually considering not voting at all. Up til now, its been Perot, Dole, Bush x2, Paul, Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump The reason that Ted Cruz lost the Evangelicals in S.C. is because he is a world class LIAR, and Evangelicals do not like liars! You mean because they bought the lies Trump and Rubio are pushing. meanwhile the sun is coming out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 And just as an aside to that last line...Denmark (not Disneyworld) is considered the "happiest place on Earth". I'm just guessing it's because the citizens actually get what they pay big tax money for. I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. I thought CNN ran at least an interesting piece the other day about the comparison to the US and Denmark. One of the things is it appears that currently the Danes wouldn't even support a lot of Sanders plan, and at least some have doubts about what they've done would work in the US. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/ "But there are aspects to the Danish model that you would never see on Sanders' policy platform. As a small country heavily reliant on trade, Denmark imposes minimal tariffs on foreign goods. Businesses here are only lightly regulated. The corporate tax rate is much lower than in the United States, which has one of the highest in the world. There's not even a minimum wage in Denmark, although most workers are paid high salaries in large part due to the strength of labor unions. And in the past few years, Danish voters elected a right-of-center government, which has been instituting reforms that have put tighter restrictions on access to the long-held safety net." "The recent changes have caught the attention of conservative and libertarian think tanks in North America that rank levels of economic freedom around the world. Over the past few years, studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation, Wall Street Journal, the Cato Institute and the Canadian Fraser Institute have ranked Denmark as having actually more economic freedom than the United States." (Places like the Heritage Foundation actually love Denmark because of things like low corporate taxes, no minimum wage, and other light regulations.) "In terms of pure semantics, few Danish politicians today would characterize themselves as "socialist"--even a "democratic socialist"--as Sanders does. The word has largely fallen out of fashion in recent decades. "When I hear Bernie Sanders talk about himself as ademocratic socialist, it's a little bit 1970s," said Lars Christensen, a Danish economist known here as an outspoken critic of his homeland's model. "The major political parties on the center-left and the center-right would oppose many of the proposals of Bernie Sanders on the regulatory side as being too leftist."" "I think this system is only possible because we essentially are all the same," said Christensen. "Maybe if you wanted to introduce such a scheme in Utah, you could do that. But doing it across the U.S., I find it completely and utterly impossible just for the mere fact that Americans are all so different." To double down on that the Danes are actively discouraging Syrian immigrants from migrating there and have even instituted a "tax" on possessions for Syrians coming in because they are worried about issues related to losing their singular culture. It is interesting when your model is a country that is saying essentially we don't think what he's proposing would work in their country, and some don't think even what they are doing would work in the US. **EDIT** As an example Denmark (and most countries) have some sort of co-pay or deductible for pharmaceuticals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3949707/table/pone-0090434-t001/ That's where Sanders seems to be proposing things that the Danes haven't even tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 You mean because they bought the lies Trump and Rubio are pushing. meanwhile the sun is coming out Who cares about facts? We heard booing from the crowd when Cruz was fact checked on the spot at that last debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 And just as an aside to that last line...Denmark (not Disneyworld) is considered the "happiest place on Earth". I'm just guessing it's because the citizens actually get what they pay big tax money for. I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. Not sure about that. Recall seeing a bumper sticker, back in the 70s, that read: Thank God We Don't Get All The Government We Pay For Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Thanks for the different perspective, PeterMP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Lol @ orchestration... sequestration? Boehner and House Rs are the ones I closely link to sequestration. Cruz should get minimal credit for it. Re: Sequestration -come on now - what about the President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 "I think this system is only possible because we essentially are all the same," said Christensen. "Maybe if you wanted to introduce such a scheme in Utah, you could do that. But doing it across the U.S., I find it completely and utterly impossible just for the mere fact that Americans are all so different." This line here jumped out at me because its exactly what I was thinking as well when I started reading your post. Denmark is the equivalent to one of our States, not the Nation. It also is somewhat of an argument (maybe not IDK), for more power in the States and less for the Federal gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 It remains an absolute mystery to me why nobody is going after Trumps "business" record Honestly, it makes me think that every single one of the republican candidates are just dumb. This morning on CBS Cruz was asked about building a wall as president, and wouldn't trump be more qualified to do so? Cruz replied "well maybe so, but we need to look at who is leading on this issue" ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The guy is throwing watermelons over the plate. Here is the correct response. "If you think that inheriting your fortune and squandering it on failed building projects and multiple bankruptcies makes one qualified to build a wall, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe his plan is to ask his uncle Putin for the money, that would certainly explain why he's constantly kissing his ass. So to answer your question, a trust fund baby born on third base is no more qualified than a monkey to build a wall. Except the monkey would not emboss the wall with a 24 karat gold MONKEY logo every 100 feet to remind himself he's not a loser" Jesus. Someone hit this ****ing clown already. Please. I think everyone misjudged Trump, and likewise misjudged the mouth-breathers backing him. In all honesty, the only people who really seemed to get it are Kasich and Paul, and I have better chance of being president than those two. Cruz is convinced that Trump's supporters are angry Republicans who just need to come home. Trump's supporters - like him - are not Republicans. They're a weird mix of populists and nationalists and racists and xenophobes who are nominally Republican because they certainly are Democrats but probably aren't anything. Trump - through dumb luck - figured out that if you got these people to the polls, you can win a primary. Cruz decided that he could hijack these people from Trump and discovered far too late that they are for Trump or for no one. And they've all let this relationship go on far too long. The time to separate Trump from his voters was the first month of his campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I don't think we'd mind our taxes so much if we got our money's worth...something only Bernie is articulating. Theoretically we get more than we pay for, seeing as we are always running a deficit. hillary isn't the lesser of any evils.. She's an equal evil... Hillary is a typical politician who will shift policies with the wind, is self serving, and power hungry. But to say she is as bad as Trump is ridiculous. The guy is petty and vindictive and is playing on people's lowest instincts to win an election. How would he react if he felt Putin slighted him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I Yes obviously, but notice you're not claiming Bernie has already lost, which is the proposition that was in dispute. People have been telling me there is no hope ever since Bernie started this campaign, and they've been wrong all along. There is hope, it may be a slim hope, but it is better than no hope at all. What would make it interesting is if Bernie wins the voted on delegates but Hillary wins the overall delegates because she got most of the party's super delegates. That's when it starts to really get interesting.. As for Bernie already having lost. That's silly.. he's still about even in the voted on delegates awarded. He would be very foolish to drop out now. He could absolutely still win this, his chances though have always been uphill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.