|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 11, 2016 6:52:19 GMT -7
A little frustration seeping through I think, and yes, not smart. If attacking Trump doesn't work, attacking his supporters surely is not.
The problem I have with Trump and his changing things is even now he has no problem with the things he says he wants to change, he likes significantly increasing H1B visas until that doesn't poll well, which tells me he will probably waffle on them after he is in. His ideas on rectifying trade deficit will result in a trade war and cost people here more money. He basically is calling for socialized medicine if he wants to expand what the govt already pays for, its not enough to just get the name off of Obama care, and his walk back of like the mandate is not comforting when I don't trust what he says to start with.
And Cruz is not perfect by far, he empowered the president in one case and is soft on big banks. But he did put his credibility and popularity on the line to do what he was elected for, I think that says something that he is willing to do the hard things. Trump risks nothing by being bombastic, he has always played and still is to the reality TV crowd that want that ginned up drama, but when things go south for him, he doesn't hunker down and let the chips fall, he bails out or brings in the army of lawyers to punish people.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 11, 2016 9:36:06 GMT -7
Good points all, but I think there are some reasonable explanations for both of their actions. Not that everyone will accept those explanations.
In the case of Trump and the visas, I think he often over-generalizes things in his statements. I don't think he tries to do this, but it's more like he understands what he's saying and expects everyone else to, even when it's not apparent to others. A good example is his saying "Islam hates the US." He didn't mean every Muslim on planet earth, but that's a legitimate way to interpret what he says if you take him literally. Once asked about it, though, he says "most Muslims, not all," which probably isn't too far off. You can fill volumes with the acidic rhetoric of Muslims all over the world and their condemnation of the entire west, not just the US, but you'd be hard pressed to get a collection of pro-US public comments from the lot of them. It is within the accepted norms for a Sunni to outright lie to a non-Muslim, so even if they did make pro-US statements, how can you believe them?
As far as the visa thing, I think was speaking in the same way - he described a general sort of crackdown that, if taken literally, would mean he's going to stop all of them. But when pressed on it, he clearly states he supports visas for people who come here to get advanced degrees and wish to stay and work here. He supports to some limited extent people who wish to come and work under those laws who do more mundane work such as staffing his hotel, but even then he's always said it should be limited in scope. Now one can classify his supplemental explanations as a kind of flip-flop, but that only works if one can prove he originally meant what he said literally. If he was truly generalizing, then it isn't a flip flop. Honestly, my jury is still out on this. If Trump is anything it sure isn't conventional, so I'm dubious that a conventional analysis of him or his statements is necessarily accurate.
As for Cruz, no one can say he didn't put his own political butt on the line several times for principal. In fact, of all candidates of both sides, he absolutely owns that arena. While that surely is a good and desired quality, it has limits if he's the only one doing it. In his zeal to mount a fight on principle, he's brought personal insult to fellow Senators to the floor of the Senate, and that is just one of those things that all the members of that club (except Cruz) hold up as sacred. In crashing into that barrier and bursting right through it, it cost him the support of many of his fellow Senators who probably believed Ted was right, but hold their sacred traditions higher than right or wrong. So while it definitely elevates Cruz in terms of personal integrity, it diminishes him if that integrity and the way it was earned means he will have to fight his own party's people to get things done. It will put him in the position of having to compromise if the Senate feels some payback is in order, and knowing how these slimey bastages operate, it wouldn't surprise me to see their first order of business is to put Cruz in his place. Just my opinion of course, but it has historical foundations. These are not the kind of people you call liars on the Senate floor and expect they'll forget it. They won't, and they will demand payment from Ted until they feel he's been sufficiently smacked around OR their own electoral chances now hang in the balance.
And my jury on that is still out as well. I'd love it if they'd get a grip and unify before the Dems do because it has far better public perception to act different than the Washington we all know. So long as there are candidates over here and a party over there, who can put any faith in the idea that any of them will work toward any goal? They really have to fix that.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 11, 2016 18:49:08 GMT -7
I don't really have a problem with his generalizing usually, the Muslim thing, the Mexican rapist thing, if you are not a looking for a bite to nail him on, you know what he means. However he does outright lie. 100% self funded? last I saw he accepted over 7 million dollars. On the visa thing, he reversed himself from previous statements where he said he wanted to slow them down, he even said he changed his position right in the debate, and then reversed himself again in a press statement after the debate. I think the most obvious answer is probably correct, he wants cheap skilled labor because its makes us more competitive globally, but found its a loser for him. But clearly it was a huge waffle on one of his supposedly core issue of immigration. His ideas on health care are generally aligned with a lot of conservatives with more insurance market competition and health saving accounts and premium deductions, if you an afford such a thing to start with, but the idea of the govt expanding care for poor people is not zero sum thing, and its going to cost more, and for people like me who are stuck between being able to afford insurance and above the medicaid line, not much of that is going to help unless the actual cost of care goes down.
As far as Cruz and his standing in the party, I will not fault him for doing the right thing, even though it was costly. That is the problem, they NEVER fight, he brought it on and exposed them all, and is one of the main reasons none of the people tied to them are winning.
Neither he nor Trump are going to have support from the GOP, so we can count on dog fights every step of the way, Cruz does know the system, Trump knows how to manipulate it from the outside, but his flamboyant rhetoric is not going carry much water off TV. If I was to put my money on effectiveness I would put it on Cruz who certainly has a couple axes to grind and knows who to grind them on from day 1. And yes I'mm sure the long knives will be out for him on day 1 as well, but they will for Trump too. However a Cruz win would put them on notice that the teaparty is here to stay and they better start coming to terms with that, where I think they will always consider Trump an anomaly.
But I suspect the efficiency and effectiveness of either will be limited, and would not expect a seismic shift in bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 11, 2016 21:40:58 GMT -7
Ha, after reading that I had a sense of deja-vu back to that time we both took that survey something about where you stand in terms of conservative - liberal and I forget what the other axis was, but you and I came out with essentially the same score. You remember that? Was back in the Gore campaign days I think. I read your comments and I was like, damn, did he write that or did I? LOL
Only thing I might consider differently is that while Cruz does know the system better than Trump, he's still a relative newby compared to some of those slugs that have been up there in DC building up their fiefdoms for years. I don't trust ANY of them, and if you look at what the party is doing and you believe the party isn't operating without serious input from members of both houses, you have to conclude that pack of fools would gladly do damage to themselves if it meant a chance to strike out at either Cruz or Trump. Right now with stuff like the Mitt trick, they're killing themselves and they don't even seem to care. That makes them all that much more dangerous in my view, really no different than a jihadist.
|
|
|
Post by zrct02 on Mar 11, 2016 23:43:45 GMT -7
Re: Obamacare, I don't think Trump or the RNC wants to see it go away no matter how much rhetoric. The thing is, with the gubmint taking on more and more of the cost of healthcare, business sees it as something they may eventually not have to provide or fund. Good for the bottom line. This attitude could very well come back and bite them in the butt in higher taxes, but business normally fails to look at long range ramifications.
I still think Hillary will be our next president.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 12, 2016 6:50:38 GMT -7
6 months ago I would have agreed, but Hillary is truly damaged and I think she is going to have a hard time turning out people. The GOP side at least so far has people fired up.
But I agree, there are the core of the GOP leadership in congress that find there is not a tax on lower and middle class they don't like, nor really mind the overbudersome regs and agencies unless they impact the chamber of commerce buddies.
And I agree with Cruz still being an outsider and not privy to the backroom deals that the slime of the 'moderates' wallow in. But he has far more clue than Trump does because he has already been shut out while on the inside, trump has previously bought the access of influence that he will now be barred from. Unless of course he starts to wheel and deal with them using some of the core conservative issues as chips, which is what I am most hesitant about him over.
Heh, I remember that quiz, it was a 2 axis plot of liberal, conservative, authoritarian and libertarian. I was just thinking about that the other day when someone was asking what is a conservative anymore if Trump is one.
I'm off to the county convention today, looks like its going to be fun, like a trip to the dentist.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 12, 2016 17:28:52 GMT -7
Well I see the Cruzer dominated the WY caucus with the Trumpster a scathing 3rd place finish with only 8%. Kasich got zero, but who up there is voting for Rubio??? If you guys are looking for a non-voting Senator, we'll give you a good deal on one. Also, what was the point of sitting through a root canal for the 37 people who were uncommited? When would be a good time for them to commit, I wonder? There were 29 delegates total, Cruz got 9, Trump and Rubio got 1 each. What happens to the other 16, any idea? Then, according to Politico, the county delegate votes aren't reflectd, it's a 12 delegate winner-take-all decided by total votes for the party candidates. Am I missing something here? How do you guys divvy up the delegates exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 12, 2016 18:13:18 GMT -7
I don't know, we have voting senators that may make the better deal for us. WY has a nonbinding delegate thing, so is not like that's official, but most likely Cruz is going to be it. We spent much of the day going through amendments to the party platform and basically getting tied up into minutia, and still left things undone. We also elected delegates today for the state and national convention. Its going to cost people 3 grand to go to national, I think they would have to pay me that to go to Cleveland to start with.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 13, 2016 11:04:09 GMT -7
3 grand ain't near enough to have to go to Cleveland for a week. But I would love to be a fly on the wall watching your reaction to purchasing a can of soda or something at a Cleveland convenience store. "It's HOW MUCH??? Two dollars and what???" Taxes... it costs a lot to keep up our fine city. I never could wrap my mind around the concept of non-binding delegates being the end product of an election. It seems intellectually contradictory in that you have an election, then send people out who can vote however they want. Seems to beg the question why have the election?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 13, 2016 12:58:46 GMT -7
Well they are bound for the 1st round of voting, but may as well be unbound. Of course they do have to come back.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 14, 2016 7:28:20 GMT -7
Good point.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 15, 2016 20:20:19 GMT -7
EIGHT!! NINE!!! TEN!! Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding
Ladies and gentleman Marco Rubio was just knocked out by small-handed Donald Trump in Florida.
Rubio suspended his campaign tonight. Gave a good speech too, dunno why he's been saving that. If he'd said that stuff in the first couple debates he might have won some.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 16, 2016 6:16:30 GMT -7
I didn't see his speech, but he was obviously waiting until the fate was sealed. A little talk of him Running for Gov there, but when you get beat in your home state like that mean you are need to mend some fence first.
Unfortunately now we have Kasich thinking he is going somewhere. The most progressive statist of the bunch.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 16, 2016 14:54:57 GMT -7
Well either Kasich is the biggest fool of the 21st century to date and believes he has a chance at something or he knows full well he has no shot at anything but is courting favors by being a party spoiler to the delegate splits. I think he's a bit of a dumbass but not that big. I'd go with the latter. If he manages to save the day for the RNC he could probably ask to have Norfolk Naval station moved to Ohio and our Navy would be forced to pack up and bone up on transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 17, 2016 5:54:26 GMT -7
Yeah, people are not that dumb either, we still remember the Huckabee sell out for the establishment in 08 to give us McLoser. He may be getting an inside track with the establishment, but their days are numbered, either the party rank and file is going to force a shift, or they are going to lose the base to another party and we'll see how much money they can drum up with perrenial 20-30% showings.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 17, 2016 10:07:22 GMT -7
That's been the problem all along. The establishment wants to portray themselves as serious, learned people of fine education and breeding who always present themselves in a gentlemanly manner. We saw this in Bush when he refused to counter any criticism of himself, acting as if such trivia was beneath his position. Meanwhile, the other side goes into Goebells mode and if you repeat the lie long enough, you get people to believe a man with a Harvard MBA who got himself elected governor of one of our most populous states is a buffoon. In their zeal to shed whatever trash is piled upon them, they keep capitulating to those who pile the trash in hopes that it will stop. But, like a child who throws a tantrum and sees it work, they will only throw one after another until the quest to remain gentile equates to giving away the store.
Now, finally, we have candidates who won't lay down and capitulate just because the other side is offended and the rank and file support is explosive. The establishment is horrified, thinking that there is no way they can be a part of such uncivilized conduct, so they fight THAT tooth and nail, whereas if they'd fought the trash-piling tooth and nail, they'd have no problem to begin with. It's almost like one of those characters in a movie, where the rich, well-bred gentleman with the expensive dueling pistols and fine manners always prevails when the dueling is on his terms. But let an ordinary person of strong will jerk him out into the street and commence an ass-whuppin' and he's totally panicked and out of his element. That's the establishment right now. They're crying foul, appealing to gentlemanly rules of conflict in an attempt to lever the advantage of fine pistols back into play, but too much has gone on to hope for that. They're about to get their face bloodied in front of the townsfolk for their neglect of obligations and there won't be a single citizen out there feeling sorry for them.
I predict as success get nearer there will be mass resignations from a lot of key positions in this elite gentleman's club. Donors will never dry up, but people wanting to have influence will find other ways to support a winner. Trump might not accept a big check, but he will accept a kind word.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 17, 2016 18:51:34 GMT -7
He accepts big checks too, don't believe the BS. But by far stoking his ego works better than stoking his coffers.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 18, 2016 9:36:52 GMT -7
What BS am I believing? Not sure what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 18, 2016 19:36:07 GMT -7
The 100% self funding thing, he has accepted several million from PACS
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 18, 2016 22:31:57 GMT -7
Well I know he isn't 100% self funded in that he has accepted (and admits to doing so at his rallies) funds from small individual donors. I also saw it reported that a few individuals have donated up to the max of $7,800. Last quarter his campaign financials reported 3.1 million total receipts and the press reported they were all individual donors (private citizens). This quarter it's running about 1/4 million. I doubt that even covers his jet fuel bill.
That isn't even in the same ballpark as the other candidates, Cruz and Rubio especially. Which PACS are those giving money to Trump?
I didn't think it was legal for any candidate to accept money directly from a PAC; the whole purpose of PACS was to allow big money into them so they could be spent by the PAC to do things like buy ads and send out mailers and such as a way to get around the financial limits placed on individual and corporate donations. Is that understanding incorrect?
|
|