What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Nationally, Trump is at 2%. The big 3 remain the same: Bush, Walker, Rubio. What's a little disturbing is that Ben Carson continues to rise and is now in 4th place with 10%.
Click to expand...
He enters no. 2 in NH.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2015/6_23_for_posting_FINAL_NH_GOP_Marginals.pdf

You're right on the WSJ/NBC poll, he's low nationally.
Click to expand...
There have been no ad buys yet. Trump is a big talker, and he'll be in a few debates (which should be fun) but I predict he'll drop out before he has to spend any real money.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Donald Trump says that his past donations to Democratic politicians were part of his business strategy of being friendly with everybody because youre gonna need things from everybody.

...Look, he said last Wednesday, politicians are all talk, theyre no action. They dont do the job, they dont know what theyre doing. I know them better than anybody, Howie. I deal with all of them. And, you know, I make contributions to many of them. Theyre friends, theyre this. Its smart. Its called being an intelligent person and a great business person.

But the truth is that, you have to be able to get along withif youre gonna be a business person, even in the United States, you wanna get along with all sides because youre gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, its very important.

...I am a businessman, Trump said. And when, you know, a Speaker of the House or head of the Senate or, you know, people call, you know, I generally speak. As a businessman, you wanna be friendly with everybody.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/trump-on-donating-to-democrats-as-a-business-person-youre-go#.hqrk43OJAFirst of all the Republicans are now officially skrewed. Trump is already 2nd in NH in the WSJ/NBC Suffolk poll.

Ok, that's out the way.

I find his whole entree disturbing for the country. We have the Clintons (rich, from public service), we have John Bush (rich, from old bank and oil money), and we have Trump (rich x1000), in 3 of the 4 leading spots in the two parties. In one sense I find it refreshing, here is a political candidate who is frank about corruption and how it works, except he is showing the POV of the corruptor. But on the other it shows a very cynical turn in US politics. Besides the money we have three candidates whose main "virtue" for running is their name recognition, they are famous or infamous by name. And of course there is the money that comes with it. It seems funny or absurd now but it may just be the beginning of the future. And the future is bleak.
Click to expand...
So vote for Bernie Sanders.
 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
wdcrob said:
Bush was governor of Florida for 8 years. Clinton was a Senator from NY for 9 years and Secretary of State for 5 years.

They may have won those positions due to name recognition, but they're not like Trump.
Click to expand...
Hillary net worth 21 mill. Jeb Bush net worth 10 mill. Trump is 4.5 bill, so yeah like I said he's rich x1000, but they're all super rich. For all three that's just what's been disclosed. And the fact that Clinton and Bush won those elections from name recognition is just a reiteration, they got where they are because they got elected from name recognition and today they have name recognition because they got elected. That's a truism.
Click to expand...
Jeb is probably gonna get a huge inheritance when his parents die. I bet they are loaded.

 
QuizGuy66 said:
I mean I know there's a lot of candidates but Jindal deserves a little bigger window than this, no? :lmao:

https://twitter.com/QuizGuy66/status/613756675485528064

-QG
Click to expand...
It's really hard to understand what he's doing or what he's been doing. It turns out his announcement is in a small convention center in Kenner. But he's probably going to try to paint it as "New Orleans." He could have, should have done it in Baton Rouge, because that's his milieu. He's not done doing and saying really head-scratching stuff. The plaques on the wall and bio say brilliant, bipartisan guy; his record as governor is the opposite, but really the odd thing is how unsmart some of his moves are. Watch him do some trip and fall Clouseau routine into the top-10 just by virtue of the press he gets with weirdness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
On the positive side the US now has its first Asian-American candidate for president.
Click to expand...
Hiram Fong ran for president in 1964 and 1968 as a Republican. IN 1964 he had 5 delegates, in 1968 he had 15. Not sure if there were other Asian Americans who ran before that or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer said:
timschochet said:
Ben Carson quietly sneaking up the polls...
Click to expand...
a doctor that doesn't accept evolution is just unfathomable to me.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough he's probably the best educated, highest character guy in the race. He may be the most intelligent? Not a comment on his positions or beliefs, just a follow up to a prior post about how it's unfathomable that Jindal is a Rhodes scholar and holds the beliefs he does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
joffer said:
timschochet said:
Ben Carson quietly sneaking up the polls...
Click to expand...
a doctor that doesn't accept evolution is just unfathomable to me.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough he's probably the best educated, highest character guy in the race. He may be the most intelligent? Not a comment on his positions or beliefs, just a follow up to a prior post about how it's unfathomable that Jindal is a Rhodes scholar and holds the beliefs he does.
Click to expand...
He wasn't getting elected worshiping Ganesh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a whole article on this at Real Clear but I'm on my phone so I can't link it. Basically Bush and Rubio, with an eye toward the general election, want to move on. Huckabee, Cruz and Jindal are trying to use it to energize the conservative base. Walker is attempting to straddle both sides by calling for a Conatitutional Amendment, not to ban same sex marriage, but to "let the states decide".

Nothing unpredictable so far.

 
They're all much more unified on ACA. Everyone of them vows to repeal it. Any disagreements on how to replace it arent being discussed. I suspect many of them are actually relieved by the SC decision.

 
cstu said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
joffer said:
timschochet said:
Ben Carson quietly sneaking up the polls...
Click to expand...
a doctor that doesn't accept evolution is just unfathomable to me.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough he's probably the best educated, highest character guy in the race. He may be the most intelligent? Not a comment on his positions or beliefs, just a follow up to a prior post about how it's unfathomable that Jindal is a Rhodes scholar and holds the beliefs he does.
Click to expand...
He wasn't getting elected worshiping Ganesh.
Click to expand...
Well he pretty much became a Christian when he was like 15, so I doubt his political strategy factored in...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several Republican pundits, led by Bill Kristol, believe that the GOP candidates should put Obamacare front and center in their campaign and make it THE issue of 2016, just as it was in 2012, promising full repeal upon election. Is this a wise idea?

 
timschochet said:
Several Republican pundits, led by Bill Kristol, believe that the GOP candidates should put Obamacare front and center in their campaign and make it THE issue of 2016, just as it was in 2012, promising full repeal upon election. Is this a wise idea?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I do know that the Demos had been arguing that USSC decisions against the ACA and gay marriage would have favored their campaign. I guess the GOP has that piece now. Arguably as far as the ACA is concerned the only pathway left for the GOP is to get all three branches, which actually most people (I think) don't like as a policy position. Even so the GOP would face the same filibustering they posed in 2009. As an aside I guess the odd thing is how the House/Congressional rules maker decided that the ACA could not be repealed by reconciliation even though it was passed by reconciliation. Without reconciliation the ACA would not have passed and without it I don't know how it can be repealed.

 
Yeah I don't understand that myself, Saints. I've tried to read up on it because I still have that $500 bet with tommyboy and because the reporting is so contradictory. I can't make heads or tails out of it.

 
But the question for this thread is not about the practicality of actually getting ACA repealed, but whether or not it's a good thing for the GOP to focus on. And of course that goes back to the bigger issue I raised early on in this thread: do they run against Obama or against Hillary?

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Right now they seem to be running against Obama and I don't really understand it.
Click to expand...
its not necessarily the worst idea; he IS President. Don't forget that Obama ran against Bush and not against McCain. Bush, however, ignored the popular Bill Clinton and targeted Al Gore. It's not an easy call to make.
 
timschochet said:
But the question for this thread is not about the practicality of actually getting ACA repealed, but whether or not it's a good thing for the GOP to focus on. And of course that goes back to the bigger issue I raised early on in this thread: do they run against Obama or against Hillary?
Click to expand...
Hillary has the same question to answer, though so far she has seemed to be happy to latch on to him as she did in her relaunch speech. If she does that then the GOP almost automatically has to address it. Unlike most candidates though Hillary is enough of a target that they don't have to bring Obama himself into it, just the policies. Hillary herself said the other day before a big lobbying firm that she would be adjusting the ACA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
But the question for this thread is not about the practicality of actually getting ACA repealed, but whether or not it's a good thing for the GOP to focus on. And of course that goes back to the bigger issue I raised early on in this thread: do they run against Obama or against Hillary?
Click to expand...
Hillary has the same question to answer, though so far she has seemed to be happy to latch on to him as she did in her relaunch speech. If she does that then the GOP almost automatically has to address it. Unlike most candidates though Hillary is enough of a target that they don't have to bring Obama himself into it, just the policies. Hillary herself said the other day before a big lobbying firm that she would be adjusting the ACA.
Click to expand...
And that's very smart of her. She never even has to be specific about it. If the public becomes convinced that the Republicsn will toss out Obamacare, but Hillary will only tweak it and make it better, I think that's winning for her.
 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
But the question for this thread is not about the practicality of actually getting ACA repealed, but whether or not it's a good thing for the GOP to focus on. And of course that goes back to the bigger issue I raised early on in this thread: do they run against Obama or against Hillary?
Click to expand...
Hillary has the same question to answer, though so far she has seemed to be happy to latch on to him as she did in her relaunch speech. If she does that then the GOP almost automatically has to address it. Unlike most candidates though Hillary is enough of a target that they don't have to bring Obama himself into it, just the policies. Hillary herself said the other day before a big lobbying firm that she would be adjusting the ACA.
Click to expand...
And that's very smart of her. She never even has to be specific about it. If the public becomes convinced that the Republicsn will toss out Obamacare, but Hillary will only tweak it and make it better, I think that's winning for her.
Click to expand...
And I think we will hear the GOP do the same thing, though they will likely be more forthright about it.

 
What do you mean "do the same thing"? You're suggesting the GOP will offer to tweak ACAbut not remove it? That's not what I'm reading. I don't think their base will accept anything short of a full repeal.

 
timschochet said:
What do you mean "do the same thing"? You're suggesting the GOP will offer to tweak ACAbut not remove it? That's not what I'm reading. I don't think their base will accept anything short of a full repeal.
Click to expand...
"Repeal and replace" has been the expression for some time now, however I'm guessing they could leave out the "repeal" aspect and focus on the unpopular parts, though be more specific than Hillary, ie the taxes, the mandate, the keep your plan/physician' aspects. Obviously there are 17 candidates out there so this will vary, some will keep echoing "repeal" repeatedly.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
What do you mean "do the same thing"? You're suggesting the GOP will offer to tweak ACAbut not remove it? That's not what I'm reading. I don't think their base will accept anything short of a full repeal.
Click to expand...
"Repeal and replace" has been the expression for some time now, however I'm guessing they could leave out the "repeal" aspect and focus on the unpopular parts, though be more specific than Hillary, ie the taxes, the mandate, the keep your plan/physician' aspects. Obviously there are 17 candidates out there so this will vary, some will keep echoing "repeal" repeatedly.
Click to expand...
"we will give you all of the benefits with none of the cost"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
What do you mean "do the same thing"? You're suggesting the GOP will offer to tweak ACAbut not remove it? That's not what I'm reading. I don't think their base will accept anything short of a full repeal.
Click to expand...
"Repeal and replace" has been the expression for some time now, however I'm guessing they could leave out the "repeal" aspect and focus on the unpopular parts, though be more specific than Hillary, ie the taxes, the mandate, the keep your plan/physician' aspects. Obviously there are 17 candidates out there so this will vary, some will keep echoing "repeal" repeatedly.
Click to expand...
"we will give you all of the benefits with none of the cost"
Click to expand...
It was at Hillary's appearance at Akin Gump, the law/lobbyist firm that specializes in health care corporate clients, where she discussed "keeping but revising" the ACA. I guess she will be just as willing to save their (her) clients the costs of paying for it as well. Pick your euphemism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anthony Borbely said:
Has any Republican candidate said that they would NOT try to repeal ACA?
Click to expand...
Doubtful.

- Tim's got a point, the GOP has Fla and about some portion of 10 battleground states they have to win over, if the nominee doesn't at least couch it I doubt they get to the WH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fennis said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
What do you mean "do the same thing"? You're suggesting the GOP will offer to tweak ACAbut not remove it? That's not what I'm reading. I don't think their base will accept anything short of a full repeal.
Click to expand...
"Repeal and replace" has been the expression for some time now, however I'm guessing they could leave out the "repeal" aspect and focus on the unpopular parts, though be more specific than Hillary, ie the taxes, the mandate, the keep your plan/physician' aspects. Obviously there are 17 candidates out there so this will vary, some will keep echoing "repeal" repeatedly.
Click to expand...
"we will give you all of the benefits with none of the cost"
Click to expand...
It was at Hillary's appearance at Akin Gump, the law/lobbyist firm that specializes in health care corporate clients, where she discussed "keeping but revising" the ACA. I guess she will be just as willing to save their (her) clients the costs of paying for it as well. Pick your euphemism.
Click to expand...
OK, but until a GOP candidate can express a plan that the majority of Americans can back it is just bluster that appeals to 40% of Americans and in practice will cause far more harm than help.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top