Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

The bad development is the nativist anti-immigration sentiment among the base of the Republican Party which the GOP leadership has been desperate to hide. That's why Trump is doing well right now.

 

[Soonerman]

Except that Hillary's name recognition doesn't come from self-promotion, but from decades of public service at a very high level. She has earned her fame the right way.

She was married to the President of the US. Without that she doesn't get elected Senator or become a presidential contender or SOS. Same goes for Jeb and his last name btw. The Clintons of course have made their "public" service a private business along the way.

Without Hillary Bill never gets elected.

For lying about his 10 year affair with Gennifer Flowers in a fake Southuhm accent on national tv? Sure I guess he could have married Wendy Vitter instead...

This is a great point and why Hillary is not qualified to be president. She publicly lied about and slimed quite a few women whose only crime was telling the truth about her scumbag husband. Yeah, nice character she has shown. This goes to the perception of her as someone that will do whatever it takes to get power for her and her clan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

The bad development is the nativist anti-immigration sentiment among the base of the Republican Party which the GOP leadership has been desperate to hide. That's why Trump is doing well right now.

I love how this word "nativist" has been yanked out of the late 1800s lexicon out of nowhere, like the Know Nothings and Bill the Butcher Poole are going to show up with clubs at any moment. Yes on the GOP but don't forget Hillary ran on the fence platform as well in 2008. I think Trump is going beyond the GOP here and there will be new voters brought into this who often do not vote at all. You talk about populism in the past, well this is populism and populism is never bound by traditional party strictures.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It feels like this could finally be the election where we see a contested convention. Could be pretty cool.

 

[squistion]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

The bad development is the nativist anti-immigration sentiment among the base of the Republican Party which the GOP leadership has been desperate to hide. That's why Trump is doing well right now.

I love how this word "nativist" has been yanked out of the late 1800s lexicon out of nowhere, like the Know Nothings and Bill the Butcher Poole are going to show up with clubs at any moment. Yes on the GOP but don't forget Hillary ran on the fence platform as well in 2008. I think Trump is going beyond the GOP here and there will be new voters brought into this who often do not vote at all. You talk about populism in the past, well this is populism and populism is never bound by traditional party strictures.

No she didn't:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-clinton-back-border-fence-law

Obama, Clinton Back Off Border-Fence Law

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 7, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas -- which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator -- Clinton said of a border fence, "there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier."

"This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," said Obama. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier."

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN's John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Trump is awesome

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

The bad development is the nativist anti-immigration sentiment among the base of the Republican Party which the GOP leadership has been desperate to hide. That's why Trump is doing well right now.

I love how this word "nativist" has been yanked out of the late 1800s lexicon out of nowhere, like the Know Nothings and Bill the Butcher Poole are going to show up with clubs at any moment. Yes on the GOP but don't forget Hillary ran on the fence platform as well in 2008. I think Trump is going beyond the GOP here and there will be new voters brought into this who often do not vote at all. You talk about populism in the past, well this is populism and populism is never bound by traditional party strictures.

No she didn't:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-clinton-back-border-fence-law

Obama, Clinton Back Off Border-Fence Law

By Terence P. Jeffrey | July 7, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas -- which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator -- Clinton said of a border fence, "there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier."

"This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," said Obama. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier."

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN's John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute, we need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate.

As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/index.html

Actually I stand corrected, both Hillary and Obama voted for that 2006 bill. This reminds me of the vote for the Iraq War in that in that debate Hillary came back and said oh no that's not what she was thinking at all. She voted to build a fence on the border, apparently Obama did too.

If you look at that debate, they're plainly talking about sealing off the border. Yes, by border patrol, by surveillance, by deploying effective technology and in some areas yes a fence, but clearly they are talking about controlling the border.

My point was just that there were probably Democrats who wanted to hear this in 2008 - note that particular debate was in TX - and that hasn't changed. This is not a knock on Hillary or Obama, I'm just pointing out that populist rhetoric doesn't require a check on voters' party cards. This appeal cuts across lines.

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't think that Hillary has been particularly brave on the subject of illegal immigration. She tried to avoid the issue in 2008 which is why she flummoxed that drivers license question in the debate that probably cost her Iowa. She has called at times for tighter measures to appeal to her "tough" image. And I recall her making a disparaging comment at one point about Indian owners of 7-11s. Her recent positioning in favor of going well beyond Obama's executive orders is political, designed to take advantage of the growing bitterness of Latinos towards the GOP.

And for that matter, the Democratic Party really has nothing to proud about regarding this issue either. In 2009 and 2010 Obama could have addressed this and gotten a bill passed similar to McCain-Kennedy which he and Hillary and all the Dems supported in 2006. Why didn't they? I believe it's because there is a little bit of truth to what Soonerman wrote in the other thread: the Dems would prefer to keep this issue alive, and let it fester, turning Latinos into Democrats. Do they really care about the plight of the undocumented? Or is this entire issue just a means for them to maintain and increase power? Sadly I think I know the answer.

But all of that being said, as someone who cares mightily about this issue (and not because I give a crap about political power for either party), I still prefer the Democrats to the Republicans. I think the Dems will grant true reform- not because they're particularly eager to, but because Latino voters will force their hand (Hillary's hand to be exact.) The Republicans are fostering nativists (yes Saints it's an accurate term), populists and flat out bigots in their midst, and they have for some time. So give me the hypocritical Dems- at least they pretend to care.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally, I don't think that Hillary has been particularly brave on the subject of illegal immigration. She tried to avoid the issue in 2008 which is why she flummoxed that drivers license question in the debate that probably cost her Iowa. She has called at times for tighter measures to appeal to her "tough" image. And I recall her making a disparaging comment at one point about Indian owners of 7-11s. Her recent positioning in favor of going well beyond Obama's executive orders is political, designed to take advantage of the growing bitterness of Latinos towards the GOP.

And for that matter, the Democratic Party really has nothing to proud about regarding this issue either. In 2009 and 2010 Obama could have addressed this and gotten a bill passed similar to McCain-Kennedy which he and Hillary and all the Dems supported in 2006. Why didn't they? I believe it's because there is a little bit of truth to what Soonerman wrote in the other thread: the Dems would prefer to keep this issue alive, and let it fester, turning Latinos into Democrats. Do they really care about the plight of the undocumented? Or is this entire issue just a means for them to maintain and increase power? Sadly I think I know the answer.

But all of that being said, as someone who cares mightily about this issue (and not because I give a crap about political power for either party), I still prefer the Democrats to the Republicans. I think the Dems will grant true reform- not because they're particularly eager to, but because Latino voters will force their hand (Hillary's hand to be exact.) The Republicans are fostering nativists (yes Saints it's an accurate term), populists and flat out bigots in their midst, and they have for some time. So give me the hypocritical Dems- at least they pretend to care.

I really don't get the issue, ever, by either party. I think I know why it's happening but what I don't understand is why we have a law that fixes the number of people that come into this country and why the law isn't enforced to do that. Why don't we get together as a country and say, ok we should have more Mexicans coming in, the quota is too low, and then have that debate appropriately. I have nothing but love in my heart for the Hispanics who came here to help us after the Storm, and I have family whose home was flooded in Houston as well and sure enough hard working, capable, wonderful Hispanics helped them rebuild, great people. I have family that came here through Mexico and I have family that came here through Cuba. We have a great Cuban community here and longstanding economic and historical ties to Cuba and Mexico in this city. I am very willing to listen but it's the complete breakdown of democracy on this issue that disappoints me.

And the problem with not following process and procedure in this country is that people of all stripes become frustrated and then go for something extreme, which Trump is on this issue.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump is awesome

Does anyone remember the little old lady who fought off Trump tooth and nail from seizing her home via eminent domain so he could build his casino? The guy's a bully.

 

[timschochet]

Back to the debates. It seems impossible to me that a debate with 10 people is going to tell us anything at all about those 10 people. But I suppose it's better than nothing. The other thing that I fear is that at least the first debate is going to be centered on Trump and how the rest of the candidates react to him. That's great for entertainment purposes, but it ain't exactly going to be Lincoln vs. Douglas.

Both for entertainment and substantive reasons, I am really hoping that Chris Christie can increase his polling enough to get into that first debate. He is a terrific debater, a great retail politician (somewhat reminiscent of Bill Clinton, though without the personal warmth), and I want to see him in there. A lot of the guys currently in the top tier are a waste of time. Why is Ben Carson in there?

 

[Slapdash]

Every ####### thread is about Hillary.

 

[Slapdash]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

Do you think he's going somewhere, or nowhere? He's leading in the GOP poll nationally per Yougov. The guy's a clown until he's not.

 

[timschochet]

Trump is awesome

Does anyone remember the little old lady who fought off Trump tooth and nail from seizing her home via eminent domain so he could build his casino? The guy's a bully.

Let's correct something here about Trump- he didn't build that casino. You know that Obama line "you didn't build that!" that pissed so many people off? Well that applies to most of Trump's buildings.

What Trump has done for most of his career is sell his name to investors- the investors build and manage the buildings, Trump puts his name on them, shows up for the grand opening, takes credit for them, maybe takes a cut or has some percentage. But his decision-making and personal responsibility are nil. That's why when several of these buildings went belly up, Trump was nowhere to be seen. It wasn't even a question of forming a corporation and then having limited liability (to the extent of the corporation's value)- Trump had NO liability. The guy has basically been a con artist throughout most of his career.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump is awesome

Does anyone remember the little old lady who fought off Trump tooth and nail from seizing her home via eminent domain so he could build his casino? The guy's a bully.

Let's correct something here about Trump- he didn't build that casino. You know that Obama line "you didn't build that!" that pissed so many people off? Well that applies to most of Trump's buildings.

What Trump has done for most of his career is sell his name to investors- the investors build and manage the buildings, Trump puts his name on them, shows up for the grand opening, takes credit for them, maybe takes a cut or has some percentage. But his decision-making and personal responsibility are nil. That's why when several of these buildings went belly up, Trump was nowhere to be seen. It wasn't even a question of forming a corporation and then having limited liability (to the extent of the corporation's value)- Trump had NO liability. The guy has basically been a con artist throughout most of his career.

You're not going to get an argument from me, I know very little about the guy. I know he was born into money though, big money, and then he made it bigger. That name is a brand and he created that.

 

[Fennis]

My trials of physicality and mental ability are not being given enough due. Imagine the love of our President we will all share when they win this thing that way?

And if that doesn't work, I'm all about a reverse Hunger Games - in order to be eligible to run for President from any party, you have to compete in a life or death struggle against everyone in your own party. If your party is full of whimps who won't do it because they are afraid of dying, then there will be a random draw of 12 of the governors / congressman / senators in that party to get to 12. 12 dems 12 elephants. They all get into a Hunger Games ring and only one from each party is allowed to live at the end. By any means necessary.

And then those two can campaign against each other in the regular normal way.

Man, the two party system is really hard to break.

 

[Fennis]

It feels like this could finally be the election where we see a contested convention. Could be pretty cool.

I have my cigar out, a back room identified and am ready to deal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My trials of physicality and mental ability are not being given enough due. Imagine the love of our President we will all share when they win this thing that way?

And if that doesn't work, I'm all about a reverse Hunger Games - in order to be eligible to run for President from any party, you have to compete in a life or death struggle against everyone in your own party. If your party is full of whimps who won't do it because they are afraid of dying, then there will be a random draw of 12 of the governors / congressman / senators in that party to get to 12. 12 dems 12 elephants. They all get into a Hunger Games ring and only one from each party is allowed to live at the end. By any means necessary.

And then those two can campaign against each other in the regular normal way.

You ought to watch Battle of the Network Stars again, it's on Espn Classic I believe. There's no way these guys (and ladies) could do a Hunger Games. But I am pretty sure they could do whatever Ann Jillian could do.

 

[timschochet]

It feels like this could finally be the election where we see a contested convention. Could be pretty cool.

If California can actually play a significant role in choosing one of the nominees, that will be enough for me.

 

[Slapdash]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

Do you think he's going somewhere, or nowhere? He's leading in the GOP poll nationally per Yougov.

I dunno, depends on how quickly the establishment decides to consolidate around Rubio or Walker instead of Bush.

 

[timschochet]

The Hunger Games idea sucks. Chris Christie would be a huge target. Bobby Jindal would just hide until everybody else was dead.

It would be fun watching Lindsay Graham attempt to shoot a bow and arrow, though...

 

[D_House]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

Do you think he's going somewhere, or nowhere? He's leading in the GOP poll nationally per Yougov.

I dunno, depends on how quickly the establishment decides to consolidate around Rubio or Walker instead of Bush.

My money would be on Rubio over Walker if this happens.

 

[timschochet]

Speaking of Jindal, he is desperate to make some kind of news:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_right_to_life_1.html

Seems the GOP is not sufficiently pro-life enough for him.

"The Republican smart guys want to whisper about being pro-life, they want us to be quiet," Jindal said. "We will not be silenced or quiet. If they don't want to hear me talk about these issues they better buy some ear muffs because I will not be silenced."

 

[Slapdash]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

Do you think he's going somewhere, or nowhere? He's leading in the GOP poll nationally per Yougov.

I dunno, depends on how quickly the establishment decides to consolidate around Rubio or Walker instead of Bush.

My money would be on Rubio over Walker if this happens.

Yep, I think Rubio will get it eventually. Romney was able to outlast the circus of odd candidates because he had most of party establishment in his pocket the whole time.

 

[RCon]

Back to the debates. It seems impossible to me that a debate with 10 people is going to tell us anything at all about those 10 people. But I suppose it's better than nothing. The other thing that I fear is that at least the first debate is going to be centered on Trump and how the rest of the candidates react to him. That's great for entertainment purposes, but it ain't exactly going to be Lincoln vs. Douglas.

Both for entertainment and substantive reasons, I am really hoping that Chris Christie can increase his polling enough to get into that first debate. He is a terrific debater, a great retail politician (somewhat reminiscent of Bill Clinton, though without the personal warmth), and I want to see him in there. A lot of the guys currently in the top tier are a waste of time. Why is Ben Carson in there?

How is that different than a debate between two politicians? None of them ever answer the actual questions, but instead offer platitudes and talking points the entire time.

 

[timschochet]

Back to the debates. It seems impossible to me that a debate with 10 people is going to tell us anything at all about those 10 people. But I suppose it's better than nothing. The other thing that I fear is that at least the first debate is going to be centered on Trump and how the rest of the candidates react to him. That's great for entertainment purposes, but it ain't exactly going to be Lincoln vs. Douglas.

Both for entertainment and substantive reasons, I am really hoping that Chris Christie can increase his polling enough to get into that first debate. He is a terrific debater, a great retail politician (somewhat reminiscent of Bill Clinton, though without the personal warmth), and I want to see him in there. A lot of the guys currently in the top tier are a waste of time. Why is Ben Carson in there?

How is that different than a debate between two politicians? None of them ever answer the actual questions, but instead offer platitudes and talking points the entire time.

Largely true, but with 10 people you barely get the platitudes or talking points. How many minutes is each guy going to get? Figure in commercials, the host, etc. Either 60-90 minutes. And each guy trying to interrupt to get as much screen time as possible.

Last time around, the first few debates had 8 candidates I believe, and that was already too many. In particular, Tim Pawlenty, who might have been a viable alternative to Romney, got almost no screen time because Newt and Bachmann kept going over their allotted time.

 

[timschochet]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

 

[RCon]

Back to the debates. It seems impossible to me that a debate with 10 people is going to tell us anything at all about those 10 people. But I suppose it's better than nothing. The other thing that I fear is that at least the first debate is going to be centered on Trump and how the rest of the candidates react to him. That's great for entertainment purposes, but it ain't exactly going to be Lincoln vs. Douglas.

Both for entertainment and substantive reasons, I am really hoping that Chris Christie can increase his polling enough to get into that first debate. He is a terrific debater, a great retail politician (somewhat reminiscent of Bill Clinton, though without the personal warmth), and I want to see him in there. A lot of the guys currently in the top tier are a waste of time. Why is Ben Carson in there?

How is that different than a debate between two politicians? None of them ever answer the actual questions, but instead offer platitudes and talking points the entire time.

Largely true, but with 10 people you barely get the platitudes or talking points. How many minutes is each guy going to get? Figure in commercials, the host, etc. Either 60-90 minutes. And each guy trying to interrupt to get as much screen time as possible.

Last time around, the first few debates had 8 candidates I believe, and that was already too many. In particular, Tim Pawlenty, who might have been a viable alternative to Romney, got almost no screen time because Newt and Bachmann kept going over their allotted time.

On a serious note, maybe Y23F's idea of playoff-style elections should be considered. We give all 18 (or however many) clowns until end of year to build their brand, raise money, etc. Then, come January, we seed all candidates by polls, then hold a 1 vs 1 playoff election every two weeks, with debates between each pair occurring during the first week, then the election at the end of second week. Winner moves on to next round, etc., etc.

 

[RCon]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

Fox and CNN might not do this, but some lower rated network ought to organize a debate and do exactly this, just for the publicity such a stunt would bring.

 

[Fennis]

I didn't think it was possible to program worse than CNN or FOX News. Then again I never thought of Timschochet heading one of them up.

 

[Amused to Death]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

I don't think Christie has a shot. The "Bridgegate" trial will be going on during his campaign and whether he was directly involved or not he will not get through that with a favorable public opinion. NJs bond rating has been lowered a record 9 times during his tenure. His complete bungling of the public employee pension fund (first he passed a bill to address it then said he couldn't follow his own law because it was unconstitutional). NJ lags the region and nation in job creation and economic recovery and to top it off, he let Exxon off the hook for $8 billion in a court settlement.

GOP can do better, right?

ETA: Christie's negotiating skills

 

[Fennis]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

Fox and CNN might not do this, but some lower rated network ought to organize a debate and do exactly this, just for the publicity such a stunt would bring.

The RNC (or DNC for the dems) wouldn't let them. SpikeTV will have to come up with another plan. Besides I am polling about the same as Kasich. His list makes no sense.

The right answer is to have 2 or 3 sessions per debate, randomly picked who gets in which session. Maybe do three 1h hour debates over 3 days.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Holy samolians:

https://righttoriseusa.org/news/summary_of_june_30_2015_fundraising_report?lang=en

Bush SuperPAC:

Right to Rise USA Fundraising Facts:

• TOTAL RAISED: Over $103,000,000
• CASH ON HAND: Over $98,000,000
• TOTAL DONORS: Over 9,900
• DONORS $25k & BELOW: Over 9,400

 

[RCon]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

Fox and CNN might not do this, but some lower rated network ought to organize a debate and do exactly this, just for the publicity such a stunt would bring.

The RNC (or DNC for the dems) wouldn't let them. SpikeTV will have to come up with another plan. Besides I am polling about the same as Kasich. His list makes no sense.

The right answer is to have 2 or 3 sessions per debate, randomly picked who gets in which session. Maybe do three 1h hour debates over 3 days.

Hell, offer it up anyway. Even having the RNC shoot them down would generate some fun publicity for SpikeTV or whoever.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Hunger Games idea sucks. Chris Christie would be a huge target. Bobby Jindal would just hide until everybody else was dead.

It would be fun watching Lindsay Graham attempt to shoot a bow and arrow, though...

Jim Webb would slaughter in a Hunger Games scenario. He once almost killed a biker by beating his head on a curb. That is why he gets my vote.

 

[QuizGuy66]

It feels like this could finally be the election where we see a contested convention. Could be pretty cool.

I have my cigar out, a back room identified and am ready to deal.

Would need to be a vape filled room now.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

But seriously, Trump is a very bad development for America, this is not good IMO.

He is great for the lulz. Most of these guys are clowns, at least he is playing the role in an entertaining fashion.

Do you think he's going somewhere, or nowhere? He's leading in the GOP poll nationally per Yougov.

I dunno, depends on how quickly the establishment decides to consolidate around Rubio or Walker instead of Bush.

My money would be on Rubio over Walker if this happens.

Pretty sure Paul is the only guy of the bunch who liked to use the Congressional gym.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Speaking of Jindal, he is desperate to make some kind of news:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_right_to_life_1.html

Seems the GOP is not sufficiently pro-life enough for him.

"The Republican smart guys want to whisper about being pro-life, they want us to be quiet," Jindal said. "We will not be silenced or quiet. If they don't want to hear me talk about these issues they better buy some ear muffs because I will not be silenced."

Please please please let the Jindal campaign start selling earmuffs. That would be in the top 5 of dumbest campaign tchotchkes ever.

-QG

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The debate where Rick Perry said "oops" had like eight people and it managed to destroy his (already floundering) campaign. It's possible for stuff to happen in a debate with lots of people.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

Fixed.

-QG

 

[CBusAlex]

Odds that Jindal bites the head off a bat during a campaign event at some point: 5/2.

 

[QuizGuy66]

There is already an elimination contest.

It's called the primaries and caucuses.

I think Bush is going to bore his way to the nomination FWIW.

-QG

 

[Slapdash]

I know they'll never do it, but if I'm the head of CNN or FOX news division I say:

Republicans, there's only 5 people who have a chance at being your candidate. They are:

Jeb Bush

Marco Rubio

Scott Walker

Chris Christie

John Kasich

That's it. I don't care what the polls say, I don't care how well the other guys are doing, none of them have any shot. This is your 5. The other 13 are basically looking for publicity and I'm not going to give it to them. So these 5 will be in the debate.

Yeah. #### what the people want.

 

[timschochet]

All of the GOP candidates claim to revere Ronald Reagan. Perhaps they should have paid more attention to the Gipper's thoughts on illegal immigration. For instance:

Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit—and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.

 

[Todd Andrews]

GOP Jesus Land

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All of the GOP candidates claim to revere Ronald Reagan. Perhaps they should have paid more attention to the Gipper's thoughts on illegal immigration. For instance:

Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit—and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.

A work permit presumes a process, I'm for process, I'm for any process that is adhered to. There are multiple, many Democrats, maybe all of them (?) which voted for the last round of immigration quotas.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.

Per-Country Ceilings

In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed 7% of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single year. This is not a quota that is set aside to ensure that certain nationalities make up 7% of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

That's the law. Right now Mexico is coming in around 14%, officially, and I'm guessing it's probably more. China is next, slightly over the limit at 8%. Overall we are ~30-40% over the legal limit set by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

Democrats and Republicans agreed to these limits, everyone did. It seems senseless to have this gnashing of teeth when whatever law the next president advocates even if passed won't be followed anyway. Our whole "immigration" debate is about Mexico. No one else. If our Congress and president current or future want to debate on work permits as you say, great, just find a way to stick to the law we are all discussing and make sure it applies to Mexico, because that country is the only one that poses a problem (an administrative problem in the sense that they are double the limit allowed by law).

 

[The Commish]

All of the GOP candidates claim to revere Ronald Reagan. Perhaps they should have paid more attention to the Gipper's thoughts on illegal immigration. For instance:

Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit—and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.

Then what do you (Tim you) do with the ones who can't be bothered to get the work permit?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Is Trump accepting campaign donations? I'm willing to pitch in my fair share.

 

[timschochet]

All of the GOP candidates claim to revere Ronald Reagan. Perhaps they should have paid more attention to the Gipper's thoughts on illegal immigration. For instance:

Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why dont we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permitand then while theyre working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.

Then what do you (Tim you) do with the ones who can't be bothered to get the work permit?

The same that we do with anyone who doesn't have a permit: fine them.