DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Seems like the establishments of both sides are trying to stop the popular, non-establishment candidate. But hey, who says democracy is rigged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 After Iowa the establishment was pushing Rubio hard because they know they cannot have the establishment vote split amongst Bush, Kasich and Rubio. Right now it looks like Trump has a ceiling of about 35 percent of the republican vote and if the establishment just had one candidate and not three they would be in a much better position to beat out Trump. I don't see either Bush or Kasich dropping out anytime soon and this only benefits Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I don't get why the republican field was so big to start with. Something like 13 candidates? If you have to have a kids table debate, then those people aren't worth having in the race. I also don't see how someone not previously affiliated with the party can run for nomination of that party. Like, you could just plant someone there who says all the things to rile up the base and gain the nom, but then shit up the general. Kinda like Trump, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I don't get why the republican field was so big to start with. Something like 13 candidates? If you have to have a kids table debate, then those people aren't worth having in the race. I also don't see how someone not previously affiliated with the party can run for nomination of that party. Like, you could just plant someone there who says all the things to rile up the base and gain the nom, but then shit up the general. Kinda like Trump, I guess. I never understood why the democrats had such a small field except the democratic establishment had already chosen Hillary Clinton. Sanders threw a little monkey wrench in their coronation but after New Hampshire the field doesn't look good for Sanders and along with the rigged super delegates Clinton is still a lock unless she gets indicted. I think the republicans had so many running this time as this election should favor the party out of power and believing Clinton to be a weak candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I agree the democrat establishment had basically 'chosen' hillary as the heir apparent to Obama, but there were still about 5 candidates at the start, with clinton, bernie 'sandwiches', o'malley, the pro-gun guy, and one other I forget about. 5 strong candidates is plenty. Dems just didn't have it this time, and certainly didn't want to push anyone besides hillary (since Biden wasn't running). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 This looks somewhat perverted for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I would have liked Cruz to say in America we speak English. In America we don't have an official language. Thats a dangerous line of thinking. I think republicans should be courting mexican immigrants as potential allies and giving them a better path to citizenship than democrats. Their religious and family oriented nature seems to fit in with republican values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Why does Ted Cruz always look like he just smelled a fart??? Hey... I voted for that guy! Highlights of the debate Trump/Bush exchange - Bush says his brother kept us safe. Trump responds with "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that."Trump defending Planned Parenthood - So refreshing to see someone in a Republican debate who doesn't treat the issue as black and white. 3% of their funding goes to abortion. That 3% should absolutely not forfeit the other 97% of their funding. Doing so would be a public health disaster. Also doesn't matter that more than 3% of their funds come from other sources as they, in fact, have to since no government $$$ can fund abortion. The Bush point I left was the one that raised the loudest chorus of boos... This one may hurt Trump though for a couple of reasons. Our CIA, British intelligence and Israeli intelligence all thought Hussein had those weapons. Ummmm... no. The world knew he at one time had chemical weapons. The Bush sales pitch weighed most heavily from the "yellow cake uranium" and "aluminum tubes" story that no one, not even our CIA, held were part of an Iraq nuclear plan. All that was ginned up by Cheney's private "intelligence" group headquartered in the Pentagon and led by Douglas Fife. We were sold a bill of goods... a web of lies. I say "we" because I bought it at the time as well. I agree the democrat establishment had basically 'chosen' hillary as the heir apparent to Obama, but there were still about 5 candidates at the start, with clinton, bernie 'sandwiches', o'malley, the pro-gun guy, and one other I forget about. 5 strong candidates is plenty. Five is more than a little generous. IMO Biden would have made 3. The gun-guy was Webb and he's considering running as an independent. The forgettable one was Lincoln Chaffe. There is another so far under the radar that apparently he can't be seen from UK is named Lawrence Lessig. He's a single issue candidate who has stated he will pursue campaign finance reform and once done, resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 In America we don't have an official language. Thats a dangerous line of thinking. I think republicans should be courting mexican immigrants as potential allies and giving them a better path to citizenship than democrats. Their religious and family oriented nature seems to fit in with republican values. I'm with you that the republican party needs to reach out to Hispanics in particular as they are the largest growing voter block in the country and the republicans will not be able to win elections without Hispanic support. I still think anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States should also want to assimilate into our country as well. Guaranteeing that Hispanics won't Assimilate "Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine is the first senator in history to abandon the English language and directly pander to a minority group in their own language on the Senate floor. We hear from liberals (and their pro-amnesty GOP enablers) that Hispanics are assimilating. As if to show that they are serious, the Gang of Eight's Sen. Dick Durbin boasts that the amnesty bill ensures immigrants will be "learning English and the basics about America's history." That's their rhetoric, but we can see what they truly believe by watching how they behave. The fact is that some Hispanics would not have understood the liberal Senator if he hadn't spoken their language. And why should they learn English? The only absolute truth left in our society is that "our diversity is our strength," a dogma so pervasive that even Republicans repeat it with cultish devotion. So the immigrant minority is special and valuable precisely because they are not assimilated. Why would any immigrant choose to assimilate in this intellectual climate. Those immigrant groups that are slow or resistant to assimilate now have greater incentive for separatism, and a great model to follow. It is already a verified fact that on certain key measures, Hispanics are not assimilating. In their book Generations of Exclusion sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that Mexican-Americans have accomplished "little assimilation" with regard to education and socio-economic status. Even by the fourth generation, they do not have the same educational progress as those of European descent. That would explain why 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over 20 years are on some form of government benefits, which is actually a higher percentage than immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years, according to a Center for Immigration Studies analysis. Their report found that 57% of Mexican immigrants are on some form of welfare, compared with only 6% of UK immigrants. We've found the one area where pro-amnesty Republicans are accidently correct when they say Hispanics are joining the mainstream: "Assimilating into the welfare system," according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is a strong trend. Of course, everyone knows of exceptions -- but those exceptions don't stop the welfare state from crushing the economy and generating mass dependency. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/guaranteeing_that_hispanics_wont_assimilate.html#ixzz40Gfmwez4 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Whoever wins the republican nomination will need to have a unified party going into the election. The candidates need to stop the personal attacks and hurling the liar charges at one another. A scorched earth policy to win the nomination is going to cause hard feelings and only hurt the eventual republican primary winner's chances in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Whoever wins the republican nomination will need to have a unified party going into the election. The candidates need to stop the personal attacks and hurling the liar charges at one another. A scorched earth policy to win the nomination is going to cause hard feelings and only hurt the eventual republican primary winner's chances in November. Yep. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Similarly with the dems - if Hillary wins only by superdelegates there'd be outrage, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Similarly with the dems - if Hillary wins only by superdelegates there'd be outrage, for example. She won't - it's being overblown by Bernie bros. If he wins majority if state delegates he'll win the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Whoever wins the republican nomination will need to have a unified party going into the election. The candidates need to stop the personal attacks and hurling the liar charges at one another. A scorched earth policy to win the nomination is going to cause hard feelings and only hurt the eventual republican primary winner's chances in November. St. Reagan must be spinning in his grave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 St. Reagan must be spinning in his grave... Reagan's 11th commandment : "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow republican"...the new guys haven't got the memo yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.