2016 Primaries
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=192133
Printed Date: 05 May 2024 at 11:22am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 2016 Primaries
Posted By: SSOK
Subject: 2016 Primaries
Date Posted: 30 June 2015 at 7:46pm
|
Who will it be? I feel that Hillary is largely a shoo-in for the Democrats. For the Republicans, I feel that things are crowded. I don't believe that Trump is serious, and I feel that many people see him as just that. Jeb Bush IMHO is only considered because of family connections, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz seem too right wing. Chris Christie I am unsure of. I probably don't have the best judgement because I grew up in New Jersey. I don't know how he is viewed nationally. To me, he seems like a wishy-washy middle ground Republican. I will say, I do love his personality though. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 30 June 2015 at 10:55pm
|
Hillary has issues though. I think she might have more competition than she originally thought (Bernie Sanders possibly?). Granted I got rid of cable and also went to night shift, so I don't watch the news like I have in the past. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 30 June 2015 at 11:15pm
|
I honestly think Sanders is a real threat to Hillary and the better choice for the Democratic nomination. I had hopes for Rubio about 4-6 years ago, but he's pandered too much to the far right for my likes. He is one of the few that didn't totally stick his foot in his mouth with the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the crap-show that is the GOP field right now is going to make it impossible for a realistic nomination. Even worse though, is the fact that Rand Paul seems to have the Libertarian selection all wrapped up. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican (always has been) who is trying to run on his dad's coat-tails. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 12:31am
| All I know is that Scott Walker can suck an egg. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 4:25pm
| I keep typing a bunch of stuff and it keeps getting eaten by the spam filters. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 4:41pm
|
So the spam filter that ruins all fun of posting here anymore won't let me post, so I'm posting my ideas as images. Because that's what I am reduced to now.  |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 4:41pm
And now for the Republicans!  |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 4:46pm
Sanders is a better choice for the nomination in a world where the general elections don't actually happen.
|
tallen702 wrote:Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 4:52pm
|
The long and short of this election is that it's probably going to end up being Hillary vs. Jeb, it will be an election year with very low turnout because of two legacy names on the ticket, and the winner will be the one who manages to bore their base less. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 5:55pm
|
TIL I'm dangerously asinine. Bush vs Clinton. Wow, that will be like last years super bowl. Two people I could care less about, and won't make a difference which one will win. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 01 July 2015 at 7:35pm
Sanders would stand a much better chance in open primaries (a la Virginia) IMHO given that he appeals to the moderate right much more. Unfortunately, the system doesn't work that way. Of course, the Hillary prediction is contingent on strong voter turnout for her in the primaries, I know you study this stuff way more than I do, but I still think Sanders is going to make it tough on her come debate season. The sad thing is, I can actually SEE Sanders running the executive branch well. Hillary has had plenty of time being close to the PoTUS, but still lacks command experience. Sure, she's had plenty of observation experience, but she's not really been calling the shots on any major issues. Her time as SoS saw her traveling a lot (she visited more countries than any other SoS in history) but she spread herself too thin and doesn't have much in the way of a lasting legacy as she never really accomplished a major positive milestone for herself (no real "Kissinger" moment). To me, she's someone who has minimal experience in government who ran on name recognition to get where she is, and is now trying to leverage that name in addition to being a woman, to give her some sort of leg-up on the competition. I'm not saying that's anything different than W. did, but you have to call a spade a spade. At the very least, someone like Jeb Bush has executive branch experience, albeit on the state level. As for Jeb, I too think he'll ultimately wind up being the GOP nominee. It doesn't excite me, but it doesn't fill me with a sense of dread either. At the very least, he's got his brother's missteps to learn from. I can say this. I've talked with enough "boomers" to know that if it comes down to a Bush v Clinton general election, voter apathy in the over-50 crowd will be an all-time high. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 8:04am
|
I liked Ben Carson a lot, though I've soured on him a bit lately since he's starting spouting religious rhetoric every chance he gets. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 11:06am
| Is a "Kissinger" moment when you become a mass-murderer? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 12:14pm
Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist. His religious beliefs tell him that we are quite literally in The End Of Days, that Jesus's return to Earth is imminent because of prophesies in Revelation, and visions given directly from God to the Prophet Ellen G. White. She was an epileptic woman who lived in the 1800s who, among other things, said that God told her that the end of the world would involve all governments on Earth giving over their power to the Vatican. After that, the Pope's first act will be to make it illegal for Adventists to go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday. Thus will kick off the Beginning of the End. It's straight-up bonkers. Also, Ben Carson is a spiteful, hateful homophobe.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 12:18pm
Yeah but at least we've both known that for a while.
It's a bit of a snoozefest. On top of everything else that will make this a kinda low-key national election, Hillary has been through a primary twice now. Aside from people who think that Benghazi was a conspiracy, we kinda know everything about her that there is to know. Also, Jeb is boring. I don't mind the dude at all. He seems intelligent about policy. But that makes for a real boring cycle.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 12:25pm
In what way does he appeal to the moderate right other than being inconsistent at best about gun safety legislation? Dude is a rather far-left Liberal from Vermont. He is easily the most liberal person running for president in the last decade or more. He supports large-scale tax increases, anti-coroprate business policies, he criticizes Israel, and is an ardent supporter of universal healthcare. I really dig all those things. Shoot, I'll probably vote for him. But he's liberal enough that even moderate Democrats are uncomfortable with some of his policies. The only big pull he's lucky to get from moderate Republicans are the ones who don't actually know who he is and still get bristly about Hillary Clinton because her name is Clinton. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 1:36pm
Yeah, I may be a small-government guy, but I don't want any religion influencing any of my candidates. It sucks though, because I really liked his early interviews/etc, after you get past his mandatory MD superiority/arrogance. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 10 July 2015 at 8:57pm
|
Time to do the http://www.isidewith.com/" rel="nofollow - iSideWith quiz . I'm not much of a political person. I hate listening to it all. My results: Clinton: 80% Rubio: 75% Sanders: 75% Huckabee: 66% Walker: 57% Cruz: 57% Paul: 44% Fiorina: 43%
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 11 July 2015 at 1:39am
|
Too generic of a test. It said I agree with Cruz on immigration. NOPE. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 July 2015 at 11:07am
They tend to adjust the quiz as the season goes on with more specific answers. Right now, the problem with taking a quiz like that is that the candidates have not really proposed anything specific. It's general, wide-sweeping stuff like "Immigration is a concern" or "We want healthcare in this country to be accessible." Only a few candidates have actually stated anything concrete enough to call a policy plan. Jeb's immigration reform policy, which would allow people who immigrated illegally to retroactively file for citizenship while remaining in the country, is an example. Another would be Bernie Sanders's plan for massive subsidies for a four-year college education offset by corporate tax increases. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 11 July 2015 at 2:12pm
|
Finally watched Frontlines story on torture. It terrifies me that democrats condone warrant less searches, torture, bombing and helping over throw governments. Clinton is a war hawk, that in itself really puts a bad taste in my mouth. I really hope Sanders beats her. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 11 July 2015 at 9:22pm
|
Posts on the Tippmann Forum? I like this. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 July 2015 at 11:11am
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/247608-poll-jeb-trump-in-virtual-tie" rel="nofollow - Trump is how tied with Jeb in a few states, namely North Carolina. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 July 2015 at 4:24pm
|
At my age and financial situation in November 2016 I will vote for the lessor of BOTH the evils presented. The current crop of idiots across the board are again a poor selection. I am tired of both houses of royalty (Clinton, Bush), who more than likely survive the current political circus, we need fresh ideas folks. Understand we saw in the 60's and 70's the radicals who had all the answers rise in power, then when in power (politics, business)decided to become the same thing they hated as the reality of a modern world hit them right in the face. The current state of the nation is shown as more people were interested in the media 'reality show' circus of Confederate Flag and Gay Marriage than the real issues facing America. We are running out of other peoples money to give away, we point at those who pay the majority of taxes as evil, and those who receive the benefits and feel entitled are seen as saints and deserving. There is evil in the world but again we would rather appease and pretend it does not exist (ISIS, Russia, China, Iran, etc) and when we pay for this in the future where will the blame lay as we sell them the means to destroy us. I am tired of going back to NY and seeing the empty factories along the interstates as the States political policies made these industries and people flee NY. I am tired of Nebraska Oma/Lincoln political policies forgetting the rural base of Nebraska who provides far more economically than Oma/Lincoln (where would Nebraska be without the corn and cattle industries?) Why does my neighbor(large corn acreage) have to have a wind power tower that is more expensive to maintain than the power it provides. Finally why is the wife now going CHAMP VA for her medical care when the President's policy and maybe legacy of inexpensive medical care for all doubled her health care plans monthly premiums. Thank God we had the option and kids are gone. But how are the kids and their kids going to 'afford' this cheaper health care? As you all have grown, many now with families your political choices should be geared to how it will effect your kids generation rather than give you what you need now, at the cost of what they will end up paying for. That in itself is the crime of American politics. It is the simple issues around you that should be the base of your decision, not that soap opera in DC and in the media. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 14 July 2015 at 1:05am
|
No, OS, just because I'm in the real world now doesn't mean I'm suddenly conservative. I am voting for future generations, which is why I am for renewable energy that will be cheaper and better later, rather than what's immediately cheaper now. That's why I oppose fracking that poisons ground water and support more environmental regulations. I want my kids to have something left of this planet to enjoy. That's why I am pro-marriage equality. If I have a kid who happens to be gay, I want them to have a chance at a happy life free from discrimination. That's why I support healthcare reform and economic policies that don't tilt the game even more in favor of the already wealthy. That's why I oppose throwing military force around all willy nilly. Sure we got rid of an evil dictator, but look where we are now. So take a good hard look at your political choices and tell me, are you really doing it for future generations? -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 14 July 2015 at 2:59am
|
Yes, based on the simple fact that I want all you do, to a point, environment is a good cause, my Stepson is also gay so you make a false assumption there as well, but the ability for the future generations not having to 'pay' for all the freebies given out today to those who lack the drive to succeed on their own. And yes I want future generations to have the chances I had, the ability to succeed without being dependent on government for everything, or be called 'evil' rich because they managed to succeed without government. Nothing is 'free' someone has to pay for every healthcare reform, and how much more in taxes will we pay to provide healthcare for those who do not have the self discipline to keep up their own health. Accidents and catastrophic issues different than some overweight, smoker with a heart condition, or someone sticking something somewhere it should not go unprotected and getting some STD. When you get where I am believe me you views on politics will change as your wallet is on a fixed income, and some rich **edited** from Arkansas with a D on her name wants to take more of my 'pay' and give it to someone else. I earned my retirement, disability, and paid for my Social Security, but I need to pay more so those who feel the need to get all this for 'free' can. All of a sudden the benefit I get from the VA based on my disability rating for my dependents college is 'taxable' so $21,000 last year was declared taxable, thanks Obama and Democrats, fun return and some more money to the government to waste, yet some college kid believes he is entitled to his tuition to be 'free' These throw me money and I will provide 'instant' solutions to all our problems so far has been a classic failure. Our country can not figure out how to provide competent medical care for 2.5 million veterans let alone 360million. If it were not for the evil 'rich' we would be Greece right now. If Democrats get their way we Veterans will have to pay or pay more for the post service Medical we were promised in that contract with the government we signed, but certain groups will get their medical care 'free'. So yes I have some dogs in the Nov 2016 elections, and if you read I am tired of the Royal Families of the Bush's and Clintons. And finally until politicians use the same services they force on the people as being so good, their kids in public schools, their medical as Obamacare demands, only then will I believe either party has the people in mind. And yes I want future generations to enjoy the Planet, but also want those generations not to be totally dependent of government and over regulated by that same government who seems to exempt the 'political' class. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 15 July 2015 at 9:54am
|
I love the Startup NY commercials they have now, talking about reduced corporate taxes. I hope more and more companies leave the west and east coast, and those States become absolutely buried in debt. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 July 2015 at 10:42am
Now this is the forum I remember. 
------------- ? |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 15 July 2015 at 7:30pm
No, no we did not. The government shut down or imprisoned radicals.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 July 2015 at 11:29pm
|
Really check you sources. Tom Hayden for example radical counter-culture in 60's early 70's then Democrat politician in mid 70's. You really need to review your history. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 9:12am
|
If anything, as I've gotten older, I've found myself more 'left of center' on a number of social issues. As far as what November brings, it 100% does not matter, as whomever secures the Democratic nomination will carry NYC and thus the entire state. It is the same with state-wide elections. Nominees and candidates pander to everything south of Rockland county, without giving a whit for the bulk of the state. The republican field seems to be flooded with a lot of people with half-formed ideas or worn out names, and the Democratic field is Hillary. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 10:10am
|
In case you wonder, I'm gathering my info from the http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary" rel="nofollow - Huffington Post Pollster page, which takes a bunch of other national polls and smushes them into one amalgamation of public polling numbers, which is really the only helpful thing we can do right now to make sense of different polling patterns. Republicans: We have our first national polls coming out with Trump leading. It was a Suffolk/USAToday poll that put Trump at 16% and Jeb at 14%. Now, here's one big thing to keep in mind with that poll. It was simply a polling of "Adults who are Republicans," with the criteria of being a Republican that you say you are a Republican. A lot of polls, as we get closer to the actual primary season itself, will either sample from "LV" or Likely Voters, AKA you know you're going to go vote in the primaries, or "RV," or "Registered Voters" meaning you are legally registered to vote in your district. Both can slightly skew results in weird, weird ways for the dumbest of reasons. Yes, trump finished ahead of Jeb by 2%, but that was just calling All Adults and asking them who they would vote for -- who is to say that those All Adults are legally registered, or will even vote at all. When you look at other polls that ask RVs, you get Bush in the lead, with the only exception being a YouGov/Economist poll, which did as RVs, but asked them online. Needless to say, crazies live online. And they answer polls. Also in the news, Scott Walker entered officially, despite already polling well without an announcement. It'll be interesting to see if he gets a bump or not. Democrats: Sanders is still sitting somewhere around 15% - 17%, aside from one online RV poll (The same one that had Trump ahead of Jeb), which had him all the way up at 24%. Again, online polls. I hear people talking a lot about Sanders having huge rallies, but keep in mind that the people who tend to go to political rallies for a leftist candidate -- college students -- are the least likely to go vote in a primary. Crowds are a horrible way to judge support. Granted, he is trending upwards, so we'll just have to see.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 10:12am
| Ugh I told myself I would only use this thread to post stats and such but I cannot help it. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 10:30am
I wouldn't discredit gay marriage as a "reality show" circus. It was a civil rights issue for a lot of people in the U.S., one that had been growing for nearly 30 years now, and one that continues beyond just allowing for legalized marriage. This was a thing that greatly impacted people. As for the Confederate flag, I think a lot of what happened around it was hoopla. I completely understand the protests to take the flag down from state government buildings, as they have no right or reason to be flown there, but the overall conversation around it seemed to be lost going into different directions.
The presence and perception of assistance programs in the U.S., as well as the tax rate for corporations, is a complication issue that just cannot be condensed down into these bumper-sticker statements with any kind of accuracy.
Dang, a whole lot of people got included on this list. And I agree with you on almost all of them, although probably not for the same reasons. Ok, so like, what do we do about all of those. Because they all have their own issues going on. ISIS, yes, they are an evil bunch of people, and I do wish we were more proactive in doing something about them, seeing as we are responsible for them existing to start with. We could be doing more that doesn't require Boots on the Ground. We could be helping to stabilize Syria, which is where a lot of ISIS stages. We could be boosting the other militaries fighting them, like Jordan. And the one thing that would help the most (but is probably the longest shot to solving the problem), bring Iran to the table in helping get rid of ISIS. China is the world's biggest polluter. They are dumping the most Co2 and other harmful emissions into the air of any other country on Earth. They have a total lack of environmental regulation, and it's polluting waterways across Asia. Something has got to be done with that, or we're all going to pay the price for it.
Flee New York, or flee the U.S.? We're not going to be a mass-manufacturing society again. Not when we have to compete with Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.
The short answer is that there are tons of reasons why healthcare costs for some go up. One thing is going to be programs like the over-arching VA system growing to take on more people. The long answer is that other insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and pretty much every other private medical step in the health care process, have the ability to increase costs at an almost unregulated state.
For them, the costs will most likely be much lower compared to pre-ACA coverage options. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 10:35am
If I were Jeb Bush, I'd be really frustrated with how this is all shaking out. Instead of being able to start early-campaigning against Hillary in the primary season, he's got to now separate himself from Trump's numbers and constantly respond to what the rest of the field hurls at him, often times from people who are sticking with anti-ACA and anti-gay marriage platforms. You can almost see it in his eyes, when someone asks him about overturning the Affordable Care Act, that he wants to pull out a white board and start explaining how the Supreme Court works.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 3:19pm
|
Whale, as you too age and find the reality of wife, kids, work and taxes you will begin to understand the frustrations of many out here. You are young and in your rebellious, I am going to change the world mode, as I was 40 years ago, and 40 years from now you are going to review this time and go what was I thinking. My concern now being on a fixed income is which political idiot is going to take less of this fixed income to give to someone else far less motivated than I was. I am part of the 'other people's money' the Government seems to enjoy taking to redistribute. For example for three kids previously I received VA benefits based on my disability for their college education, tax free. April 15 based on some income tax legislation that benefit 'earned', by my service,and not entitled was determined now to be taxable income, so in the research this was a Democrat led snuck in under the radar Tax Law change. I had to write a BIG check to the IRS, and with the fixed income had a dramatic effect to my economy, and she has 2 more years to go. So that Obama claim on wanting 'free' college is total Bravo Sierra, for look what his party did to me, one individual who is 'paying' for one of his kids to go to college, I earned that 'benifit' with blood, tears, and sacrifice all those years ago, not standing on a corner with a sign saying I am entitled to this 'now'. The wife's health care plan available through her employer (City of Lincoln) has now doubled the premiums on ACA becoming 'law'. So another case of an 'affordable' healthcare law is only affordable to those who get their healthcare paid for by someone else. The wife is now enrolled in CHAMPVA, so her healthcare is now affordable for she gets 100% of her medical needs as part of my VA benefit, not the option we wanted, but the option we can afford under this Affordable Healthcare. I can actually look at my 2008 tax return, and my 2014 tax return and just based on the percentages I got to keep more of my money in 2008, than in 2014. So I can honestly answer the question, am I better off under Obama, or Bush, I can prove I was better off under Bush as I 'retired' in 2007 and went fixed income. So what can Democrats offer me, higher taxes, on a fixed income, so my incentives to vote Democrat are? My priority in this election is to vote for whoever will take less of that fixed income to give to someone else, as I am the 'other people's money' that all this perceived 'free' stuff for the less motivated comes from. You are a journalist and should understand the term 'Maskirovka' when it is applied to politics. Get the compliant media to yell "SQUIRREL" in a room to distract that room from the real problems and get them focused on some meaningless little problem of the moment. I am just really tired of The Royal Families (Bush, Clinton), and the 'political class' telling us the people how we should live, while they exempt themselves. If public schools are so great, the Political Class kids go to them as well, if Obamacare so good the Political Class is enrolled as well. I understand Hillary and her promises meaning little as her NY Senate promise was 'forgotten' in her first run. I understand Trump and his ability to fund his whole campaign himself (good thing), his need to speak his mind, not read a teleprompter, cue card based on a focused group tested speech writers words addressing the audience of the night. But I do not see Trump as even close to being my considered candidate. Here in Nebraska, just like NY, Omaha/Lincoln are the focus, and the 'rubes' who grow the corn, process the beef for the states economy mean nothing in the face of all the entitlement needs of those who sit in North Omaha for example, unemployed by choice (our unemployment rate is around 4% there are jobs available). It is so bad here that we have to import labor from neighboring states as the professional unemployed here in Nebraska demand more in benefits and will not go to where the jobs are. And the Democrat state politicians foster this dependency as a solid voting base. The same mistakes NY made Nebraska Democrats are running headlong to repeat. 40 years from now one of your grandchildren will ask you a question where you know on the outside you will say X, but on the inside you will know the real response, as you look into that mirror of life. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 16 July 2015 at 10:10pm
| I'm glad I know so many amazing senior citizen leftists who haven't gone to the defeatist seed you think everyone is doomed to. Your experiences cannot be universalized, isn't that supposed to be a lesson you learn as you age? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 July 2015 at 12:03am
Politically I'm much more in the pragmatist mindset -- do the thing that best gets the job done regardless of attached ideologies.
Which, you know, should make you angry that corporations often use tax shelters and loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, and in return, more has to be taxed from people like you and me in order to keep things working. Seems like that's a more appropriate target for ire than the working poor.
Link me with some info. I'd be interested to read about it.
Are you talking about his "American College Promise" plan? The one that deals with subsidizing the costs of two years worth of community college? I don't really see what that has to do with some of the things you're talking about here. But, the plan really is a great idea, something that we really need at this point in the country. It's important to note that the program does not just pass out checks to students. It mandates that students only receive tuition waivers if: They maintain a 2.5 GPA, they enroll at least half-time in credits, and have to show they are making steady progression toward the completion of a degree. Especially as more states push their community colleges to offer four-year degrees, like they have here in Florida, this means less student debt for those who are often in a lower socio-economic strata to begin with. And it isn't just for your standard college degrees. There are potential incentives in the proposed package that would incentivize trade certificates along with degrees, like automotive engineering. I'm a professor now. I can tell you that the number one thing that causes students to leave school, on a consistent basis, is stress about financials -- that they'll be in too much debt by the time they finish that the degree won't be worth it, and that only gets worse when students come from poor families. This program is a really, really good thing.
Was that plan through a private insurance company?
I suppose my litmus test for a president goes a bit deeper than which one kept taxes the lowest.
I'm a professor. A state employee, none-the-less, who has to weather the ideological political battles and shrinking, constantly shifting budgets that come along with a job in education.
Oh this is a way worse thing than you're giving it credit for.
And do tell, those corn fields and slaughterhouses, what kind of federal subsidies are those getting? We're slated to spend about $134 billion over the next decade on agricultural subsidies, farm assistance, and supplemental crop insurance. It's not exactly chump change. Almost all of it goes to corn, soy, beef, and pork. That's not to say that agricultural subsides are not bad on face value -- they certainly have their historical reasons to exist in this country. But it also means that you cannot exactly turn up your nose to people who need welfare programs to get by and also extol the gee-shucks nature of the American farm.
I'd be interested to see if you have statistics to back this up? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 17 July 2015 at 12:04am
Hey look, we agree on a thing. (Although Sanders won't actually win, it's nice to think about).
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 17 July 2015 at 12:47pm
|
Whale I will get you source material as well as citations when I get the time. The problem as you know is getting by the perceptions rather than the reality. The local farmers are up in arms as they see A and are told B by the State and Federal Government. My next door neighbor already lost money as his crop is going for far less than he put into it. All you got to do is sit by a table at the local breakfast joint and listen to the 'heartbeat' of America. The tax code is available thru the IRS, I forgot what it was but momma doing or taxes was 'told' it through the tax program she used to do our taxes. Program is VA Chapter 35 http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/resources/benefits_resources/rates/ch35/ch35rates100113.asp And the tax code stuff I can find is as follows, which did not match what the IRS tax advisor momma called to verify the taxable status of our benefit.http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html#en_US_2014_publink1000178026 You talk of tax differences, what about the standard costs of consumer goods and the difference there from 2008 to 2015 and the root causes of this increase, and the drive to raise minimum wage, yet the unforeseen costs of increased cost consumer goods, and the fixed income people not able to keep up. What is it called again? Law of unintentional consequence? Again you won't really notice all this until you get here as well, as every month you got to balance the 'fixed' inflow to outflow, and the outflow is starting to way outpace your 'fixed' inflow, dipping into that savings you planned to use way differently, then you will get it. And I am not the only one at our age playing this 'game', and losing. Really Whale take a research tour of rural farm America, and just listen, sit in the local and other truck stops and listen to the plight of the owner operator and company drivers, you understand the plight of the student, but what about the parents that provide for those students. Two local professors did a tour with me to the Squeegie Breakfast joint and listened, then we sat at the Flying J truck Stop and listened over lunch and dinner, and the real liberal who missed out being a hippie female went on the back of my Harley on a Patriot Guard soldier's funeral, and she saw what diversity is all about, did not match her perception of 'Bikers' or 'Patriots' she was teaching. She passed recently and I attended her funeral on my Harley and dressed let's say diversely, and her peers came up to me and asked if I was the one who took her on that tour, and how she changed her outlook after it. Mission accomplished. Education is great, but sometimes blind to the actual subject taught, and the economic argument I have with a local retired professor is great. He complains about the economy and pay inequity, and I ask him when he negotiated his salary did he go for the best deal and forget the students who pay for his salary and benefits, or a balanced deal he demands others today to accept. He got his, now time to ensure someone else can not do as he did. Once again the political circus is just that anymore, and we pick the 'clown' who meets our perceptions of need, and will hopefully damage our wallet the least. Hillary, Bush or Trump DO NOT meet my needs. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 19 July 2015 at 3:40pm
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/us/politics/trump-belittles-mccains-war-record.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow - Trump's momentum is probably over, as he says John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured after being shot down over Vietnam. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 19 July 2015 at 6:36pm
| It's great that people who are apparently ok with Trump referring to Mexicans as thieves and rapists are outraged about an actual killer being slightly jilted. :) |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 July 2015 at 7:48pm
|
Trump was the GOP yelling 'Squirrel" and getting the left to focus on that (and it worked). Never a serious contender, you all should of known that. He just has the intenstinal fortitude to actually say whats on his mind rather than scripted teleprompter other writers points that focused well to the current audience. And many people 'on the inside' agree with him but lack any courage to say so 'on the outside'. And it is not like Mexico is 'sending' us their best and brightest, well educated, English speaking, job trained, and better off financially immigration candidates. You all, I hope, have read Mexican Immagration Law and Policies concerning their Southern Border, and they have the nerve to say our policies are too strict and unhumanitarian...really. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 July 2015 at 12:34pm
 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 July 2015 at 12:41pm
I don't think you'll find a single person outside of maybe some of the people who answered the phone/online polls in his favor who thought he was a serious candidate.
Mexico isn't sending us anyone though, to be fair. People themselves are escaping areas of crippling poverty and war-zone levels of crime, brought about largely by the Mexican government's inability to provide for its people and control the power of drug cartels.
Oh, for sure. The way Mexico handles its border with Guatemala is bad thing. And the way they diplomatically speak about the U.S.'s immigration issues is laughable. There is a difference between the government and the people, though.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 July 2015 at 10:10am
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html" rel="nofollow - Trump's up above the 20% mark in an ABC/WaPo poll, but only the last day of polling included his remarks about John McCain, and the last day curbed his numbers sharply. I'm interested to see what shakes out after the first full polling cycle post-McCain statements.
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 21 July 2015 at 10:29am
I think you'll see his poll numbers start to decline this week as McCain failed to take the bait and publicly debate Trump on this which is what I think Trump really wanted. Inflammatory statements will always get you a bump in the nutcase electorate for polling purposes, but so long as McCain lets the issue die quietly (like he seems to have done) it won't have any lasting positive effect on people talking about Trump and his numbers will fall as he fails to get continued media presence from these kinds of remarks. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 21 July 2015 at 10:54am
I liked trump for not having a filter. Refreshing. He's an idiot, but refreshing. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 July 2015 at 10:20pm
I happen to think killing is... wrong. Kinda like in the commandments thingies conservatives love (in name).
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 July 2015 at 8:37am
| http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248910-exclusive-trump-threatens-third-party-run" rel="nofollow - Trump said he'd consider running as an independent if the RNC gets in his way through the primary process. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 24 July 2015 at 8:50am
|
Oh great another Perot moment in history, just enough to secure a Hillary win. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 July 2015 at 1:12pm
The news last night said that "his impact could range anywhere from a Perot to more of a Nader," which made me laugh a little.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 30 July 2015 at 5:16am
|
Should we start a pool for when Trump decides he's cashed in on the extra publicity and bows out of the race? I'm thinking January 16. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 30 July 2015 at 10:56am
|
Some updated charts! Republicans:  Democrats:  |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 30 August 2015 at 9:43pm
| Update this Whale! |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 31 August 2015 at 4:08am
|
^ ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 September 2015 at 7:05pm
Updated polls!   |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 September 2015 at 7:10pm
|
Thoughts: Rs: I don't think I expected Trump to stick around this long at all. I honestly have no idea when the train ends for his campaign. He's been openly racist, mocked veterans, openly misogynist, and still is running away with it. The ride ends at some point, I just don't know what he has to do to derail it. I didn't see Carson jumping so high up, but I suspect he'll drop back down to single digits soon enough as someone else becomes the Good Soundbite Of The Week. Maybe it'll be Ted Cruz. Ds:
It's still a one-woman race, but Sanders has made up a lot of ground. More than I thought he would, for sure. I think the big issue with his campaign has been so far, that he's not getting money. Nearly 75% of all incoming Democratic money is going to Hillary. He also scores low for black action -- meaning that unlike Obama in 2008, a lot of minority voters are saying they won't go knock door-to-door, put up signs, etc. Will Joe Biden run? I don't think so, but who knows really. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 08 September 2015 at 10:43pm
|
I've figured it out. Trump isn't running seriously, he's the GOP's crash dummy. They are using him to test positions and statements to see how everyone reacts so they can form their strategy for whoever gets the nomination. With his new pledge to not run as an independent, it's the only thing that makes sense. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 9:05am
|
We're a week from Iowa. Bernie has caught up Iowa and is gaining movement in South Carolina. Trump is still 20 points up. I was wrong about a lot of things. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 5:32pm
|
Yeah this is pretty unreal across the board. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 29 January 2016 at 12:41am
| This is already the most bat-dookie insane think I've seen since I've been aware of politics. An ex-spy chief and war hero being defeated by a southern Democrat in 1992 (all I remember of that one was HW didn't like broccoli and I did, and the other guy played the sax like Lisa Simpson) then won reelection and received oral sex and was impeached (10-year old me "What's sex? Is oral sex SEX?") A guy winning when more people voted for the other guy, that guy getting elected again because why change leaders during a war against a country not responsible for an attack that happened under his watch? Followed by him completely borking a hurricane response and muddling through an economic collapse, a one-term Senator (who's black!!! but half black and African-black, not African-American) getting elected against a war hero who chose a crazy person as a running mate who quit her job and had a reality show, a Republican governor of a liberal state turning hard right and failing to defeat him, now this nonsense? Check in in five months and it could be Kasich V. O'Malley and I wouldn't be surprised. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 29 January 2016 at 11:16am
|
Kasich is really the only reasonable GOP candidate in my opinion. As an Ohioan, I'm not the biggest fan, but he has done some things that went against the state GOP (going around them an expanding medicaid is one example). He brings Jesus into things a bit much, but he seems to me to be more like old-school republicans rather than whatever it is we have now. Sad to see him not getting more attention. Hell, I'd almost vote for Kasich over Hillary if it ever came down to that. That said, Sanders is the only guy I really like, but we'll have to see where that goes. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 30 January 2016 at 12:31pm
| NYT endorsed Clinton and Kasich today, so maybe Kasich will get more press. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 6:52pm
|
I was just listening to NPR today and they were discussing the "typical" Trump supporter. Interestingly enough, virtually every program devoted to the subject today came up with the same conclusion. There is no "typical" Trump supporter. In fact, what they did find in one constant poll of 5000 (to see how their views of candidates change over time) that the majority of trump supporters in that sample voted for Obama in the previous two elections. You just can't use a blanket statement to accurate to describe his constituency. What was even more amazing and made me think of this thread is that over and over, throughout the day, when asked who they'd vote for in the general election if Trump didn't make it in, the responses were overwhelmingly "Sanders." Which goes back to my early statement in this thread that Sanders could sway moderate Republicans to his side. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 6:57pm
So, to my above post. The NPR conclusion is that Trump is anti-establishment as is Sanders, hence the fact that a large portion of the people they interviewed say they'd vote Sanders if Trump loses the nomination. Albeit, it's a mix of folks, everything from whack-jobs to real John Q Public types, that make up this group, and not just moderates, but Sanders' non-establishment cred looks good to them. Honestly, it makes me wonder if this is a shift that might do in both parties and fracture the playing field into what we see in other nations where there are lots of little parties and coalitions. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 01 February 2016 at 10:43pm
|
I like Trump. Mostly because of his Cowboy attitude throughout this whole thing. I wish he would back off from the radical anti-Islam stance though. I'm all for not allowing any refugees in but he went a tad too far. I'd love him if he endorsed Unions. I'd like more support for women too. I like many things about Sanders. He has clear cut goals, actually says intelligent things, and isn't afraid to venture from the party line. I remember Hilary ragging on him for not going pure 1938 on gun control. I'd never vote for a self described Social ist though. I also feel that a $15 minimum wage would ensue chaosm Social ist is blocked by the spam filter. -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 3:16am
|
I don't ever see myself voting Democrat, but if I were forced to I would vote for Sanders over Clinton. I just do not trust Clinton at all. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 6:25pm
This. I like him because he's managed to piss off the establishment on the Left and the Right. It especially tickles me that he leads in most polls, thereby pissing them off all the more. He is not Politically Correct which I admire. Would he be a good President? I don't know. Can't be worse than what we have now. <--- And trust me, I know very well this will come back to haunt me if he manages to get into the Whitehouse. New Hampshire is next and I foresee a frenzy. Sanders is strong there. Hillary squeaked by in Iowa. I don't think she'll fare as well there but it will be interesting what her plan will be. Trump is doing well there, so we'll see if a reinvigorated Cruz or Rubio can continue their momentum from Iowa. Seems Christie and Bush are attacking Rubio because of his Iowa finish. Think they're worried about something? The political ugliness can only get worse... ------------- 
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 8:06pm
|
I like the political ugliness. It's like MTV meets elections. I think a Trump vs Bernie election to be fantastic, a Clinton vs Cruz election to be boring, and having a Bernie or Trump against Cruz or Clinton to be a small landslide. Clinton has no strong values in anything and Cruz is the same old Republican. You can say Clinton Cruz'ed in on the woman vote and Bills legacy. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 11:44pm
| Rand Paul is out. Gary Johnson will be getting my vote again. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 04 February 2016 at 11:21am
|
I've leaned "Rubio" the whole time so I'm interested to see how he does moving forward, especially with the very narrow gap between him, Trump, and Cruz in the Iowa finish. I think he polls better than Cruz in less evangelical areas of the nation, so it's really anybody's race on the GOP side right now. Very much the same kind of field that the Dems were looking at when BHO came out from nowhere back in 2008. I personally think Hillary has counted on the "women" vote entirely too much in her campaign. I think she felt that it was a given that women would vote for her in the same vein as the black voter movement turned out for BHO back in '08. Of course, that's not necessarily working out for her in the way she envisioned I'm sure. Most of my female friends and family members have said they'd rather vote for anyone BUT Hillary. She's just that off-putting. The nation has had plenty of time to see her character on display for better or for worse, and overall, it seems like she's been found lacking. I really do think that Sanders has a VERY good chance of making it to the primaries. He's frank and honest about what he stands for. People like that, even if they don't fully agree with his platform. They'll vote for someone sincere over someone who comes off as saying anything they have to to get elected it seems. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 04 February 2016 at 2:30pm
|
Call me a small minded voter, but I'd vote for pretty much any Republican candidate before I'd vote for Cruz. I've watched pretty much every single debate/townhall/etc, and I just can't seem to trust him. Though, I couldn't put my finger on one particular reason why. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 February 2016 at 5:09am
|
There is no real choice at all. It is going to end up as a voting against the other candidate more than voting for 'your' candidate. Another lessor of the two evils presented elections. Pretty sure I am just voting anti-Democrat based on the two evils they are presenting, a liar and a whack job too liberal for NY so he left for Vermont. So far it looks like the Republicans will hurt my wallet less, other than that no real issues concern me. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2016 at 7:17am
 When your own daughter can't even play nice for the campaign trail cameras..... ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 05 February 2016 at 10:20am
|
Tallen, that is perfect. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 06 February 2016 at 10:03am
|
I'm not a violent person by nature, but Ted Cruz's face makes me want to just clock him one. Tallen, isn't there another gif of Cruz trying to go in for some awkward-ass kiss and getting denied? AHH I found it:  ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 06 February 2016 at 10:32am
| When looking for a president, policies, goals, and character are important to me, but I think a president needs to look like a strong president. Cruz just looks too creepy to me. Definitely wouldn't want him going around the world to other leaders being the face of America. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 February 2016 at 8:05pm
|
It's official. Christie is out as is Fiorina. Good riddance on the Christie end of things, and Fiorina simply hasn't done well since her bump in the polls the first or second debate when she stood up to Trump. Meanwhile, the "superdelegates" are rearing their ugly heads in NH as despite the fact that Hillary was thoroughly whipped there by Sanders, the DNC isn't going to let the people have their voice and have whipped their superdelegates to declare for Hillary. I personally think it's time to burn the electoral college and all the associated underhanded BS that goes along with it to the ground. It made sense when people had to physically stump around the country to get their platform across, but in the day and age of tv, social media, and all things information technology, I don't think it matters as much. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 11 February 2016 at 10:59am
|
It does seem pretty convoluted and anachronistic. Why do we even need delegates to vote? They should just be distributed by the numbers alone. Leave the human element out of it. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 February 2016 at 4:32pm
|
We must remember the role of the electoral college. To ensure the people od all the states are represented in national elections. If we went pure popular vote only 5 states would essentially pick the president. When 5 states by population outnumber the remaining how is that a true representation of the vote. The flyover states will have no voice but yet will have to 'pay' based on that 5 state majority vote...would make today's gamesmanship kids games. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 February 2016 at 10:21pm
|
As someone who early on wouldn't have hated Rubio, the last few debates/interviews I've seen with him have really changed my mind. I'd probably even rather have Cruz than him. Him explaining his tax plan tonight (which heavily leans on tax breaks for those with children) really rubbed me the wrong way. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 13 February 2016 at 10:41pm
| I'd be all for a movement for delegates to be proportional instead of winner-take-all. Right now my vote just doesn't count. But the parties hate that. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2016 at 1:29pm
|
Barring some kind of weird surprise on Super Tuesday, it's hard not to see Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination. The theory has been that as other candidates drop, their supporters will go over to either Rubio or Cruz. But when Jeb dropped, that didn't happen in any available polling data. And Christie has now come out to endorse Trump, meaning a good chunk of his ~6% will go to Trump. The two biggest states on his plate are Florida and Texas, the home states for his competition. He's running away with Florida, and he's managed to almost tie Cruz in Texas. So as absolutely bizarre as it is, yeah, Donald Trump will probably represent the GOP in November. The Democrats are a little closer if you look at national polling data: Clinton is only ahead by 6 points. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Clinton is beating Sanders in delegates 505-71:  Despite the fact that Sanders and Clinton tied in Iowa, Sanders blew out New Hampshire, and Clinton won Nevada by only a handful of percentage points, Clinton is leading with the super-delegates -- folks who can put their vote toward any candidate regardless of how the state votes. So it's hard to see a mathematical way Sanders win this, despite him making up so much ground. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2016 at 1:37pm
I don't know if this is the point you were trying to make, but super-delegates are not a part of the U.S. Electoral College. They're a concept only really used by the individual parties in the primary process, which have only recently been turned into a legally binding process. And even then, they only really ever have an impact with the Democratic Party, as they have assigned over 700 people to the super-delegate system, whereas the Republicans only have about 100. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2016 at 1:43pm
I tend to agree with you in spirit -- I think a proportional system is needed to keep campaigning more relevant in all states. But the counter to what you said is that essentially about five states pick the president as it is. Only a handful of states are ever going to be viably contested in a given election year. No Democrat is going to waste much time campaigning in Texas. No Republican is going to waste much time campaigning in Massachusetts. Consistently though, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania decide who becomes president. The swing states shift over time, but there are always a handful of swing states. What I think the important part of the Electoral College is, rather than what you said, is that it equalizes the entire state vs. the urban center. Because it comes down to the popular vote per-each-state, more value is also placed on campaigning to the issues of the whole state -- things that impact cities and agricultural/rural. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 February 2016 at 2:15pm
You are correct in your assumption. I've got to ask though, what does that say about the "party of the people" if they take so much of the outcome out of the hands of the people? ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 27 February 2016 at 2:51am
|
I find it funny that Bernie worked hard to receive the votes, but the system took the delegates from him and gave them someone that didn't deserve it. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 02 March 2016 at 11:46am
That their party got almost hijacked one time by southern Dixiecrats, from Thurmond to Wallace, and the party reacted by using super-delegates as a stopgap to help keep that from happening.
I think the number they have right now is probably too many, but I totally understand the need of having super-delegates. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 02 March 2016 at 3:53pm
|
This whole election is an exercise in idiocy. Hillary has bought and paid for the Democrat nomination with the Super Delagate gamesmanship, she will not repeat 2008, Bernie never had a chance. And talk about a democratic process, Democrats get no choice, and never really had a choice. The GOP is no better, too bad there is no unified front against Trump, the majority support everyone else, but no unified stance so Trump will prevail, unfortunately. So we are down to the usual vote against not for election in November, I will as usual hold my nose and vote ABC (anyone but Clinton). Did drive by the Bernie rally in downtown Lincoln Saturday, was a hoot you would think it was 1968 all over again. Strange crowd of new wanna-be hippies, and old gray haired never got the memo 60's are over hippies. Still asking the same question to the local Bernie supporters, who is going to pay for all this free stuff when you run out of wealthy people to tax, ala Venezuela. This all 'works' till you run out of other peoples money.................. -------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 02 March 2016 at 6:44pm
Iron knee -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 April 2016 at 6:44pm
| Ironically, it looks like Hillary will now get enough delegates to win outright without much need from super-delegates, whereas the Republicans will most likely rely on de-pledged delegates at the convention to stop Donald Trump. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 04 May 2016 at 11:49am
|
Well, barring some kind of asteroid situation, it looks like it'll be Trump v. Hillary, now that Cruz has dropped out. Which pretty much means it'll be President Hillary Clinton, considering how well Trump polls, even now, against her.  |