2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The liberal media is out to get them

If there's anyone who questions that I honestly don't know what to say.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If there's anyone who questions that I honestly don't know what to say.

Maybe? But it makes them look bad when they cry about it incessantly. This is suppose to be a party that projects strength but are the whiniest dudes (and dudettes) that I've ever seen.

How are you suppose to take on Russia, Iran and Iraq when you're flustered by mean ol' liberal debate moderators?

[Dutch]

Do you think the Dems would complain if the media was biased to the right?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you think the Dems would complain if the media was biased to the right?

Not in the same way this particular group of Republicans have. They simply come across as weak and a bunch of complainers. Most seem more interested in tea baggin' the Tea Party.

This is also the least telegenic group of Republicans since Nixon.

I say this as someone who can vote for someone that leans to the right on issues if they're a quality candidate. A shame someone like Kasich hasn't gained more traction thus far. Heck, I was even considering Trump until he signed the 'no 3rd party run' pledge, which made him look weak in my eyes.

[Dutch]

Lucky for them, we'll never know how they would face adversity. I agree the GOP should handle it better. GWB was great at it. I think Rubio will do fine as well.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I guess you are mistaking me for someone who gives a crap who hosted the debate. I don't judge a network by liberal, conservative or if they have little green men asking the questions.

You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

Agreed they are afflicted with two totally separate problems there.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Maybe? But it makes them look bad when they cry about it incessantly. This is suppose to be a party that projects strength but are the whiniest dudes (and dudettes) that I've ever seen.

How are you suppose to take on Russia, Iran and Iraq when you're flustered by mean ol' liberal debate moderators?

I would be whiny too if Americans are constantly wanting the government's help with social issues. Also republicans have been put into a caricature of old white people or rich CEOs. And if anyone has been following social media, we all know what it means if you're rich and/or white living in the US...

As for the whole liberal media and press bias, I can't say for sure what CNBC's agenda is (except for John Harwood's of course) during the debate but it does exist.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...article/130902

I also want to point out that if you're living in Iowa or any swing state right now, they're swamped with Hillary Clinton advertisements on TV and paper.

[JPhillips]

Rich and white...

It's hard out there for a pimp.

[Kodos]

Those poor oppressed rich white people. Why can't they be left alone?!

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Those poor oppressed rich white people. Why can't they be left alone?!

+1

[wustin]

You're white? That means you're privileged! Oh you're rich too? Give everyone else some money too man we don't like improving, it's too hard.

[BillJasper]

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

Also republicans have been put into a caricature of old white people or rich CEOs.

The 10 most loyal demographic groups for Republicans and Democrats - The Washington Post

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Exactly who are you referring to as greedy? All white people?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Thou shalt not steal. -- Exodus 20:15

[flere-imsaho]

Taxes aren't theft* - Me

*Except for Cook County, Illinois

[Solecismic]

I think it's easy to be quite generous with someone else's money.

I posted a link before to an analysis of where various professions, including the media, make their political donations. The argument that the mainstream media isn't far more liberal than the average American simply doesn't work.

So, if you're running for president, assuming that you actually care whether you win or lose, this is a big deal. A lot is at stake. If, on one side, you have a friendly set of moderators who are trying to help the candidates, frame the controversial issues so that the answers are easily prepared, that's a big edge. And on the other side, you have an unfriendly set of moderators who would like nothing more than to derail your campaign, that's a potential problem.

Sure, we need a candidate who can handle a hostile media. But it isn't a level playing field out there and it's not whining to point that out, or exclude networks that don't even bother to pretend they're not biased.

Was it weak for Trump to sign the pledge? I don't think so. With the two party system and the electoral college, a third party can't win without taking a large chunk from both sides. But there's no stance that will take that chunk from one side and get much of anything from the other side.

I think he finally listened to someone who understands the math, and realized that if he runs as a third party, even though his own candidacy does have elements that would appeal to some Democrats, that he couldn't make a case to enough Democrats to make a big difference. All he could do is ensure that the Republican loses.

Now Trump is a petty individual, no doubt. If the RNC isn't "nice" to him, he loves the idea of punishing them. But somewhere in the last couple of months, he finally got it into his head that the presidency is too important to decide over something that petty. Credit to him. Still not enough credit to consider supporting his candidacy. There's still no substance in his issues arguments, and I don't see that changing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Taxes aren't theft* - Me

When income redistribution is the objective, I cannot disagree more.

They're the taking of property from its rightful owner at gunpoint. That's theft afaic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But somewhere in the last couple of months, he finally got it into his head that the presidency is too important to decide over something that petty.

And I lost respect for him over that capitulation. Probably gave me more pause about his credibility than anything he's done or said during the entire campaign.

He owes the RNC exactly nothing, because that's what a large portion of it has done of value ... nothing.

[JPhillips]

I'd like to see the questions published a week before the debate, then allow moderators to ask spontaneous follow-ups. The whole surprise question format is odd and not at all how they will need to react in the job.

[panerd]

I was watching a Charlie Brown special with my son this morning where Linus was running for class president and some of the "adult" jokes involved his complaints about the decline of moral values in this country and the media being against his campaign. This cartoon was likely made in the 1960's making the current diatribe of the GOP from both the candidates and the members of this board laughable. It's politics. I'm sure the media was "biased" in the 1700's as well. Like someone said in this thread you are going to be dealing with Putin and ISIS and lord knows what else and you can't handle some jackass from CNBC?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by panerd

Like someone said in this thread you are going to be dealing with Putin and ISIS and lord knows what else and you can't handle some jackass from CNBC?

This is what it comes down to for me.

Plus, I don't see any of these guys complaining when they're lobbed softballs by the gang at Fox News.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids? Would you leave more if you could? What's the threshold where that becomes greedy?

And what's the threshold for "rich?" If you make the U.S. medium household income (around $50k), you're in the top 0.31% of the world by income.

One of the problems with class warfare and demonizing the rich. Everybody defines the rich and greedy as those who have more than them. It's similar with racial issues. People know the stats and evidence of white privilege, but I don't think anyone believes that they're contributing to the existence of that privilege, it's always somebody else. Hell, that's kind of what politics has become generally - identifying who is to blame for everything, and it's always someone else.

[JPhillips]

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids? Would you leave more if you could? What's the threshold where that becomes greedy?

If I've done my job right as a parent, I shouldn't need to leave them anything at all. But, I'm not of the mind that I'm doing them any favors in life leaving them a pile of cash.

You guys don't even know what you're arguing here. Everyone should be self-sufficient, but I need to leave my kids so much wealth they never need to work.

And what's the threshold for "rich?" If you make the U.S. medium household income (around $50k), you're in the top 0.31% of the world by income.

My threshold? When you have enough to not only take care of yourself comfortably, but your kids and grandkids and their kids.

One of the problems with class warfare and demonizing the rich. Everybody defines the rich and greedy as those who have more than them.

I don't care if someone has more than me, but I do tend to judge them based on what they do with that wealth.

It's similar with racial issues. People know the stats and evidence of white privilege, but I don't think anyone believes that they're contributing to the existence of that privilege, it's always somebody else.

I do believe that I contribute to it. But that's neither here nor there.

Hell, that's kind of what politics has become generally - identifying who is to blame for everything, and it's always someone else.

So we should never identify problems and deal with them accordingly? I don't think having a few people sitting on all the wealth is a good thing for society. YMMV.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

Ok, so reread my post and take away msnbc and replace it with cnbc. Now tell me where I am wrong. The moderators were not taking it easier on tea party candidates. They were acting as though this were a general election debate and catering it to the wrong crowd. Not only that, they did it incredibly poorly.

I stand by everything I said in that post. I also didn't mention one time a liberal bias. I said the moderators were framing their questions to a liberal audience when that was not the target audience for the debate.

Again, I stand by my opinion.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids?

I'm not sure what I'll have, really. And I make a decent living. But I don't plan on retiring, so...

I don't plan on getting anything from my parents. My mom shares a charming house with her husband, but I doubt she has much more to give. My dad...I kind of hope he doesn't leave me anything. I don't want to deal with a house in Hawaii (if it hasn't been eaten by lava).

My wife's family? Yeah, they might have money to pass down. I personally wouldn't fault them for spending it all before they go though. I don't know what my wife's stance is on it, but I figure their money is none of my business. I know that they aren't keen on having the gov't dip into it though (they were certainly concerned when her grandmother passed).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't think having a few people sitting on all the wealth is a good thing for society. YMMV.

Feudalism rocked, yo.

[Solecismic]

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

Who supports the government, then? Who would want to?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

Who supports the government, then? Who would want to?

Why are they taking care of my children in my old age?

[cuervo72]

I'd like to have some money around when I die, but our spending habits are such that I don't know that I can count on that. Where does it go? I don't know. Probably to Comcast, AT&T, and for a bunch of stuff that we don't really need. But it's not like we'd be amassing some huge fortune either way. I'm no Walton.

How Wal-Mart’s Waltons Maintain Their Billionaire Fortune: Taxes - Bloomberg Business

I just find it funny that so many are worried about things like this:

A 40 percent tax is levied at death on estates of more than $5.25 million for an individual or $10.5 million for a couple.

10.5M? Really? All you folks that are concerned about estate taxes have racked up 10.5M in assets. Guess I am really doing it wrong.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thou shalt not steal. -- Exodus 20:15

something something Mark 12:13-17

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

10.5M? Really? All you folks that are concerned about estate taxes have racked up 10.5M in assets.

What I have in the bank (or don't have) doesn't make that atrocity any less wrong.

[cuervo72]

I'll admit that some of what rankles me about folks like the Waltons stems from envy. Why do some of these branches on the family tree get to benefit by doing jack squat beyond having rich ancestors? Why should I want to see them sitting on billions (or amassing more billions) doing nothing besides passing it down and building shrines to themselves? They're sure as shit using the government to get their way and there's like, a couple dozen of them. There are what, 300 million of the rest of us? It's in our benefit to get some of that. Who doesn't want more money? They have billions and they still do. They'll gladly steal from us. If the populace can steal from them via taxes, go for it. Better to do it peacefully than by storming their castle.

[cuervo72]

I mean, boiled down to it my view of what one of the prime functions of a government should be is for the people to collectively say "look, if any of us fucks over the rest of us, there will be consequences." That's basically why we have law enforcement, right? Rob or rape or kill and you screw others over - so don't do it. This isn't a free-for-all, because a true free-for-all would be chaos and that's not good for anybody (or it is good for the very few with the most power). Why shouldn't the same hold economically? Sitting on huge piles of cash and doing nothing with it (again, I have no problem with making money, but spend it) is leaving others screwed.

[Solecismic]

I think we'd find, though, that if we encourage a society where we can pass judgment on someone solely because he or she has more money than we do, that someone else will pass judgment on us for much the same reason. And that person may not be kind enough to do so with the written word alone.

It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell about the Moral Majority...

"Puritanism... that haunting feeling that somebody, somewhere, is having more fun than you are."

[panerd]

Molson already touched on it but it bears repeating. Most members of the board are the 1% compared to the rest of the world. So using the logic applied by many in this thread why should we leave money to our kids when there are poor starving people who can't? The death tax should be all Americans right? However politicians are more shrewd than that and realize it's not about that at all it's about eating the rich so they make it a number that most people aren't at (and now amazingly support). Pure envy... nothing else. And I have about two cents to leave right now so I have no horse in this race anyways.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean, boiled down to it my view of what one of the prime functions of a government should be is for the people to collectively say "look, if any of us fucks over the rest of us, there will be consequences." That's basically why we have law enforcement, right? Rob or rape or kill and you screw others over - so don't do it. This isn't a free-for-all, because a true free-for-all would be chaos and that's not good for anybody (or it is good for the very few with the most power). Why shouldn't the same hold economically? Sitting on huge piles of cash and doing nothing with it (again, I have no problem with making money, but spend it) is leaving others screwed.

The only true financial equality is the 3rd world. Be careful what you wish for, no matter how kind it sounds.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

When income redistribution is the objective, I cannot disagree more.

I couldn't agree more.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think we'd find, though, that if we encourage a society where we can pass judgment on someone solely because he or she has more money than we do, that someone else will pass judgment on us for much the same reason. And that person may not be kind enough to do so with the written word alone.

Well, we're a society that already has the second half of your statement, so....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

As usual, I'm not sure anyone here's making that argument. Some might be saying it's ok to not leave something to your kids, but "the best thing"? That's just creating other people's arguments for them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As usual, I'm not sure anyone here's making that argument. Some might be saying it's ok to not leave something to your kids, but "the best thing"? That's just creating other people's arguments for them.

You may not be making that argument, but Cuervo is and has many times before.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I couldn't agree more.

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.

So the argument is that we should spend more on traditional welfare than corporate welfare. I understand that point of view.

Corporate welfare is keeping our automakers, airplane, oil, and farming businesses afloat. Pretty scary really, but hardly lining the pockets of the 1% of the 1%. Well, probably it does, but that's a drop in the bucket for what it's purpose is. Without those subsidies, those businesses would be decimated. A major contribution of those subsidies is to keep a lot of people employed. One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance. But the government doesn't make that money, the poor aren't making that money. It's coming from the middle and upper classes (or from floated checks).

The benefit of pulling back corporate welfare and giving it to social welfare is that when people start losing their jobs we'll be able to support them with traditional welfare. Well...until the money stops flowing in because the corporations can't fund their own subsidies much less the traditional subsidies. (read: Detroit, MI).

[JPhillips]

I didn't realize the NBC debate that's been cancelled by the RNC was to be hosted on Telemundo. I bet the shitshow that was likely to happen at that debate had more to do with cancelling it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance.

But one would be incorrect.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But one would be incorrect.

So the Corporate Subsidies aren't high enough?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But one would be incorrect.

Nice misleading graph. A 20% drop hidden in a graph with a slope of -1.

[JPhillips]

Then take the longer chart.

[Dutch]

Opens up wallet...okay, how much do you need?