Thanatos 2,847 Posted November 13, 2015 Hillary loses to every single major GOP nominee except for Trump in the latest polls, Eagle. You're also still assuming she even wins her own nomination. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted November 20, 2015 People really want to elect this dude? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BucD+ 648 Posted November 20, 2015 People are so fed up with politicians that some of them are letting it completely blind them. Some of them are just racist pieces of shit and some are just fucking stupid. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted November 20, 2015 GOP group plans most aggressive anti-Trump campaign yet - POLITICO A pro-Kasich super PAC is on a mission to take down the real estate mogul once and for all. By ALEX ISENSTADT 11/19/15 07:06 PM EST Updated 11/19/15 09:48 PM EST John Kasich has attacked Donald Trump relentlessly in debates and now his super PAC is planning to invest $2.5 million in the most aggressive takedown of the poll leader yet — on behalf of an increasingly anxious GOP establishment. The attack, according to a blueprint shared with POLITICO, will play out over the next two months on radio, TV, mail and online in New Hampshire. Strategists with the pro-Kasich group, called New Day for America, say the budget for the anti-Trump campaign is likely to grow. The offensive comes as some in the GOP are beginning to plot how to combat the real estate mogul and entertainer, who many are convinced would essentially deliver the White House to Democrats if he were the nominee. In launching the effort, the group hopes to position Kasich, who has lagged in the Republican contest and is searching for momentum, as a central Trump antagonist. “We will be the tip of the spear against Trump,” said Matt David, a spokesman for the super PAC. Rather than go after Trump for his business dealings or his past support for liberal causes, as some of his opponents have tried to do, the super PAC will depict Trump as someone who would be a deeply ineffective commander-in-chief and ill-suited for the demands of the Oval Office. about damn time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sarge+ 3,436 Posted November 20, 2015 "The super PAC will depict Trump as someone who would be a deeply ineffective commander-in-chief and ill-suited for the demands of the Oval Office." It's sad that we need an organized plan to get people to realize this. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vin+ 3,121 Posted November 20, 2015 The next Repub. debate should be fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Hooray! We now have conclusive 100% evidence that Rand Paul is a bigot. No covering this up in "he just wants the states to decide!" Rand Paul is a bigot. https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/03/rand-paul-bill-banning-refugees Edited December 4, 2015 by blotsfan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 4, 2015 I'm curious. What exactly does a refugee have to do currently to get into the country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 4, 2015 Assuming that Rand Paul hates all muslims because he doesn't want to bring in economically taxing refugees is foolish. We don't have the means to support more people in this country due to the lack of middle-class jobs. Why should we bring in more cheap labor to bog us down even more? I'm starting to like Trump a little more each day. From an economic standpoint his plans are generally sound, and he is the most beneficial for people of a low income out of any republican candidate. He's also very smart as a negotiator and knows how to get things done around the world. He's the biggest asshole to ever run for president, and his idea of building a wall is questionable, but he's a damn good candidate. Also starting to like Rubio for his leadership and focus on the family. You shouldn't have to go back to work nearly immediately after having a child. You also should be able to find cheaper care options so that when you do finally go back to work you don't spend half your income on a babysitter or daycare. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BucD+ 648 Posted December 4, 2015 I'm more concerned with Rand Paul spreading misinformation and flat out lies... “The Boston Bombers came here as refugees,” Paul said. “We coddled them, we gave them free stuff, we gave them free housing, and yet they decided to attack us.” ...but... The Tsarnaev family came to the U.S. from Kyrgyzstan on temporary tourist visas, The Boston Globe reported in 2013. They then applied for and were granted asylum, claiming that they faced oppression as ethnic Chechens. Applying for asylum once in the U.S. is a different process than applying for refugee status from outside the country. Because they arrived in the U.S. on tourist visas, they were not subject to the extensive 18-to-24 month process for refugee resettlement. The Tsarnaev family did receive government assistance. Anzor Tsarnaev, the father of the family, suffered from was diagnosed with PTSD and mental health issues after he was beaten with a steel pole outside of a Brighton restaurant in 2009. He received food stamps and assistance for the next couple of years, the Globe reported. @ Than... This is a fact-check on something Jeb said, but in it, they provide a pretty thorough explanation of the process... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-it-takes-almost-year-refugee-be-processed/ http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/ http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/index.htm The average time of the process is 18-24 months, but some have taken upwards of 3 years. Also, if you're interested, here is the process explained by an actual refugee. Yeah she's a Bosnian refugee, but the Syrian refugee process is even more extensive than this... http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/18/9756590/refugee-process-us Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 4, 2015 The only part of that that's misinformation is the usage of refugee vs asylum seeker. He's not blatantly lying. Vox is a shit source BTW. One of the most over-the-top liberal sources around nowadays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BucD+ 648 Posted December 4, 2015 The only part of that that's misinformation is the usage of refugee vs asylum seeker. He's not blatantly lying. Vox is a shit source BTW. One of the most over-the-top liberal sources around nowadays. That is a pretty big part. No? Pretty big difference. Did you read the Vox link? All they did is collect the tweets tweeted by the woman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 4, 2015 Didn't read the Vox source since I'm on my phone. If that's the case a series of tweets is even less reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 4, 2015 For the record, I have read those tweets before on FB. It's a very narrow perspective for bringing in refugees. We don't know the process from country to country (which no doubt changes) and if the timing is correct she came over when the whole Bosnia mess was still going on. It'd take a long time and a lot of money to bring Syrians over if we do extensive background checks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 4, 2015 The fact of the matter is that a lot more Americans die by being killed by other Americans than refugees. Rand Paul and Donald Trump are just doing more of their fearmongering- much like Rand's attempted linkage of Bernie Sanders to Joseph Stalin- because that's just how their campaigns are run. That's why neither of them is fit to be anywhere near the White House. Don't play on people's fears, actually tell them the facts. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 4, 2015 I disagree with some of the fearmongering bullshit. It's definitely over the top for some repubs in a hope to win votes. The refugees still strain the economy, which should be the repub focus. The issue with linking refugees to terrorism is that terrorism can't be cemented down to one particular group. The refugees have some, likely. America already has some. Europe already has some. We should focus on using intelligence we have gathered to prevent attacks, not building walls. (Which opens up everyone bitching about NSA but personally I have no issue with it if it's used properly.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 4, 2015 But see that's my point. If the reason Rand Paul doesn't want refugees in is because it strains our economy, focus on that. He's clearly just playing on people's fears and trying to link them to terrorists. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) I disagree with some of the fearmongering bullshit. It's definitely over the top for some repubs in a hope to win votes. The refugees still strain the economy, which should be the repub focus. The issue with linking refugees to terrorism is that terrorism can't be cemented down to one particular group. The refugees have some, likely. America already has some. Europe already has some. We should focus on using intelligence we have gathered to prevent attacks, not building walls. (Which opens up everyone bitching about NSA but personally I have no issue with it if it's used properly.) That's debatable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/10/the-big-myth-about-refugees/ But beyond the upfront costs of processing and settling refugees, the perceived burden of refugees on a host economy may not be as significant as it seems. “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment,” says Michael Clemens, a senior fellow who leads the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank. Clemens cites a study by Kalena Cortes, a Texas A&M professor who followed refugee and non-refugee immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Cortes found that it took the refugees a few years to get on their feet. But soon the refugees were out-earning non-refugee immigrants, and adding more value to the economy each year than the entire original cost of receiving and resettling them. Edited December 6, 2015 by Phailadelphia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 6, 2015 The specialization point was very good. New jobs can open up with specialization, and boost the economy. However, I'd argue that there are more low-skilled workers than those who are highly skilled and opening up new businesses. The job market is already overinflated right now due to tech advancements and an older working class that can't retire. Personally I'd prefer to keep Americans in the jobs that are available over trying to add more people to the pile. Until the burden of older workers is gone or we find a way to get past the introduction of new technology that takes jobs we need to keep on pace with reducing working-age citizens in the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted December 8, 2015 Donald Trump is no longer funny. It is far past time for the Republicans to denounce this man for what he is: a racist, misogynist, anti-Muslim bigot who has zero business leading any nation, much less the United States. Yesterday Donald Trump called for a complete ban on all Muslims entering the country. Today, he doubled down on that statement and also said he wanted to make a "database" for all Muslims that were currently in the country. This man is evil. He is no longer a joke. He is the front-runner in the polls. Still. After all this, he still leads in the polls for the Republican party. There appear to be people, or at least one person, on this board who is considering voting for one of the most evil men to run for President in the last century. This is not an exaggeration, this is not a joke, and Trump is no longer someone to laugh at. It's not funny anymore guys. Trump is legitimately invoking comparisons to Hitler at this point. People in the Middle East look at this bigot leading the polls, the frontrunner of one of two political parties, and they think ISIS has a point about how the US is a terrible nation that needs to be brought down. No one in their right mind should be even considering voting for Trump and we should be doing everything we can to try to get through to others who are considering voting for him. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted December 8, 2015 Make America Great Again. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted December 9, 2015 I'm starting to think he might have a shot at the republican nomination, but I still can't imagine him actually winning the election. I still don't think he wants to be president though. He loves running his businesses and he wouldn't be allowed to do any of that if he's president. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted December 9, 2015 He can run the nation like a business. Time to 'lay off' the Muslims and make America great again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted December 9, 2015 This is without a doubt the greatest thing that will come from the 2016 republican presidential race. https://www.facebook.com/edm/videos/917561544980169/ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
