Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 08, 2016, 01:04:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92592 Posts in 2299 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10

 71 
 on: February 05, 2016, 02:45:58 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by DougMacG
(from Cruz thread)
"I agree with you.  
You tell the 49% you won't get anything if the payers cannot keep and invest most of their money.  Somebody HAS to pay for them.  Also don't you want for yourself or your children to have the opportunity to get wealthy?  Or to be doomed to a life of working for the State?

So how is Marco going to do this?

He seems to understand that you can't lead from the Senate or accomplish anything by winning the GOP but not the general election.  He is the messenger, not the message.  We happen to believe we have facts and reason on our side and I have been saying he is the best at introducing and arguing those ideas with the persuadable.

Look at it this way.  Bernie is the sensation of college kids who have never had the other side of it introduced to them.  Out of those young voters, let's say that half of them are little marching Marxists who aren't going to listen to anything else and half of them are young skulls of mush who went through public and private schools and colleges without hearing anything but leftism.  Over a 4-6 month general election campaign, if Rubio can persuade one in five of just those who really are open minded and mean well, that is a 20 point swing in that group.  If we believe Quinipiac currently at 43-43, he doesn't need quite that many more to win.

Also keep in mind that with Rubio's anti-Castro passion, arguing against statism and socialism is something he has long contemplated and excelled at.

On the other side of it, Bernie has no chance at moving Rubio voters over to socialism.  Our side has already examined that alternative and passed on it.

If Hillary is the nominee, the campaign gets convoluted with all their personal failings as well as with their skill at distraction and changing the subject.   In that case, Rubio has been the most disciplined at staying on message.

The next question is how do you get real change through the Senate which mostly requires 60 votes?  First is to not fire up a backlash against Republicans in the election and second is to start winning the hearts and minds of the people toward the cause and agenda and go past the officeholders to the constituents to bear pressure like Reagan did.  A landslide would be helpful and so are these reports of 0.7% growth with college grads living in parents basements past the age of 30.

This won't be easy.

 72 
 on: February 05, 2016, 01:53:48 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Body-by-Guinness
Expanding upon Crafty's post above, the recent ruling and its "strict scrutiny" standard is bad juju for folks like Mikey Bloomberg who want to smoke and mirror the second amendment out of existence:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/big-2a-win-4th-circuit-applies-strict-scrutiny-to-maryland-gun-control-law/

 73 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:41:08 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by ccp
Can i cheat and pick the someone who has the best qualities, and none of the worst qualities of all 3?

One can dream, no?

 74 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:36:59 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Death spiral.

I am too old to volunteer to help establish the Mars colony.  (and not wealthy enough)

 75 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:35:21 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
On Drudge the 'shock" that Rachel Maddow Hugged Hillary.

What is the surprise?

Isn't that what lesbians do?   wink

 76 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:33:32 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
"And your other point is paramount, how do you get the '49% who pay nothing' to see the necessity of lowering rates on the productive to grow the economy?  It has to be based on a positive belief in the future.  If you are young (or female or black or Hispanic or gay or ?) that an opportunity-oriented society is better than Soviet style of dictated benefits society (that is collapsing) and if you are old, that you feel that same way for the opportunities and future for your children and grandchildren."

I agree with you. 

You tell the 49% you won't get anything if the payers cannot keep and invest most of their money.  Somebody HAS to pay for them.  Also don't you want for yourself or your children to have the opportunity to get wealthy?  Or to be doomed to a life of working for the State?

So how is Marco going to do this?

 77 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:31:10 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Trump down 9 points nationwide, Rubio up 8.  If the field could narrow, Rubio runs away with Republicans, not just leads in general election matchups.

Given the choices of just Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz who would you support for the Republican nomination for President?
Trump 33% Rubio 34% Cruz 25%

Who would you prefer as the Republican candidate if you had to choose between just Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio? Cruz 40% Rubio 46% ....between just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump? Cruz 47% Trump 41%

Between just Marco Rubio and Donald Trump?
Rubio 52% Trump 40%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdf
PPP Feb 2-3, 2016

 78 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:24:29 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Keep in mind this rip is the MSM taking on their own coronated Queen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/4-words-on-goldman-sachs-that-hillary-clinton-is-going-to-really-regret/

 Four Words about Goldman Sachs that Hillary is going to regret

Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN's Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent —empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

The line is, well, bad.  More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her.

Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure there is a great answer, politically speaking, for Clinton on the question of her acceptance of huge speaking fees from all sorts of groups — from colleges and universities to investment banks. She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?

[Clinton, Sanders talk meaning of 'progressive' in first one-on-one debate]

The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination, a front-runner facing a more-serious-than-expected challenge from a populist liberal who has made your ties to Wall Street a centerpiece of his campaign.

So, yes, Clinton was in something of a box when Cooper put the Goldman question to her. But, let's not let her off so easily. Are you telling me that Clinton and her team had no idea that the speaking fees, which Bernie Sanders put into an ad in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, might come up in the course of an hour-long conversation in New Hampshire?

If so (and I don't believe this to be the case), that's total political malpractice. Rather, I think what happened is something similar to Clinton's reaction during a testy exchange a few months ago with reporters over her email server: She got annoyed and freelanced.

 
The server and the speaking fees are two story lines that Clinton clearly believes are ridiculous.  Sure, she shouldn't have used only a private email address and server while serving as secretary of state. But that error was a small one, not the sort of huge deal that Republicans and the media are trying to turn it into. And, sure, $675,000 is a lot of money to take for speeches but she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. It's not out of the ballpark that someone with that résumé would be compensated at such high levels.


That's what Clinton truly believes. And she's not good — as she made plain with her answer last night — at hiding her disdain/skepticism when questioned about it. But, politics is all about playing up your strengths and taking attention away from your weaknesses. The amount of money Hillary and Bill Clinton made from speech-giving — more than $25 million in 16 months — is a weakness. Period. It undercuts the idea that she is a committed fighter for wage equality or a voice of the 99 percent trying to level the playing field with the one percent

 79 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:10:14 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Here are some current income tax rates over at the countries that decided to rely more heavily on the VAT tax:

Sweden       56.90%
Portugal      56.50%
Denmark     55.60%
Belgium       53.70%
Netherlands  52.00%
Spain           52.00%

As G M might say, luckily that could never happen here.

 80 
 on: February 05, 2016, 12:02:56 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

Just like in foreign policy, a world not led by a strong USA is not a well-led world.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!