Can Trump beat Clinton?

[PN-G bamatex]

On March 19, 2016 at 1:52 PM, smitty said:

LOL!  Out of the mouths of babes!  Again -- when two socialist agree with you here, then that ought to tell you something. 

My God! Nappyroots is a socialist too! It's a conspiracy, y'all! Get your guns and make it for the town square! We gotta purge these folks from the population, and fast!

So, ready to answer those questions yet, smitty? Or are you just going to dole out more rhetoric? I couldn't help but notice you took a couple days to come back to this thread, but that didn't stop you from posting in others. What's the matter? Scared to face the truth?

[TxHoops]

On March 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM, PN-G bamatex said:

No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections.

So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans.

And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because...

*NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!!

Shocking! I know!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses.

I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds.

For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that?

*NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For

More shock!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue?

Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats?

Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe?

Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who...

SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY

... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who...

IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who...

LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY

... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is?

Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back?

But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage.

But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.

You will probably get more criticism but this is literally one of the best posts I have ever read on this site.  Well done.  

[Englebert]

 

I'll answer your questions. I'm not going to quote your post because it's full of childish pictures and formatting. To answer every one of the questions in summation: Hell yes Obama is the worst president in U.S. history.

Does Obama compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude. No, but Carter was doing what he though was good for America. Obama is much worse. He does what he thinks puts America on the path to be a more socialist nation. He doesn't like America's stature in the world and is doing his best to smack us down a notch.

Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? Yes. Lois Lerner come to mind. He sat back and did nothing. Fast & Furious! He exerted executive privilege over the documents. The military attired radicals stifling voter turnout. He watch Holder drop the charges and did nothing. Obamacare. He knew full well that we could not keep our existing healthcare plan or doctor, and knew the costs would rise, but lied and lied, and lied some more. (This is by no means a full list.)

As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? That is a bogus statement. The Civil War was coming no matter what Buchanan did.

As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? Yes. Sanctuary cities and executive amnesty. His executive orders have been more detrimental to the country than any other president in U.S. history. (This is by no means a full list.)

As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? FDR was doing what he though was right for the country. Obama knowingly is creating a racial divide...which is pure evil.

You had to try and pack the wrongs of many individual presidents to reach the level of Obama's wrongs...unsuccessfully I might add. Then you resort to personal attacks on not only Smitty but to the entire board. I don't know what happened to you lately, but I no longer feel any desire to read your posts.

 

 

[PN-G bamatex]

15 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You will probably get more criticism but this is literally one of the best posts I have ever read on this site.  Well done.  

Wait, are you a socialist too!? 

[TxHoops]

24 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Wait, are you a socialist too!? 

I am sure many on here would think so.

[PN-G bamatex]

55 minutes ago, Englebert said:

 

I'll answer your questions. I'm not going to quote your post because it's full of childish pictures and formatting. To answer every one of the questions in summation: Hell yes Obama is the worst president in U.S. history.

Does Obama compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude. No, but Carter was doing what he though was good for America. Obama is much worse. He does what he thinks puts America on the path to be a more socialist nation. He doesn't like America's stature in the world and is doing his best to smack us down a notch.

Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? Yes. Lois Lerner come to mind. He sat back and did nothing. Fast & Furious! He exerted executive privilege over the documents. The military attired radicals stifling voter turnout. He watch Holder drop the charges and did nothing. Obamacare. He knew full well that we could not keep our existing healthcare plan or doctor, and knew the costs would rise, but lied and lied, and lied some more. (This is by no means a full list.)

As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? That is a bogus statement. The Civil War was coming no matter what Buchanan did.

As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? Yes. Sanctuary cities and executive amnesty. His executive orders have been more detrimental to the country than any other president in U.S. history. (This is by no means a full list.)

As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? FDR was doing what he though was right for the country. Obama knowingly is creating a racial divide...which is pure evil.

You had to try and pack the wrongs of many individual presidents to reach the level of Obama's wrongs...unsuccessfully I might add. Then you resort to personal attacks on not only Smitty but to the entire board. I don't know what happened to you lately, but I no longer feel any desire to read your posts.

Before I actually answer, thank you. It's about time somebody on this site actually tried to discuss substance again.

Now, with that out of the way, you had the right intentions, but you answered the wrong questions. That particular set of questions was meant to be more rhetorical than anything else. The questions I really want smitty to answer are the ones about Cruz that were blown up, emboldened and underlined.

That having been said, since you've provided some substantive answers to the rhetorical questions, I'll return the courtesy.

We agree that Carter was more inept than Obama was. You extended that answer to say that Carter at least had his heart in the right place, and that you don't believe Obama does. I agree that Carter had his heart in the right place. I disagree that Obama doesn't. Is Obama way, way further to the left than I am? Yes. Is he further to the left than every prior US president? Philosophically, perhaps, but in terms of the policies he's implemented and the way he governs, no. He has one signature legislative achievement to his name: Obamacare, which doesn't even remotely resemble a single payer healthcare system and really has little to do with healthcare at all and more to do with health insurance, where the goal was simply to expand coverage. However ineffective and poorly designed it may be, I can hardly put Obamacare as far left on the political spectrum as the various welfare bills passed by LBJ and FDR.

In any case, that's tangential to the point I wish to make, which is that however far left Obama may be in regards to how he governs, there's no proof - not one scintilla - that he's motivated to destroy or weaken the country to any significant degree. He may have different opinions and different views than you or I do, but that alone is not enough to convict this man of some immoral desire to degrade the United States. At best, the argument could be made that he wishes to diminish our stature in the world with regard to our prominent role in world politics. That, too, is not proof of some desire to destroy the country; I vehemently disagree with it as a matter of policy, but I cannot deny - nor can anyone on this site rationally deny - that between the massive strain of our worsening domestic issues, growing tensions with rising powers such as Russia and China and the sheer extent to which we have over-extended ourselves on the world stage over the last decade and a half, we need a break from handling the rest of the world's problems for a while.

In regards to corruption, I'm not going to sit here and say that Obama's administration hasn't done some seriously corrupt things, but that is specifically why I raised the Grant comparison. Grant's rap sheet is a mile long, and makes Richard Nixon look like an angel. It runs the gambit from illegal alcohol distribution rings where profits were earmarked for reelection campaigns, to bribes paid to customs officers to sneak goods into the country for political backers, to salary raises for elected officials and appointees passed by Congress and signed by the president literally in secret, to framing innocent people for crimes to prevent them from blowing whistles, to illegal price fixing using Treasury resources that literally crashed the entire economy, just to name a few. I don't see where Obama's really done anything that approaches the volume or severity of those scandals. And while we're on this subject, we can expand to look at more than just Grant. Was Fast & Furious terrible? Absolutely. But is it worse than, say, selling missiles to Iran to come up with blood money for rebels in Nicaragua? Not really. Did Lois Lerner abuse her powers of office to target conservatives? Absolutely. Was that terrible? There's no doubt about it. But is it somehow worse than firing two attorneys general and a special prosecutor to stop a probe into a presidency that ordered political operatives to break into, ransack and bug the headquarters of the opposing political party? Doubtful.

The statement about Buchanan isn't "bogus." Was the Civil War inevitable? Conventional wisdom suggests it was. That doesn't mean it had to start in 1861. Buchanan was presented with multiple opportunities to, at the very least, carry out a delaying action. He responded with relative ambivalence.

In regards to the Jackson comparison, has Obama abused executive authority? In my opinion, yes. But that's also pretty commonplace in American presidencies. Most presidents try to carry their executive authority to the limit. It's the nature of the office, and the very reason checks and balances exist. The question is how bad Obama's use of executive authority is in the context of all American presidents. I picked Jackson specifically because he's the worst case scenario. I really don't get how you can take a bunch of executive orders that try to interpret existing law in a manner favorable to executive power to let a bunch of people who aren't supposed to be in the country stay here if they haven't committed any other crimes, and somehow think they're even comparable to, much less more serious than, an American president blatantly, openly and intentionally defying a United States Supreme Court ruling so he could carry out a genocidal campaign against an entire race. Obama's never done anything even remotely like that. And while we're at it, if we just want to compare executive orders to executive orders, Obama's on track to issue fewer executive orders by the time he leaves office than Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and Eisenhower and Truman - every post FDR president except Bush 41 and Kennedy.

Where the FDR comparison is concerned, once again, a difference of opinion does not equate to a difference of morality or character. There is no credible evidence - none, whatsoever - that Obama is intentionally trying to create some serious racial divide. You could make the argument that he's done a bad job of healing racial divides, and that he's inadvertently exacerbated them, and frankly, I would agree with that. But that doesn't mean he's trying to foment them, and there's still nothing he's done that even remotely approaches locking up an entire American racial demographic in internment camps, or fighting a war of extermination, as did the presidents who carried out the Indian Wars that you conveniently forgot to mention in your answer. Don't sit here and mistake your misunderstanding of a black guy's perspective on race as a sign of malice.

That brings me to your last statement. I didn't "have to" pack the wrongs of several presidents into one post to try and lessen the significance of Obama's wrongs. I could, if I wanted to, do a side-by-side comparison of Obama to one or a few presidents on an individual basis. But that would be lost here. The point that smitty and so many other angry, hard right wing activists out there are trying to make is not that Obama is worse than one or a few presidents, but rather that he's worse than all of them. It's an extreme argument - frankly, it's an overt attempt at polarizing political demonization. An extreme argument that makes extreme points requires a response that brings things back into perspective. The fact of the matter is that there is no objective measure by which you can say that Obama is the worst president in history. He may a bad president - I would argue that he is - but if we, as conservatives, as Americans, and as honest, ethical people, are going to effectively make our case, we have to make one with a healthy amount of perspective. We have to make one that is genuine, and not merely overblown rhetoric that makes mountains out of mole hills and tries to take things out of context. We have to be reasonable. The less reasonable we are, the less seriously people will take us. In exaggerating things to the extent to which smitty and others like him have done so, we undermine our own cause.

If you don't believe me, just wait until November, because you're going to learn this lesson the hard way when Hillary gets elected.

[Englebert]

I would prefer that you don't talk down to me. You don't have a clue as to my "understanding" of one black man's perspective on race. I am also not ignorant of the consequences of a Hillary presidency.

Now, to retort some of your answers.

Obama got Obamacare passed because that is as much as he could. A single payer plan would have never passed the House or Senate. I have absolutely no doubt that he would have signed a single payer healthcare bill if it was put on his desk. The dems are taking baby steps to get to the single payer plan. Period.

I didn't even mention his involvement in man-made global warming. If given the opportunity, he would (and has tried) to get bills through that would do substantial damage to this country's economy all under the fallacy of man-made global warming. That, along with healthcare, would surpass LBJ's and FDR's crap. Luckily, so far he has been stopped. So yes, I think his intentions are not in the best interest of this country.

I do believe he has done everything he can to destabilize and ruin our relationship with every country around the world. Not blatant enough to raise the ire of Dems and get him removed from office, but enough to cause what we have now. I believe it was definitely intentional on his part.

Now to the corruption. I guess you forgot about James Rosen and many others. So yes, along with the other things we know Obama and his administration has risen to and above the level of Grant. I'm sure there will be more information we might find out about later.

You stated that Buchanan's ambivalence laid the foundation for the Civil War, then answered my statement with the statement that the Civil War was indeed inevitable. So yes, your original statement was bogus. The foundation was already set for the Civil War.

Obama's executive order to give illegals amnesty is blatantly against his oath of office, and against the laws of the United States. You might not think illegal immigration is a big deal, but I think that it is the biggest burden on this country (with the interest payments on a 19 trillion dollar debt coming in a distant second). Obama is not trying kill a race of people, but he is actively trying to change to demographics of it. Also, I never mentioned the amount of executive orders. I know other presidents have issued more. It is the scope and scale of the ones he has signed that is so troubling.

FDR's interment camps and the Indian Wars were wrong, but done with the intention of strengthening this nation. Obama intentionally stoking racial divide is done with the intention of weakening this country.

I'll state it now. I think, without one iota of doubt, that Obama is the worse president to ever grace the oval office. I'm not stating that to invoke any political point, or to try and divide people. That is my opinion and I have the right to state it. I have never read anywhere that Smitty has any kind of divisive intentions. There is not one smidgen of proof. I find it highly ironic that you try to impugn me and Smitty and many others by trying to interpret our intentions, but refuse to believe or acknowledge that Obama's intentions are not morally sound and indisputable.

 

 

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I would prefer that you don't talk down to me. You don't have a clue as to my "understanding" of one black man's perspective on race. I am also not ignorant of the consequences of a Hillary presidency.

I would prefer that you not infer a tone in my writing that you don't know to be there.

And I reiterate my statement. I have watched every single one of Barack Obama's statements on race, from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown. I may not agree with his statements, but there is nothing there to imply that he is attempting to sow racial tension. To assume that there is, coincidentally, analogous to inferring tone in a written statement.

You may or may not know this, but I attended The University of Alabama. While I was there, I directly fought an organization that quite literally burned crosses on campus, spray-painted racial slurs on campus buildings, broke into campus offices in the middle of the night to defame the applications of black applicants for student positions with written racial slurs and actively opposed the integration of campus sororities. Until I have some kind of evidence that indicates you've seen something remotely similar, I'm not going to entertain a notion that you might understand a black man's perspective on race, particularly when you infer animus on the part of the nation's first black president simply because he's spoken out about racial issues.

Perhaps you should condemn Donald Trump, the man who's called for a ban on immigration from an entire class of people based solely on religion and characterized people of a particular nationality as a bunch of "rapists" and "thugs," with the same fervor if you're so concerned about national leaders sowing racial division.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

Obama got Obamacare passed because that is as much as he could. A single payer plan would have never passed the House or Senate. I have absolutely no doubt that he would have signed a single payer healthcare bill if it was put on his desk. The dems are taking baby steps to get to the single payer plan. Period.

The idea that something was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable. If he had been just a hair more adept, he could have passed much, much more. He may have taken a beating in the midterms, but that was already coming anyways. It wasn't that Obamacare was all he could get, it was that he had no idea what he was doing.

Now would he have signed a single payer healthcare system into law if the bill were put on his desk? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is simply that whatever his philosophy may be, he has not governed as far to the left as smitty likes to make him out to have done. Thank you for effectively making my point for me.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I didn't even mention his involvement in man-made global warming. If given the opportunity, he would (and has tried) to get bills through that would do substantial damage to this country's economy all under the fallacy of man-made global warming. That, along with healthcare, would surpass LBJ's and FDR's crap. Luckily, so far he has been stopped. So yes, I think his intentions are not in the best interest of this country.

He floated Cap & Trade and it went nowhere, and he's tried to get some pollution caps placed on a few other world powers through treaties. That's been about it. If anything, the pollution caps he tried to get in place with other countries would have helped level the playing field in terms of environmental regulation between the US and countries like China and India. That would have hurt their economy, not ours.

Even if all of that had passed, do you really think Obamacare, which literally just tried to expand health insurance coverage albeit through terrible legislation, and environmental regulation somehow compares with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the CCC, the WPA, the Department of Housing & Urban Development, and the Department of Health & Human Services? Because domestically, that's (not quite) all of "LBJ's and FDR's crap." Obamacare and Cap & Trade look puny compared to those. The bottom line is that, at least for their time, LBJ and FDR both governed much farther left than Obama has. They passed way more legislation; LBJ is, to date, the most successful president in history at getting his legislative agenda passed. Obama has never even been in range of passing either of them.

And once again, the mere fact that he attempted to pass legislation you don't agree with doesn't make him some evil overlord that's come to destroy the country. You're gonna need a little bit more than that to substantiate your accusations.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I do believe he has done everything he can to destabilize and ruin our relationship with every country around the world. Not blatant enough to raise the ire of Dems and get him removed from office, but enough to cause what we have now. I believe it was definitely intentional on his part.

He's intentionally tried to destabilize our relationship with every country around the world? You mean like Cuba? Because that relationship was so much stronger before he got into office.

Aside from a dicy relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, there is no evidence anywhere that Obama has conducted his foreign policy with malice either toward another country or the United States. I'm not going to act like his foreign policy is great - frankly, it's been a trainwreck in many areas - but failure does not equate to a culpable mental state. Much as I hated his apology tour, it's pretty hard to say that a guy who went around apologizing to a bunch of different countries was intentionally trying to hurt our relationship with them. It's hard to say he was trying to hurt our relationship with the Saudis when he bowed to their king, or that he was trying to ruin things with the Russians when they tried the reset.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

Now to the corruption. I guess you forgot about James Rosen and many others. So yes, along with the other things we know Obama and his administration has risen to and above the level of Grant. I'm sure there will be more information we might find out about later.

Actually, I limited myself to the examples that you provided, so technically, you forgot about James Rosen. But since you brought him up, however creepy it might be for a reporter's phone to get tapped, it wasn't Obama who did it. Holder did it, and he got a warrant first. You know what that means? Two words: "probable cause." Rosen's phone was tapped as part of a criminal investigation into a leak that involved classified information. At least so far as we know, it ended up being a dead end, but that still means that at some point, they had evidence that founded a reasonable belief that Rosen could be involved in criminal conduct.

I don't see how following the constitutional procedure for carrying out an investigation into criminal conduct involving classified information somehow constitutes a scandal merely because the subject of the warrant is a reporter. But hey, what do I know? I'm just some law school student. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a scandal. If it is, it still doesn't compare to a president sending political operatives to raid the headquarters of the opposing party in the middle of the night, or using Treasury resources to fix the price of gold and crashing the entire economy in the process, or selling missiles to a sworn enemy to finance a foreign rebellion.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

You stated that Buchanan's ambivalence laid the foundation for the Civil War, then answered my statement with the statement that the Civil War was indeed inevitable. So yes, your original statement was bogus. The foundation was already set for the Civil War.

"Laid the foundation for" as in "set the stage for." I never said he was solely responsible, I was just saying that it was his administration that accelerated the march toward civil war.

I reiterate, Buchanan had opportunities to, at the very least, delay the war. He chose to pass up on them in favor of an occasional fiery speech criticizing everybody in Congress. Mighty fine leadership right there.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

Obama's executive order to give illegals amnesty is blatantly against his oath of office, and against the laws of the United States. You might not think illegal immigration is a big deal, but I think that it is the biggest burden on this country (with the interest payments on a 19 trillion dollar debt coming in a distant second). Obama is not trying kill a race of people, but he is actively trying to change to demographics of it. Also, I never mentioned the amount of executive orders. I know other presidents have issued more. It is the scope and scale of the ones he has signed that is so troubling.

Don't tell me you're going to go with the "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" argument....

Obama's executive order didn't grant amnesty for anyone. The only thing it did was direct the Attorney General to prioritize illegal immigration cases that involved other crimes over those that did not in a broadstroke exercise of prosecutorial discretion, citing judicial efficiency concerns. It's an abuse of the prosecutorial discretion doctrine, I grant you, and one that will be struck down as such, but it's not some outright violation of the written text of any democratically enacted law, constitutional, statutory or otherwise.

I never said that I didn't consider illegal immigration a big deal. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

What I said was that I don't get how you think allowing people in the country illegally who haven't committed any other crime to stay here for the time being is somehow comparable to, much less more serious than, a genocidal campaign that removed an entire race from their native lands and resulted in the deaths of millions. I also said that I don't get how you think an executive order stretching a judicial doctrine beyond into legal gray area is somehow comparable, much less more serious than, to utterly defying a United States Supreme Court decision. You want to make Obama's executive order out to be in blatant defiance of the Constitution when it's not, and justify Andrew Jackson's heinous actions against the Cherokee - some of whom were my ancestors - based on "good intentions" when it shredded the Constitution.

And you really think an executive order that stretches the prosecutorial discretion doctrine is somehow bigger in scope and scale than Truman's order to seize a steel plant in defiance of Congress, or FDR's executive order to create those internment camps we've been talking about? Yeah, not buying that.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

FDR's interment camps and the Indian Wars were wrong, but done with the intention of strengthening this nation. Obama intentionally stoking racial divide is done with the intention of weakening this country.

So an inherently heinous action is all peachy-keen if it was done with the best of intentions?

There's an old saying I grew up with. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. You have no evidence that Obama is intentionally stoking racial tensions.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I'll state it now. I think, without one iota of doubt, that Obama is the worse president to ever grace the oval office. I'm not stating that to invoke any political point, or to try and divide people. That is my opinion and I have the right to state it.

You're right. It is your right to have that opinion. And as I said in the previous post, I'm appreciative of the fact that, unlike many on this site, you're at least willing to give reasons for that opinion. But I think it's an incredibly poorly founded opinion based on inferences, rushed conclusions and a selective reading of history. I think you'd do well to understand that a mere difference of opinion in politics does not equate to malicious intent.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

I have never read anywhere that Smitty has any kind of divisive intentions. There is not one smidgen of proof. I find it highly ironic that you try to impugn me and Smitty and many others by trying to interpret our intentions, but refuse to believe or acknowledge that Obama's intentions are not morally sound and indisputable.

Go back and read my post. I didn't try to interpret your intentions. I kept that focused on smitty, and by intention. And I'll come out and say it: I have every reason to believe that smitty's trying to divide people along political lines and inflame tempers based on political leanings. It's hard for me to believe otherwise when, in this thread alone, he's accused two posters of being "socialists" in a derisive manner merely because they don't always agree with him, and characterized me as too young to know anything. That's just the latest example in a long line of such behavior extending back five years now - we're talking about a man who literally won't capitalize the names of most Democrats and refers to the president as a "man-child." I can no longer deduce any other possible motivation.

But, like I said, it really doesn't matter. smitty's gotten his way. The establishment won't get this nomination. The party's gripped in chaos. We're going to go forth with either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the nominee. And you know what? We're going to get smashed in this election as a result. So, I really don't have to care. He and his ilk are gonna reap what they sow.

[smitty]

Contrary to the thought here of those with the "youth and inexperience" (thank you Reagan!), and like-minded socialist, the squashy middle is NOT where elections are won!  I'll set this challenge again, since we never got an answer to the same challenge before:  I challenge anyone to go to any library and find any books on "Great Moderates" in history.  We'll wait...

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

I would prefer that you not infer a tone in my writing that you don't know to be there.

And I reiterate my statement. I have watched every single one of Barack Obama's statements on race, from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown. I may not agree with his statements, but there is nothing there to imply that he is attempting to sow racial tension. To assume that there is, coincidentally, analogous to inferring tone in a written statement.

You may or may not know this, but I attended The University of Alabama. While I was there, I directly fought an organization that quite literally burned crosses on campus, spray-painted racial slurs on campus buildings, broke into campus offices in the middle of the night to defame the applications of black applicants for student positions with written racial slurs and actively opposed the integration of campus sororities. Until I have some kind of evidence that indicates you've seen something remotely similar, I'm not going to entertain a notion that you might understand a black man's perspective on race, particularly when you infer animus on the part of the nation's first black president simply because he's spoken out about racial issues.

Perhaps you should condemn Donald Trump, the man who's called for a ban on immigration from an entire class of people based solely on religion and characterized people of a particular nationality as a bunch of "rapists" and "thugs," with the same fervor if you're so concerned about national leaders sowing racial division.

The idea that something was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable. If he had been just a hair more adept, he could have passed much, much more. He may have taken a beating in the midterms, but that was already coming anyways. It wasn't that Obamacare was all he could get, it was that he had no idea what he was doing.

Now would he have signed a single payer healthcare system into law if the bill were put on his desk? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is simply that whatever his philosophy may be, he has not governed as far to the left as smitty likes to make him out to have done. Thank you for effectively making my point for me.

He floated Cap & Trade and it went nowhere, and he's tried to get some pollution caps placed on a few other world powers through treaties. That's been about it. If anything, the pollution caps he tried to get in place with other countries would have helped level the playing field in terms of environmental regulation between the US and countries like China and India. That would have hurt their economy, not ours.

Even if all of that had passed, do you really think Obamacare, which literally just tried to expand health insurance coverage albeit through terrible legislation, and environmental regulation somehow compares with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the CCC, the WPA, the Department of Housing & Urban Development, and the Department of Health & Human Services? Because domestically, that's (not quite) all of "LBJ's and FDR's crap." Obamacare and Cap & Trade look puny compared to those. The bottom line is that, at least for their time, LBJ and FDR both governed much farther left than Obama has. They passed way more legislation; LBJ is, to date, the most successful president in history at getting his legislative agenda passed. Obama has never even been in range of passing either of them.

And once again, the mere fact that he attempted to pass legislation you don't agree with doesn't make him some evil overlord that's come to destroy the country. You're gonna need a little bit more than that to substantiate your accusations.

He's intentionally tried to destabilize our relationship with every country around the world? You mean like Cuba? Because that relationship was so much stronger before he got into office.

Aside from a dicy relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, there is no evidence anywhere that Obama has conducted his foreign policy with malice either toward another country or the United States. I'm not going to act like his foreign policy is great - frankly, it's been a trainwreck in many areas - but failure does not equate to a culpable mental state. Much as I hated his apology tour, it's pretty hard to say that a guy who went around apologizing to a bunch of different countries was intentionally trying to hurt our relationship with them. It's hard to say he was trying to hurt our relationship with the Saudis when he bowed to their king, or that he was trying to ruin things with the Russians when they tried the reset.

Actually, I limited myself to the examples that you provided, so technically, you forgot about James Rosen. But since you brought him up, however creepy it might be for a reporter's phone to get tapped, it wasn't Obama who did it. Holder did it, and he got a warrant first. You know what that means? Two words: "probable cause." Rosen's phone was tapped as part of a criminal investigation into a leak that involved classified information. At least so far as we know, it ended up being a dead end, but that still means that at some point, they had evidence that founded a reasonable belief that Rosen could be involved in criminal conduct.

I don't see how following the constitutional procedure for carrying out an investigation into criminal conduct involving classified information somehow constitutes a scandal merely because the subject of the warrant is a reporter. But hey, what do I know? I'm just some law school student. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a scandal. If it is, it still doesn't compare to a president sending political operatives to raid the headquarters of the opposing party in the middle of the night, or using Treasury resources to fix the price of gold and crashing the entire economy in the process, or selling missiles to a sworn enemy to finance a foreign rebellion.

"Laid the foundation for" as in "set the stage for." I never said he was solely responsible, I was just saying that it was his administration that accelerated the march toward civil war.

I reiterate, Buchanan had opportunities to, at the very least, delay the war. He chose to pass up on them in favor of an occasional fiery speech criticizing everybody in Congress. Mighty fine leadership right there.

Don't tell me you're going to go with the "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" argument....

Obama's executive order didn't grant amnesty for anyone. The only thing it did was direct the Attorney General to prioritize illegal immigration cases that involved other crimes over those that did not in a broadstroke exercise of prosecutorial discretion, citing judicial efficiency concerns. It's an abuse of the prosecutorial discretion doctrine, I grant you, and one that will be struck down as such, but it's not some outright violation of the written text of any democratically enacted law, constitutional, statutory or otherwise.

I never said that I didn't consider illegal immigration a big deal. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

What I said was that I don't get how you think allowing people in the country illegally who haven't committed any other crime to stay here for the time being is somehow comparable to, much less more serious than, a genocidal campaign that removed an entire race from their native lands and resulted in the deaths of millions. I also said that I don't get how you think an executive order stretching a judicial doctrine beyond into legal gray area is somehow comparable, much less more serious than, to utterly defying a United States Supreme Court decision. You want to make Obama's executive order out to be in blatant defiance of the Constitution when it's not, and justify Andrew Jackson's heinous actions against the Cherokee - some of whom were my ancestors - based on "good intentions" when it shredded the Constitution.

And you really think an executive order that stretches the prosecutorial discretion doctrine is somehow bigger in scope and scale than Truman's order to seize a steel plant in defiance of Congress, or FDR's executive order to create those internment camps we've been talking about? Yeah, not buying that.

So an inherently heinous action is all peachy-keen if it was done with the best of intentions?

There's an old saying I grew up with. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. You have no evidence that Obama is intentionally stoking racial tensions.

You're right. It is your right to have that opinion. And as I said in the previous post, I'm appreciative of the fact that, unlike many on this site, you're at least willing to give reasons for that opinion. But I think it's an incredibly poorly founded opinion based on inferences, rushed conclusions and a selective reading of history. I think you'd do well to understand that a mere difference of opinion in politics does not equate to malicious intent.

Go back and read my post. I didn't try to interpret your intentions. I kept that focused on smitty, and by intention. And I'll come out and say it: I have every reason to believe that smitty's trying to divide people along political lines and inflame tempers based on political leanings. It's hard for me to believe otherwise when, in this thread alone, he's accused two posters of being "socialists" in a derisive manner merely because they don't always agree with him, and characterized me as too young to know anything. That's just the latest example in a long line of such behavior extending back five years now - we're talking about a man who literally won't capitalize the names of most Democrats and refers to the president as a "man-child." I can no longer deduce any other possible motivation.

But, like I said, it really doesn't matter. smitty's gotten his way. The establishment won't get this nomination. The party's gripped in chaos. We're going to go forth with either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the nominee. And you know what? We're going to get smashed in this election as a result. So, I really don't have to care. He and his ilk are gonna reap what they sow.

So bamatex, how should this election have gone, in your opinion, and who should be the nominee.

 

If this person were popular enough to win the nominee, you would think they could beat someone like Trump within their own party while most couldn't get out of single digits in votes.

 

Why won't the establishment back Cruz and why did they dislike the Tea Party so much when it was gaining so much popularity.

 

I'll give my opinion...the establishment is threatened with losing their power and influence because if Trump or the Tea Party succeeds, they are afraid too much power will be taken from them and returned to the people...God forbid.

 

Trump is gathering support from many of the same folks that supported the Tea Party, those that are ticked off by the poor handling and candidate choices the GOP have backed (and gotten thumped with)...however, I do realize he is getting much support from the reality TV crowd.

 

Am I a Trump fan…heck no.  He sounds like a fifth grader when he starts talking about folks in his speeches and there is nothing Presidential about him.

 

But the bottom line is the GOP should realize they are the cause of Trump’s (and the Tea Party's) success and it is their fault that we are in this mess.

 

So back to my original question…who, in your opinion, can beat Trump and why AND why have they been so unsuccessful within their own nominee process?

 

Please keep answers as short as possible, and no illustrations required...lol.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

9 hours ago, Englebert said:

 

I'll answer your questions. I'm not going to quote your post because it's full of childish pictures and formatting. To answer every one of the questions in summation: Hell yes Obama is the worst president in U.S. history.

Does Obama compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude. No, but Carter was doing what he though was good for America. Obama is much worse. He does what he thinks puts America on the path to be a more socialist nation. He doesn't like America's stature in the world and is doing his best to smack us down a notch.

Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? Yes. Lois Lerner come to mind. He sat back and did nothing. Fast & Furious! He exerted executive privilege over the documents. The military attired radicals stifling voter turnout. He watch Holder drop the charges and did nothing. Obamacare. He knew full well that we could not keep our existing healthcare plan or doctor, and knew the costs would rise, but lied and lied, and lied some more. (This is by no means a full list.)

As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? That is a bogus statement. The Civil War was coming no matter what Buchanan did.

As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? Yes. Sanctuary cities and executive amnesty. His executive orders have been more detrimental to the country than any other president in U.S. history. (This is by no means a full list.)

As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? FDR was doing what he though was right for the country. Obama knowingly is creating a racial divide...which is pure evil.

You had to try and pack the wrongs of many individual presidents to reach the level of Obama's wrongs...unsuccessfully I might add. Then you resort to personal attacks on not only Smitty but to the entire board. I don't know what happened to you lately, but I no longer feel any desire to read your posts.

 

 

Agree...I don't agree with what many Presidents have done, but unlike Obama, they were doing it because they loved their country and were doing what they thought was the right thing.

 

[Hagar]

I am not on unlimited access.  I only have 10 GB's (whatever they are) a month.  Do any of you have any idea how mad my wife gets if I go over?  

[Bobcat1]

So the answer to my thread was just a yes or no  

[LumRaiderFan]

48 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

So the answer to my thread was just a yes or no  

Lol...good luck with that on here.

[Englebert]

9 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

I would prefer that you not infer a tone in my writing that you don't know to be there.

And I reiterate my statement. I have watched every single one of Barack Obama's statements on race, from Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown. I may not agree with his statements, but there is nothing there to imply that he is attempting to sow racial tension. To assume that there is, coincidentally, analogous to inferring tone in a written statement.

You may or may not know this, but I attended The University of Alabama. While I was there, I directly fought an organization that quite literally burned crosses on campus, spray-painted racial slurs on campus buildings, broke into campus offices in the middle of the night to defame the applications of black applicants for student positions with written racial slurs and actively opposed the integration of campus sororities. Until I have some kind of evidence that indicates you've seen something remotely similar, I'm not going to entertain a notion that you might understand a black man's perspective on race, particularly when you infer animus on the part of the nation's first black president simply because he's spoken out about racial issues.

Perhaps you should condemn Donald Trump, the man who's called for a ban on immigration from an entire class of people based solely on religion and characterized people of a particular nationality as a bunch of "rapists" and "thugs," with the same fervor if you're so concerned about national leaders sowing racial division.

The idea that something was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable. If he had been just a hair more adept, he could have passed much, much more. He may have taken a beating in the midterms, but that was already coming anyways. It wasn't that Obamacare was all he could get, it was that he had no idea what he was doing.

Now would he have signed a single payer healthcare system into law if the bill were put on his desk? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is simply that whatever his philosophy may be, he has not governed as far to the left as smitty likes to make him out to have done. Thank you for effectively making my point for me.

He floated Cap & Trade and it went nowhere, and he's tried to get some pollution caps placed on a few other world powers through treaties. That's been about it. If anything, the pollution caps he tried to get in place with other countries would have helped level the playing field in terms of environmental regulation between the US and countries like China and India. That would have hurt their economy, not ours.

Even if all of that had passed, do you really think Obamacare, which literally just tried to expand health insurance coverage albeit through terrible legislation, and environmental regulation somehow compares with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the CCC, the WPA, the Department of Housing & Urban Development, and the Department of Health & Human Services? Because domestically, that's (not quite) all of "LBJ's and FDR's crap." Obamacare and Cap & Trade look puny compared to those. The bottom line is that, at least for their time, LBJ and FDR both governed much farther left than Obama has. They passed way more legislation; LBJ is, to date, the most successful president in history at getting his legislative agenda passed. Obama has never even been in range of passing either of them.

And once again, the mere fact that he attempted to pass legislation you don't agree with doesn't make him some evil overlord that's come to destroy the country. You're gonna need a little bit more than that to substantiate your accusations.

He's intentionally tried to destabilize our relationship with every country around the world? You mean like Cuba? Because that relationship was so much stronger before he got into office.

Aside from a dicy relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, there is no evidence anywhere that Obama has conducted his foreign policy with malice either toward another country or the United States. I'm not going to act like his foreign policy is great - frankly, it's been a trainwreck in many areas - but failure does not equate to a culpable mental state. Much as I hated his apology tour, it's pretty hard to say that a guy who went around apologizing to a bunch of different countries was intentionally trying to hurt our relationship with them. It's hard to say he was trying to hurt our relationship with the Saudis when he bowed to their king, or that he was trying to ruin things with the Russians when they tried the reset.

Actually, I limited myself to the examples that you provided, so technically, you forgot about James Rosen. But since you brought him up, however creepy it might be for a reporter's phone to get tapped, it wasn't Obama who did it. Holder did it, and he got a warrant first. You know what that means? Two words: "probable cause." Rosen's phone was tapped as part of a criminal investigation into a leak that involved classified information. At least so far as we know, it ended up being a dead end, but that still means that at some point, they had evidence that founded a reasonable belief that Rosen could be involved in criminal conduct.

I don't see how following the constitutional procedure for carrying out an investigation into criminal conduct involving classified information somehow constitutes a scandal merely because the subject of the warrant is a reporter. But hey, what do I know? I'm just some law school student. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a scandal. If it is, it still doesn't compare to a president sending political operatives to raid the headquarters of the opposing party in the middle of the night, or using Treasury resources to fix the price of gold and crashing the entire economy in the process, or selling missiles to a sworn enemy to finance a foreign rebellion.

"Laid the foundation for" as in "set the stage for." I never said he was solely responsible, I was just saying that it was his administration that accelerated the march toward civil war.

I reiterate, Buchanan had opportunities to, at the very least, delay the war. He chose to pass up on them in favor of an occasional fiery speech criticizing everybody in Congress. Mighty fine leadership right there.

Don't tell me you're going to go with the "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" argument....

Obama's executive order didn't grant amnesty for anyone. The only thing it did was direct the Attorney General to prioritize illegal immigration cases that involved other crimes over those that did not in a broadstroke exercise of prosecutorial discretion, citing judicial efficiency concerns. It's an abuse of the prosecutorial discretion doctrine, I grant you, and one that will be struck down as such, but it's not some outright violation of the written text of any democratically enacted law, constitutional, statutory or otherwise.

I never said that I didn't consider illegal immigration a big deal. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

What I said was that I don't get how you think allowing people in the country illegally who haven't committed any other crime to stay here for the time being is somehow comparable to, much less more serious than, a genocidal campaign that removed an entire race from their native lands and resulted in the deaths of millions. I also said that I don't get how you think an executive order stretching a judicial doctrine beyond into legal gray area is somehow comparable, much less more serious than, to utterly defying a United States Supreme Court decision. You want to make Obama's executive order out to be in blatant defiance of the Constitution when it's not, and justify Andrew Jackson's heinous actions against the Cherokee - some of whom were my ancestors - based on "good intentions" when it shredded the Constitution.

And you really think an executive order that stretches the prosecutorial discretion doctrine is somehow bigger in scope and scale than Truman's order to seize a steel plant in defiance of Congress, or FDR's executive order to create those internment camps we've been talking about? Yeah, not buying that.

So an inherently heinous action is all peachy-keen if it was done with the best of intentions?

There's an old saying I grew up with. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. You have no evidence that Obama is intentionally stoking racial tensions.

You're right. It is your right to have that opinion. And as I said in the previous post, I'm appreciative of the fact that, unlike many on this site, you're at least willing to give reasons for that opinion. But I think it's an incredibly poorly founded opinion based on inferences, rushed conclusions and a selective reading of history. I think you'd do well to understand that a mere difference of opinion in politics does not equate to malicious intent.

Go back and read my post. I didn't try to interpret your intentions. I kept that focused on smitty, and by intention. And I'll come out and say it: I have every reason to believe that smitty's trying to divide people along political lines and inflame tempers based on political leanings. It's hard for me to believe otherwise when, in this thread alone, he's accused two posters of being "socialists" in a derisive manner merely because they don't always agree with him, and characterized me as too young to know anything. That's just the latest example in a long line of such behavior extending back five years now - we're talking about a man who literally won't capitalize the names of most Democrats and refers to the president as a "man-child." I can no longer deduce any other possible motivation.

But, like I said, it really doesn't matter. smitty's gotten his way. The establishment won't get this nomination. The party's gripped in chaos. We're going to go forth with either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the nominee. And you know what? We're going to get smashed in this election as a result. So, I really don't have to care. He and his ilk are gonna reap what they sow.

I do know the tone in your writing. You were being condescending in two particular sentences. You stated that I have a misunderstanding of one black man's (Obama) perspective and that I will "learn this lesson the hard way when Hillary gets elected." You have no clue as to what I have learned, will learned or refuse to learn. And to state those sentences the way you did is condescending by the majority of people's standards. Furthermore, how in the hell do you think that witnessing (I'm guessing) some acts of racism give you any more perspective than anyone else's on Obama's view of race. I have no idea why you felt the need to share your experiences at Alabama. I suppose you were trying give credence to your perspective, and again, not having a clue as to my experiences. If you want to compare credentials, I'll go along. I have a Master's Of Science degree in Psychology and have done consulting work for over 30 different companies in the last 22 years. The majority of that work has been close involvement with management and HR departments, including hiring and firing practices, dispute resolution (the majority involving racial complaints), and diversification of the labor force. None of which gives me any more clue about Obama's view of race, nor does your personal experiences. 

When you said Smitty was trying to divide people you also included the phrase "along with your other super conservative buddies". I took that as a blanket statement regarding the majority of posters on this site. I could be wrong and I'll begrudging (based on the tone of that post) give you the benefit of the doubt.

I glanced over your last post this morning during a court recess, and one of your statements stuck out: "The idea that something [Obamacare] was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable". You stated that if he was more adept he could have gotten much more. I don't know where you were or how well you kept up with the proceedings, but my statement that "was all Obama could get" is factual. He and Pelosi had to plea, beg, threaten, and make side deals to persuade some House Democrats to vote for the monstrosity. They also had to release the bill on the day the vote took place so no one could read it. It was common knowledge among liberal and conservative media that Obama was stretching as far as he could for something that would pass. In fact, most pundits thought that Obamacare would not pass. If you think he could have gotten much more then you are in the slimmest portion of the minority, possibly alone.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because basically I don't see us getting anywhere. You have not swayed me in any way that Obama is not the worst president in U.S. history, and I doubt I swayed you in any way.

For Bobcat1, I have no clue if Trump can beat Hillary.

[PN-G bamatex]

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So bamatex, how should this election have gone, in your opinion, and who should be the nominee.

I've already given my opinion on this, but the prime candidate would have been Marco Rubio. You've got a real conservative that's been successful in a swing state, a likeable guy with outstanding favorability ratings and cross-party appeal, a strong policy wonk that hasn't lost touch with the average person, and an Hispanic with an incredible story and a charismatic delivery all rolled into one. That's general election gold, and the poll numbers back it up.

In the alternative, Scott Walker would have been a great candidate. He shares all of the characteristics I outlined for Rubio minus the Hispanic heritage and immigrant story. I'll also take Kasich based on his poll numbers, record, swing state delivery and experience. Bush and Christie would have been acceptable, though definitely not my first choice. Nobody else really had a chance in the general.

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

If this person were popular enough to win the nominee, you would think they could beat someone like Trump within their own party while most couldn't get out of single digits in votes.

No you wouldn't. The primary and the general election are two entirely different animals. If your premise is that someone who's capable of winning the general should also be capable of winning their primary, then Ronald Reagan couldn't have won the 1976 general election simply because he lost to Gerald Ford in the primary, and none of those "real conservatives" y'all love so much, like Newt Gingrich, could have won the 2012 general because they couldn't beat out Mitt in the primary.

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Why won't the establishment back Cruz and why did they dislike the Tea Party so much when it was gaining so much popularity.

The establishment didn't dislike the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party that existed in 2010 was the Republican party's dream. I considered myself a Tea Party member back then. If it was still what it was back then, I would still consider myself one. But it's not anymore. It's gone from a conservative dream to an American nightmare. There's a much longer answer that elaborates on why that is, but in an attempt to adhere to your request for short replies, I'll simply leave you with two words: Donald Trump.

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I'll give my opinion...the establishment is threatened with losing their power and influence because if Trump or the Tea Party succeeds, they are afraid too much power will be taken from them and returned to the people...God forbid.

Trump is gathering support from many of the same folks that supported the Tea Party, those that are ticked off by the poor handling and candidate choices the GOP have backed (and gotten thumped with)...however, I do realize he is getting much support from the reality TV crowd.

Am I a Trump fan…heck no.  He sounds like a fifth grader when he starts talking about folks in his speeches and there is nothing Presidential about him.

But the bottom line is the GOP should realize they are the cause of Trump’s (and the Tea Party's) success and it is their fault that we are in this mess.

This isn't merely some "threat to establishment power." This is a threat to basic common sense, the conservative movement and American freedom. Trump is gaining support from Tea Party supporters, yes, but don't think for a second that it's just because "the establishment has failed to act" or because they think Trump somehow buys into the conservative philosophy. I could go into more detail about this, but there's a great study that covers this, so I'm just going to post a link to it.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Regardless of our difference of opinion on Cruz, all of this anger at the establishment that's being fomented by this kind of rhetoric, whether intentional or not, is not helping him. It's just increasing this phenomenon, and sending more voters who are susceptible to it into Donald Trump's camp.

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So back to my original question…who, in your opinion, can beat Trump and why AND why have they been so unsuccessful within their own nominee process?

For the GOP nomination? At this point, nobody. If the rest of the party had consolidated behind a single candidate earlier in the primary, or if some of our candidates had joined in the calls for him to drop out after his first few rounds of racist and sexist statements instead of going into an extended bromance with him in the hopes of one day appealing to his voters, we might have been able to stop him. Too late now.

For the general election? Oh, make no mistake, the Democrats could put up a yellow dog and he'd win. Liberals, moderates, independents and a pretty strong crop of conservatives aren't going to vote for this guy, and the numbers all confirm it. The only way I could possibly see him winning is if a disaster on par with the Great Depression or 9/11 strikes between now and election day.

[PN-G bamatex]

49 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I do know the tone in your writing. You were being condescending in two particular sentences. You stated that I have a misunderstanding of one black man's (Obama) perspective and that I will "learn this lesson the hard way when Hillary gets elected." You have no clue as to what I have learned, will learned or refuse to learn. And to state those sentences the way you did is condescending by the majority of people's standards. 

Dude, if you think that's condescending, you've lived a charmed life.

49 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Furthermore, how in the hell do you think that witnessing (I'm guessing) some acts of racism give you any more perspective than anyone else's on Obama's view of race. I have no idea why you felt the need to share your experiences at Alabama. I suppose you were trying give credence to your perspective, and again, not having a clue as to my experiences. If you want to compare credentials, I'll go along. I have a Master's Of Science degree in Psychology and have done consulting work for over 30 different companies in the last 22 years. The majority of that work has been close involvement with management and HR departments, including hiring and firing practices, dispute resolution (the majority involving racial complaints), and diversification of the labor force. None of which gives me any more clue about Obama's view of race, nor does your personal experiences. 

A Master's in Psych! Wonderful! You might know my mother.

Racial complaints in an employment complex are seldom credible, and only infrequently plausible, in my (admittedly inferior) experience. As I'm sure you know, when people's jobs get thrown around, people get hotheaded, and accusations get made that aren't always substantiated.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen in an employment context, but it does mean that employment is by no means fully representative of the state of race relations in a their full breadth or in the social context. We've got wholesale regions of this country where racial slurs are still used in everyday conversation on every rung of the social ladder like they're nothing. I went to a highly ranked institution of higher learning that has the largest enrollment of National Merit students of any public university in the country, and it's still half segregated. One of my closest friends there walked out to his car in the student union parking lot one night and found a note taped to his windshield calling him the N-word and threatening to hang him if he ran for student government office. The black experience in America is a very real thing, and it's something that us white guys (mostly white, in my case) don't easily understand. The mere fact that a black president is willing to speak out about it when the subject comes up in national conversation does not mean he's stoking racial flames. The man's trying to express what these people feel and go through.

49 minutes ago, Englebert said:

When you said Smitty was trying to divide people you also included the phrase "along with your other super conservative buddies". I took that as a blanket statement regarding the majority of posters on this site. I could be wrong and I'll begrudging (based on the tone of that post) give you the benefit of the doubt.

For the most part, that wasn't a reference to people on this site besides smitty, although there are a few others I could pick out that would be right up there with him. That was more aimed at people off the site. Think locals like Phillip Klein and a couple of national bigwigs that are cut from the same cloth like Katrina Pierson. They operate in very much the same way.

49 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I glanced over your last post this morning during a court recess, and one of your statements stuck out: "The idea that something [Obamacare] was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable". You stated that if he was more adept he could have gotten much more. I don't know where you were or how well you kept up with the proceedings, but my statement that "was all Obama could get" is factual. He and Pelosi had to plea, beg, threaten, and make side deals to persuade some House Democrats to vote for the monstrosity. They also had to release the bill on the day the vote took place so no one could read it. It was common knowledge among liberal and conservative media that Obama was stretching as far as he could for something that would pass. In fact, most pundits thought that Obamacare would not pass. If you think he could have gotten much more then you are in the slimmest portion of the minority, possibly alone.

I wasn't confining that statement to Obamacare, or even the general healthcare issue. What I mean by that is that he could have taken a lot of action on a lot more issues if he had been more skilled. The biggest blunder of the first two years of the Obama administration was that he did nothing on immigration, and every last insider, Democrat and Republican, will tell you that. He missed a golden opportunity that he could have taken full advantage of. He only talked about climate change and got nothing done there.

We're arguing on different terms. You seem to think that Obamacare was the fullest extent of his potential. What I'm telling you is that his potential was far greater, but his lack of skill became a limiting factor. More adept presidents have been much better at legislative multi-tasking. We've talked a lot about LBJ and FDR. They were both masters at this. Reagan was pretty good at it, and Bush 43 showed was great at it when he was a governor and initially showed real promise in that arena during the early days of his presidency, but kind of got derailed by 9/11.

It works out to our advantage. Cap & Trade is bad policy, and I would much rather have the Republicans doing immigration reform because they'll strike a better balance. The point is merely that, with both houses of Congress controlled by the same party, a more skilled president could have been much more productive.

[PN-G bamatex]

7 hours ago, smitty said:

Contrary to the thought here of those with the "youth and inexperience" (thank you Reagan!), and like-minded socialist, the squashy middle is NOT where elections are won!  I'll set this challenge again, since we never got an answer to the same challenge before:  I challenge anyone to go to any library and find any books on "Great Moderates" in history.  We'll wait...

Yeah! Everyone who disagrees with me is either young and stupid or a socialist! Rock on!

Ready to answer those questions I posed yet? I'll wait.

[Englebert]

Again, by most people standards you were condescending. Deny all you want.

I really don't know or care what you think you know about racial issues. It does cut both ways. I have many stories on racism and reverse racism. I also know many, in fact, the majority of people that don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe it is you that has lived the charmed life. But your life experiences do not afford you any depth of knowledge on what shaped Obama's views. You are the one that felt the need to have to justify Obama's views based on personal experiences. I just reciprocated. And again, your personal experiences do not give you any more insight on Obama's personal experiences, and neither does mine. To say you can understand Obama's views and I only have a misunderstanding of his views is condescending. You have no clue as to what I have read, heard, or researched about the man.

I agree Obama could have done a lot more, especially in the first two years when he had both houses. In fact, I think everyone agrees with that. You made the statement enclosed in the paragraph of Obamacare. So I assumed you were talking about Obamacare. If you were referring to a larger scope it would have been helpful if you would have relayed that information.

And don't get me started on Cap & Trade, better known as the fallacy of man-made global warming. The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade. Calling it a bad policy is like saying a big pile of crap is just a little distasteful.

[baddog]

My left thumb is numb from scrolling.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:

I've already given my opinion on this, but the prime candidate would have been Marco Rubio. You've got a real conservative that's been successful in a swing state, a likeable guy with outstanding favorability ratings and cross-party appeal, a strong policy wonk that hasn't lost touch with the average person, and an Hispanic with an incredible story and a charismatic delivery all rolled into one. That's general election gold, and the poll numbers back it up.

In the alternative, Scott Walker would have been a great candidate. He shares all of the characteristics I outlined for Rubio minus the Hispanic heritage and immigrant story. I'll also take Kasich based on his poll numbers, record, swing state delivery and experience. Bush and Christie would have been acceptable, though definitely not my first choice. Nobody else really had a chance in the general.

No you wouldn't. The primary and the general election are two entirely different animals. If your premise is that someone who's capable of winning the general should also be capable of winning their primary, then Ronald Reagan couldn't have won the 1976 general election simply because he lost to Gerald Ford in the primary, and none of those "real conservatives" y'all love so much, like Newt Gingrich, could have won the 2012 general because they couldn't beat out Mitt in the primary.

The establishment didn't dislike the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party that existed in 2010 was the Republican party's dream. I considered myself a Tea Party member back then. If it was still what it was back then, I would still consider myself one. But it's not anymore. It's gone from a conservative dream to an American nightmare. There's a much longer answer that elaborates on why that is, but in an attempt to adhere to your request for short replies, I'll simply leave you with two words: Donald Trump.

This isn't merely some "threat to establishment power." This is a threat to basic common sense, the conservative movement and American freedom. Trump is gaining support from Tea Party supporters, yes, but don't think for a second that it's just because "the establishment has failed to act" or because they think Trump somehow buys into the conservative philosophy. I could go into more detail about this, but there's a great study that covers this, so I'm just going to post a link to it.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Regardless of our difference of opinion on Cruz, all of this anger at the establishment that's being fomented by this kind of rhetoric, whether intentional or not, is not helping him. It's just increasing this phenomenon, and sending more voters who are susceptible to it into Donald Trump's camp.

For the GOP nomination? At this point, nobody. If the rest of the party had consolidated behind a single candidate earlier in the primary, or if some of our candidates had joined in the calls for him to drop out after his first few rounds of racist and sexist statements instead of going into an extended bromance with him in the hopes of one day appealing to his voters, we might have been able to stop him. Too late now.

For the general election? Oh, make no mistake, the Democrats could put up a yellow dog and he'd win. Liberals, moderates, independents and a pretty strong crop of conservatives aren't going to vote for this guy, and the numbers all confirm it. The only way I could possibly see him winning is if a disaster on par with the Great Depression or 9/11 strikes between now and election day.

We'll never know but no way Rubio would have ever won the general.

As far as the Tea party and the GOP, the long time establishment leaders in the GOP for the most part have never been fans of the Tea Party...it is a threat to them because they sure can't have any rabble rousers in there that won't compromise (give the Dems 90% of what they want)

There is no way I can ever prove this (or you disprove it) but the establishment GOP would rather have Clinton win than Trump or Cruz...at least if Clinton wins, the good old boy system stays in place and they simply have to have a smaller piece of the pie for a while, and if they keep pushing out guys like McCain and Romney, it may be a good while.

[PAMFAM10]

What exactly has Obama done to divide this country racially. "If I had a son he'll look like Trayvon." What has he done to destroy race relationships. Was he suppose to encourage campfire kumbayas. Someone please explain this theory to me.

[PN-G bamatex]

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

Again, by most people standards you were condescending. Deny all you want.

Whatever.

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

I really don't know or care what you think you know about racial issues. It does cut both ways. I have many stories on racism and reverse racism. I also know many, in fact, the majority of people that don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe it is you that has lived the charmed life. But your life experiences do not afford you any depth of knowledge on what shaped Obama's views. You are the one that felt the need to have to justify Obama's views based on personal experiences. I just reciprocated. And again, your personal experiences do not give you any more insight on Obama's personal experiences, and neither does mine. To say you can understand Obama's views and I only have a misunderstanding of his views is condescending. You have no clue as to what I have read, heard, or researched about the man

Okay, fine, let's assume just for the sake of argument that I don't know anything about what shaped about Obama's views. What is it that you've "read, heard and researched" about the man that gives you such powerful insight into his background? Because if you're going to sit here and act like he's only discussing racial issues to stoke the flames of racial divide, you better have a whole lot of real, tangible, credible evidence to back it up. Given the fact that you have, thus far, done absolutely nothing to substantiate those accusations despite the number of times I've called you out for not presenting any evidence to support them, I really don't think that you do. And I think it's pretty hypocritical - or perhaps "condescending" - to act like you're the expert on Obama's real intentions when you haven't presented any evidence to sustain your point, but then turn around and act like I'm just projecting personal experiences on Obama's racial commentary.

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

I agree Obama could have done a lot more, especially in the first two years when he had both houses. In fact, I think everyone agrees with that. You made the statement enclosed in the paragraph of Obamacare. So I assumed you were talking about Obamacare. If you were referring to a larger scope it would have been helpful if you would have relayed that information.

I apologize. I assumed you could fully account for all of the context, like the numerous examples of legislation of varying types that addressed a wide variety of issues passed by LBJ and FDR which I cited as examples of presidential productivity in the exact same paragraph. I guess I figured you would read the post instead of glancing it over. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

3 hours ago, Englebert said:

And don't get me started on Cap & Trade, better known as the fallacy of man-made global warming. The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade. Calling it a bad policy is like saying a big pile of crap is just a little distasteful.

"The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade."

Let that sink in for a minute.

"The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade."

So the man should go to prison for proposing a particular policy in the context of the duties of his office, and for expressing support for that policy both within the context of those powers and under his God-given, constitutionally enshrined Freedom of Speech, simply because you think it's a really, really bad idea?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're elevating a difference of opinion to the level of criminal activity. That's the exact kind of polarizing, demonizing rhetoric that I've been railing against smitty for.

That statement is wholly lacking in perspective, objectivity and reason. This is why American political discourse has reached such harrowing levels of toxicity. It's also why it's becoming harder and harder for the average American voter to take our party seriously.

A difference of opinion is not a grave moral crime against the country.

[PN-G bamatex]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We'll never know but no way Rubio would have ever won the general.

Yes way Rubio would have won the general.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

In the polls taken over the last four months or so, Rubio runs 15-4-1 against Clinton. Of her four wins, Clinton never wins by more than three points, whereas Rubio's largest spread is a whopping nine points. I should also note that all four of Clinton's wins and the tie came from the same three polling institutions, which have traditionally favored Democrats.

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

As far as the Tea party and the GOP, the long time establishment leaders in the GOP for the most part have never been fans of the Tea Party...it is a threat to them because they sure can't have any rabble rousers in there that won't compromise (give the Dems 90% of what they want)

No, that's not the case. For the first two years of the Tea Party's existence, the entire GOP was very receptive to it, from the evangelicals to the establishment to the libertarians to the moderates to the business community. There is not some over-arching view in the party that the Tea Party is some threat to the power of any particular party faction; in fact, it was the Tea Party movement that put the party back in control of the House, which amplifies the influence of every party faction. You're assuming there's a view when the evidence directly contradicts it and I can tell you from personal experience that it's just not there.

The threat the Tea Party poses is not simply to the establishment wing or even to specific individuals like Mitch McConnell. The threat the Tea Party poses is to the entire party. It's the Tea Party's chicanery - that very "no compromise" attitude that you so adroitly pointed out - that makes the "party of no" tag line so effective. The people the Tea Party elect to office never propose a real solution beyond a rhetorical goal absent a concrete plan to get there (kinda sounds like that wall, doesn't it?), and just take up time spewing hot air. Nothing gets done, and the Democrats have an easy time making the Republicans out to be fools. All the divisive, inflammatory rhetoric coming from the Tea Party, as I've pointed out a thousand times, doesn't help, either. The Tea Party is just shooting itself in the foot and, for whatever reason, is too blind to realize it. Unfortunately, it's making the rest of the party bleed with it.

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There is no way I can ever prove this (or you disprove it) but the establishment GOP would rather have Clinton win than Trump or Cruz...at least if Clinton wins, the good old boy system stays in place and they simply have to have a smaller piece of the pie for a while, and if they keep pushing out guys like McCain and Romney, it may be a good while.

You don't have to prove it to me. I don't want Trump to be president, and as much as it burns me to my core that I have to live with this, I would take Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, and I'm not even part of the establishment wing.

Yeah, you heard that right. The lifelong Republican who owns a dozen or so guns, hates taxes, wouldn't mind if Texas was its own country, worked for a Republican congressman, served as president of a Tea Party student outreach group in undergrad and is about to take the vice presidency in a conservative law student org, would prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. I won't vote for her - if it's between the two of them and no independent GOP candidate jumps in, I'm voting for the libertarian candidate - but I'll take her over Trump. Why? Because she's not racist maniac that uses Hitleresque, rhetorical demagoguery to sow anger, encourage division on social lines, play on people's fears and destroy every philosophical facet of the republic we live in.

But hey, like I said, it doesn't matter. We've already lost this election. Hillary Clinton is your next president. And when 2016 is in the books and the tombstone for GOP chances is erected in the graveyard of failed presidential campaigns, "They did it to themselves." will be the Tea Party's epitaph. It really is a crying shame.

[westend1]

What is going on here?  actual discussion?  This hasn't happened in about 7 years.