2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

GOP panelists eager to scrap rule that helps Trump - POLITICO

 

[GoIrish41]

Neither is "starving" the government part of the Republican platform.

I guess you haven't heard ... the republicans want to radically reduce the size of government, and want to slash government programs to save money for their tax cuts on the rich.

Its been in all the papers for the past three decades.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Neither is "starving" the government part of the Republican platform.

No, but massive tax cuts that dramatically reduce revenue, but will supposedly kickstart private investment are. And slashing government programs (as GoIrish mentioned) is. The result is a "starving" of government, even if that's not the explicit platform statement.

 

[kmoose]

I guess you haven't heard ... the republicans want to radically reduce the size of government, and want to slash government programs to save money for their tax cuts on the rich.

Its been in all the papers for the past three decades.

The Republican platform is that:

Government should be smaller, smarter and more efficient

It doesn't want to "starve" government, it just wants to change it's diet so that it eats less without affecting it's overall health.

 

[RDU Irish]

Our government is the fattest victim of starvation in the history of the universe. Republicans are full of sh!t when they talk about reducing government and it pisses off a large portion of their "supporters". They will die on their sword for abortion but try to cut any spending anywhere and they will point to tax cuts in a heartbeat.

I also find it disingenuous to call tax cuts "spending".

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Our government is the fattest victim of starvation in the history of the universe. Republicans are full of sh!t when they talk about reducing government and it pisses off a large portion of their "supporters". They will die on their sword for abortion but try to cut any spending anywhere and they will point to tax cuts in a heartbeat.

I also find it disingenuous to call tax cuts "spending".

Those cowards... willing speak out against trivialities like infant genocide, but lacking the courage to confront the real evil of growing bureaucracy.

To be honest, I wish more Republicans would state their contempt for Christians so plainly. Would be very salutary for my co-religionists.

 

[NorthDakota]

Those cowards... willing speak out against trivialities like infant genocide, but lacking the courage to confront the real evil of growing bureaucracy.

Yeah, if the Republican Party dies on the Hill of Abortion, I'd be okay with it. No other issue is even close to that important.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I was actually going to vote for Rubio in the primaries, but he lost. Now it will be Kasich, which will basically be a lost vote, but I believe in him (despite what some of my Ohio acquaintances think of him) more than Cruz and WAY more than Trump, and I truly think he is the only one that can beat Hillary.

When it comes to the general, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Definitely will not vote for Trump, as I think he will be the biggest disaster in American history. And many of his followers make me sick. Can you believe that a month ago I had some trashy lady tell me that, because I didn't support Trump, that I must be an illegal alien? Seriously, to my face. Because my skin is brown and I have a Spanish last name and I am anti-Trump, she straight up told me to my face that I must be here illegally. In 2016!!! Keep in mind that she was clearly uneducated - even if she went to college she was dumb as a rock - and she was blaming everyone else for her problems, and my parents and I have done more with our opportunities here (my parents were born in Spain and the Dominican Republic, and both have their doctorates from US universities) in a month than she has her whole life. But this is the type of crap that I'm talking about with Trump and his sheep.

So it will either be abstain, go third party (and waste my vote), or vote for Hillary. Hillary is much more of a centralist than many Republicans give her credit for, so I don't know - if it keeps Trump out office people like myself might have to do something we normally wouldn't do. I'm keeping my options open, accept I know I won't vote for Trump.

Trashy lady, uneducated, dumb as a rock not even worthy of breathing the same air as your parents. man what a very "Trumpish" response. Oh wait she started it right? I guess you're just a 5 year old. Are you sure you're not a Cruz supporter with such hypocrisy.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Trashy lady, uneducated, dumb as a rock not even worthy of breathing the same air as your parents. man what a very "Trumpish" response. Oh wait she started it right? I guess you're just a 5 year old. Are you sure you're not a Cruz supporter with such hypocrisy.

Nope, not a Cruz supporter. And here's a newsflash for you...I'm not running for president. Trump the Chump is.

So I have no problem whatsoever calling that racist lady "trash". If you are a racist, you absolutely are trash and dumb as a rock. And since I'm not running for president, I have no problem letting 'er rip.

#fucktrump and his racist, dividing ways.

 

[kmoose]

Simple question: if Trump cares so much about AMERICANS and Americans having jobs, why has he consistently given thousands of jobs to foreigners? Why move his business to China? Is 9 billion not enough, so he had to go for 10 billion, at the expense of Americans who supposedly he suddenly cared so much about?

A simple question.

My guess is that he has to keep his business competitive. He's a businessman, and it's stupid for a businessman to willingly hire from a more expensive labor pool than his competitors are hiring from. That is one of the things he has been saying about his policy ideas: Because he knows the "tricks" that companies use to be able to hire cheaper foreign labor, he will be able to level the playing field by enacting rules that will make ALL companies have to utilize more American workers.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Our government is the fattest victim of starvation in the history of the universe. Republicans are full of sh!t when they talk about reducing government and it pisses off a large portion of their "supporters". They will die on their sword for abortion but try to cut any spending anywhere and they will point to tax cuts in a heartbeat.

I also find it disingenuous to call tax cuts "spending".

I think you're mixing up a lot of truths and ultimately making an untrue picture.

Our local governments aren't that "fat," and usually neither are our states. The federal government may be the fattest gal on the block and Republicans are disingenuous about cuts to the federal government, but they loooove kicking their Democratic opponents in major cities while the GOP has state house control.

Republicans are also the party with widespread pressure to oppose any new taxes. Anyone who is familiar with the concept of inflation realizes how absurd this stance is in the long-term. Their stance is doubly absurd considering how small state and local taxes are compared to federal taxes, and how much of those taxes go towards paying for everyday infrastructure and programs. The Republicans have a batch of governors running around slashing local government for a modest tax break to taxpayers while exposing their local governments to huge pressures (or shortfalls) so that they can win a federal job in which they can increase federal spending on their pet projects/departments. It's not governing.

 

[Legacy]

Yeah, if the Republican Party dies on the Hill of Abortion, I'd be okay with it. No other issue is even close to that important.

Take Texas as an example on the overall picture of poverty and abortion.

Texas abortions have dropped from 73,000 in 2011 to 54,000 in 2014. Between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women of ages 18-49 have tried to end their pregnancies themselves. The number is undoubtedly now rising.

Texas's family planning funding, which impacts over 1.77 million women of child-bearing age, has dropped from $111 million in 2010-11 to $43 million for 2014-15. 34,000 of those women have unintended births annually. 54% of pregnancies in Texas are unintended. Texas has one of the highest teen pregancy rates and one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates in the nation. Texas does not provide funding for perinatal care, including childbirth.

Yet, in addition to not providing family planning, to qualify for Medicaid and CHIP (formerly Women, Infant and Childrens food program) has to be much lower than their poverty level. Since they chose to not expand their Medicaid, they lost federal funding for many programs designed to assist these women and children. Leaner government?

The profile of women getting abortions in Texas are largely poor, single and minorities (mostly Hispanic) who live more than 150 miles from a clinic. Texas defines poverty at $11,880 annual income for one person. If she is working full-time, that is about $5.70 per hour. (Ohio and Michigan for instance define poverty level at above $16k - $7.88 per full-time hour.)

In Texas, 17.4% of people live in poverty, ranking 46th in the nation - one of the highest. Here are other statistics for poverty in Texas. (Click on state)

So, without recourse to family planning, with high rates of unintended and teen pregnancies and with increased restrictions on abortions, many more babies are born, mostly into poverty from which it will be very difficult to escape. In general, Texas rejects federal programs that will help these women and children or make it very hard to qualify.

Meanwhile, the Republican candidates would cut taxes on the rich. Ted Cruz would put federal poverty programs under state and local governments' control.

 

[kmoose]

I think you're mixing up a lot of truths and ultimately making an untrue picture....

Republicans are also the party with widespread pressure to oppose any new taxes.

Talk about making an untrue picture. It is only the most extreme of Republicans (read: Tea Party Republicans) that oppose any new taxes. It would be like trying to paint the entirety of the Democratic Party as Socialists, simply because of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

 

[pkt77242]

Talk about making an untrue picture. It is only the most extreme of Republicans (read: Tea Party Republicans) that oppose any new taxes. It would be like trying to paint the entirety of the Democratic Party as Socialists, simply because of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

LOL. Really?

According to this site
https://www.atr.org/pledge-database

48 Senators and 218 members of the US house are against any new taxes and have taken a pledge not to raise taxes.

Considering that there is 54 Republican Senators and 234 Republican Representatives, I would say that you are off by a long shot. So you are saying that just about every Republican at the Federal level is a Tea Party member?

Care to amend your statement?

 

[GoIrish41]

Talk about making an untrue picture. It is only the most extreme of Republicans (read: Tea Party Republicans) that oppose any new taxes. It would be like trying to paint the entirety of the Democratic Party as Socialists, simply because of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/091411-federalpledgesigners(1).pdf

238 Congressmen and 41 senators signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes. I didn't realize there were so many Tea Baggers.

 

[NorthDakota]

LOL. Really?

According to this site
https://www.atr.org/pledge-database

48 Senators and 218 members of the US house are against any new taxes and have taken a pledge not to raise taxes.

Considering that there is 54 Republican Senators and 234 Republican Representatives, I would say that you are off by a long shot. So you are saying that just about every Republican at the Federal level is a Tea Party member?

Care to amend your statement?

Perhaps they are only against new taxes for the time being?

 

[Ndaccountant]

LOL. Really?

According to this site
https://www.atr.org/pledge-database

48 Senators and 218 members of the US house are against any new taxes and have taken a pledge not to raise taxes.

Considering that there is 54 Republican Senators and 234 Republican Representatives, I would say that you are off by a long shot. So you are saying that just about every Republican at the Federal level is a Tea Party member?

Care to amend your statement?

Could be wrong, but I thought the discussion was focused on State and Local governments.

 

[wizards8507]

Are we really arguing of whether it's an "extreme" position to believe that taxes are high enough already? If you're generally in favor of lower taxes, why is it "extreme" to be against new taxes? That's a pretty mainstream position to take.

 

[kmoose]

Take Texas as an example on the overall picture of poverty and abortion.

Texas abortions have dropped from 73,000 in 2011 to 54,000 in 2014. Between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women of ages 18-49 have tried to end their pregnancies themselves. The number is undoubtedly now rising.

Texas does not provide family planning funding which impacts over 1.77 million women of child-bearing age. 34,000 of those women have unintended births annually. 54% of pregnancies in Texas are unintended. Texas has one of the highest teen pregancy rates and one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates in the nation.

Yet, in addition to not providing family planning, to qualify for Medicaid and CHIP (formerly Women, Infant and Childrens food program) has to be much lower than their poverty level. Since they chose to not expand their Medicaid, they lost federal funding for many programs designed to assist these women and children. Leaner government?

The profile of women getting abortions in Texas are largely poor, single and minorities (mostly Hispanic) who live more than 150 miles from a clinic. Texas defines poverty at $11,880 annual income for one person. If she is working full-time, that is about $5.70 per hour. (Ohio and Michigan for instance define poverty level at above $16k - $7.88 per full-time hour.)

In Texas, 17.4% of people live in poverty, ranking 46th in the nation - one of the highest.

So, without recourse to family planning, with high rates of unintended and teen pregnancies and with increased restrictions on abortions, many more babies are born, mostly into poverty from which it will be very difficult to escape. In general, Texas rejects federal programs that will help these women and children or make it very hard to qualify.

Meanwhile, the Republican candidates would cut taxes on the rich. Ted Cruz would return federal poverty programs to state and local governments to control.

Because of Texas' high level of illegal immigration, and the US's liberal stance on anchor babies......... many illegal alien women in Texas are having babies so that the government will not deport them. Because they refuse to learn the English language, government provided family planning is not feasible as it would require a bloated staff to provide services in a number of Latin languages. Because it is hard to find gainful employment without documentation, these aliens swell the poverty level in Texas. With over 1.5 million illegal aliens estimated to reside in Texas, it makes it hard for uneducated citizens to find those "shadow jobs"; the ones that pay cash, like housecleaning, babysitting/nanny, etc. This drives the number of people living in poverty even HIGHER.

But the fucking Republicans and their platform of "starving the government" are solely responsible....

 

[pkt77242]

Could be wrong, but I thought the discussion was focused on State and Local governments.

Fair, so

218 State Senators (incumbent) have signed the pledge
646 State House members (incumbents) have signed the pledge
9 active Governors have signed the pledge.

 

[GoIrish41]

Could be wrong, but I thought the discussion was focused on State and Local governments.

I'm not sure what gave you that impression, but I don't think that was the focus.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Could be wrong, but I thought the discussion was focused on State and Local governments.

It was related to what is common thinking in the Republican party as a whole vs. unfairly painting the party with a broad brush.

 

[kmoose]

It was related to what is common thinking in the Republican party as a whole vs. unfairly painting the party with a broad brush.

That was the way I interpreted the discussion as well. I am registered as Republican, but I am NOT opposed to paying taxes. I just want some small measure of reassurance that my tax money is being spent productively. Without that, I am hesitant to give the government MORE tax money.

 

[Legacy]

Because of Texas' high level of illegal immigration, and the US's liberal stance on anchor babies......... many illegal alien women in Texas are having babies so that the government will not deport them. Because they refuse to learn the English language, government provided family planning is not feasible as it would require a bloated staff to provide services in a number of Latin languages. Because it is hard to find gainful employment without documentation, these aliens swell the poverty level in Texas. With over 1.5 million illegal aliens estimated to reside in Texas, it makes it hard for uneducated citizens to find those "shadow jobs"; the ones that pay cash, like housecleaning, babysitting/nanny, etc. This drives the number of people living in poverty even HIGHER.

But the fucking Republicans and their platform of "starving the government" are solely responsible....

Can you provide any statistics or sources for your opinions?

Health care institutions, doctors offices and pharmacies already have Spanish-speakers for any questions and prescriptions. A state agency just administering a program may not need all those "bloated staff" for interpretation you suggest.

For instance, how are these illegal immigrants counted among poverty statistics if they do not interact with government agencies for programs? Are you saying that poverty levels would be much higher in Texas if these illegals were counted? "Shadow" poverty?

I imagine that at best about one-third of that 1.5 million are women of child-bearing age. If they are counted, at best that would be 500,000 illegal women of child-bearing age out of a total Texas population of 25 million (2%). At 17% of Texas residents living in poverty that would leave 15% who are not illegal women of child-bearing age - and probably less.

That doesn't seem to be "swelling the poverty level in Texas" - if they are not "shadow poverty".

 

[Legacy]

State Facts About Unintended Pregnancy: Texas

National Background and Context
Unintended pregnancy can have significant, negative consequences for individual women, their families and society as a whole. An extensive body of research links births resulting from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies to adverse maternal and child health outcomes and myriad social and economic challenges.(1,2) In 2011, the last year for which national-level data are available, 45% of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, including three out of four teen pregnancies; the U.S. unintended pregnancy rate was 45 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, a level significantly higher than that in many other developed countries.(3,4) If current trends continue, more than half of all women in the United States will experience an unintended pregnancy by the time they reach age 45. And economically disadvantaged women are disproportionately affected by unintended pregnancy and its consequences: In 2011, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes lower than the federal poverty level, at 112 per 1,000, was more than five times as high as the rate among women with incomes greater than 200% of poverty (20 per 1,000).
In any given year, the two-thirds of women in the United States at risk of unintended pregnancy who use contraceptives consistently throughout the year account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies; fully 95% of unintended pregnancies are attributable to the one-third of women who do not use contraceptives or who use them inconsistently.(5) Public programs—notably Medicaid and the Title X national family planning program—are central to women's access to affordable contraceptive services and supplies and their ability to use contraceptives effectively. In 2013, 8.3 million women received publicly funded family planning services; these services helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in approximately 1 million unplanned births and nearly 700,000 abortions (the remainder would have resulted in miscarriages).(6) Absent publicly funded family planning services, the numbers of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would be 60% higher than they currently are.(7)
Unintended pregnancies are also costly to the federal and state governments, resulting in $21.0 billion in public expenditures in 2010. Yet, these costs could have been considerably higher: By helping women avoid unintended pregnancies, publicly funded family planning services saved taxpayers $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every $1 spent.

The Republican platform offering a solution to unintended pregnancies and replacing family planning? Abstinence and abstinence education.

We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior.

 

[woolybug25]

Donald Trump: Ban abortions, punish women who get them - CNNPolitics.com

Republican Response:

Trump's Republican opponents quickly responded as well.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich told MSNBC, "Of course, women shouldn't be punished for having an abortion."

And Brian Phillips, a spokesman for Cruz, tweeted, "Don't overthink it: Trump doesn't understand the pro-life position because he's not pro-life."

Don't overthink it: Trump doesn't understand the pro-life position because he's not pro-life.

— Brian Phillips (@RealBPhil) March 30, 2016

 

[NorthDakota]

Donald Trump: Ban abortions, punish women who get them - CNNPolitics.com

Republican Response:

I'm confused, so if the procedure is made illegal...and a woman goes and kills her unborn child...she shouldn't be punished? The Donald says some wild stuff but I really don't see a problem with that statement whatsoever.

Can't really have something be a crime without a form of punishment associated with it.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/JohnKasich">@JohnKasich</a> reveals himself as a man who eats pizza with a fork. <a href="https://t.co/yGtM2ulySR">pic.twitter.com/yGtM2ulySR</a></p>— Will Bredderman (@WillBredderman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WillBredderman/status/715245250604830721">March 30, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


'Disqualified'! Did John Kasich just kill his campaign with this massive faux pas? [pic, gif] - twitchy.com

 

[NDinL.A.]

My guess is that he has to keep his business competitive. He's a businessman, and it's stupid for a businessman to willingly hire from a more expensive labor pool than his competitors are hiring from. That is one of the things he has been saying about his policy ideas: Because he knows the "tricks" that companies use to be able to hire cheaper foreign labor, he will be able to level the playing field by enacting rules that will make ALL companies have to utilize more American workers.

And I would say that is complete BS. I would say that means he clearly cares more about deepening his pockets than helping out American workers. There are PLENTY of businesses that make it in the United States. There are competitors of his that manufacture in the US. And if he didn’t make THAT much of a profit, who cares? He shoudn’t, considering how much he “cares” about this country and American jobs. He brags about his billions (we can’t know because he won’t release his tax info) in the same breath that he brags about hiring illegals in the same breath he boasts about bringing American jobs back lol.

The very fact that he uses those tricks, even to this day, shows exactly how little he truly cares about giving Americans jobs. It’s ridiculous and yet another sign he is completely full of shit.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I'm confused, so if the procedure is made illegal...and a woman goes and kills her unborn child...she shouldn't be punished? The Donald says some wild stuff but I really don't see a problem with that statement whatsoever.

Can't really have something be a crime without a form of punishment associated with it.

My problem with it is that he isn't even pro-life. He's pro-Donald. Since this month he is a Republican, he is trying to take a Republican stance on it. When he was a Democrat, he took a pro-choice stand.

Like I've said all along - the man had no backbone (nor a soul lol). He stands for nothing, just like the politicians he slams.