2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Wild Bill]

A good head for money? This guy is a disaster for the Republican party. Let's start with the "good head for money" part. This guy has filed for bankruptcy 4 freaking times. Do any of you know ANYONE who's filed for bankruptcy once? Much less 4 times. What Trump does is play the system. Very well I may add. Most ppl that file for bankruptcy do it as a last resort. And when they do. They don't have millions of dollars protected because of it. Most have a couple thousand if that. When he does this. He still has the money to go out and invest again.
So he does. And when he sees that his investment is falling flat. He files. R&R.
Most common folks don't have that luxury afforded to them.

This is the same guy. Who not long ago. Was a huge fan of BO and Hillary. All of a sudden. He can't stand them both. Trump is a conman and as of now. The GOP base is his next target.

Can anyone tell me what his policy on anything is? Just a matter of time before he brings up Benghazi. The guy will make sure the Latino vote stays strongly democratic for generations. If he gets the nod.

He's a proponent of the bankruptcy code.

 

[GoIrish41]

He's a proponent of the bankruptcy code.

And against comprehensive immigration reform.

 

[Cackalacky]

woolybug25 must have taken his internet tough guy viagra pill today. Lol

 

[GoIrish41]

I also suspect he is for the death penalty because he is killing me with that orange combover.

 

[ACamp1900]

woolybug25 must have taken his internet tough guy viagra pill today. Lol

... While wearing the clothes his mother picked out for him....

 

[woolybug25]

woolybug25 must have taken his internet tough guy viagra pill today. Lol

Mainlining that shit, homie.

Cut it with pixie stix and i'm snorting it through a $100 bill...

 

[Cackalacky]

Mainlining that shit, homie.

Cut it with pixie stix and i'm snorting it through a $100 bill...

 

[phgreek]

I didn't realize you were such an astute student of the law. Obviously you are so smart that you understand what she did better than every prosecuting attorney in the country. Since none of them are willing to even attempt charging her for any of the crimes you so clearly articulate.

and it's "a lot" not "alot"...

answer the question...what is she then?

you know she admitted to having an email server at her home which contained an account from which she conducted all official government business. You also know she admitted to "wiping it clean". The notion she won't be prosecuted is far from any legal analysis and one of politics PERIOD.

Are you saying having a server at her home, conducting government business from it, and then wiping it clean at her discretion is not illegal?

Title 18, USC, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Section 1924 states:

“(a) Whoever, being an officer . . . of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, . . . becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . .
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.”

Assume that Secret But Unclassified material, the bulk of State Department official transmissions, is actually classified information, as the definition of “classified information” in section 1924 is markedly broader than the common understanding of the term. For criminal purposes under section 1924,, classified information is more broadly defined as all “information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning . . . foreign relations” and certainly could encompass e-mails discussing State Department business.

Thus, classified information is not restricted to information formally categorized as, e.g. “Secret” or “Top Secret.” Another definition is contained in section 1.4(d) of Executive Order 13526, a 2009 directive governing classification of government information. Classifiable information, according to the Executive Order, is information relating to “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States” which “could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security.” All of these definitions also encompass the Secretary’s e-mails."


Thanks alot...for your pointers regarding a lot. No I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.

 

[phgreek]

Seriously, you're not a freaking lawyer. Quit acting like you know definitively that she broke specific laws, because you don't. You're spouting off some BS that you have compiled together into a theory. If you were even half as right as you demand us all to acknowledge, she would have been charged with the crime that you are CERTAIN she committed.

Sheesh.

that was a commentary on what I THINK A LAWYER WOULD BE WILLING TO DO. I know more than my share.

I Don't demand anything...I explain my point of view...you disagree. I think Mrs Clinton engaged in "illegal behavior" (disclaimer: in no way saying criminal as that apparently requires legal proceedings, and has no use in the english language other than having been convicted of a crime) of a very serious nature, the seriousness of which is underscored by recent happenings at OPM...and I find it incredible so many would vote for her. We got people whacked out over 15% liking Trump...and we got this disaster at what %? SHEESH!

 

[woolybug25]

Thanks alot...for your pointers regarding a lot. No I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.

Reading and Reading Comprehension are two separate things...

If it was as clear as you claim to understand from your selected section above; then why did the House Select Intelligence Committee, a committee controlled by Republicans I may add, not find any of her actions illegal? Even after two years...

But i'm sure that Obama birth certificate is a fake, right?

 

[phgreek]

Reading and Reading Comprehension are two separate things...

If it was as clear as you claim to understand from your selected section above; then why did the House Select Intelligence Committee, a committee controlled by Republicans I may add, not find any of her actions illegal? Even after two years...

But i'm sure that Obama birth certificate is a fake, right?

If my memory serves me...I believe members have said they thought what she did with the server was illegal. BUT...who would actually need to prosecute a legal finding? Shrug.

So this is where I think it will sit...I think it will be used as a political weapon to beat on Mrs. Clinton into 2016. Not sure thats a great use of time...but I can see that happening.

ah yes the Birther thing...
I went to the records people in HI, and it turns out they've adopted Mrs. Clinton's records management philosophy, so all Birth Certificates in the state of HI were deleted...AAAND Donald trump is suspicious...its a lock...Fake.

Because reading the plain language of CFR and comparing it to testimony is just like the birther argument...LMAO. Eh, I'll admit it, its always funny when people use that Birther thing.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Think I am going to start a Spurrier for President write in candidacy. He obviously has the press part of the job down. Anyone with me?

 

[connor_in]

Reading and Reading Comprehension are two separate things...

If it was as clear as you claim to understand from your selected section above; then why did the House Select Intelligence Committee, a committee controlled by Republicans I may add, not find any of her actions illegal? Even after two years...

But i'm sure that Obama birth certificate is a fake, right?

I have no problem with President Obama's birth certificate. But I DEMAND you to post yours here along with your social security card to prove who you are

 

[RDU Irish]

So Trump gets 17% in a poll and people think he is a real candidate? Those things are all name recognition at this point and nobody of any political intellect really thinks that buffoon will make it far in this process. He is in it for an ego trip and to promote his celebrity, nothing else. He is dangerous to the field because many candidates will be forced to argue with an idiot and they will all be drug down with him. First one to call him a race baiting, windbag caricature of himself in a debate gets the biggest bump of them all.

If I understand the Hillary discussion, Wooly must be adamant that OJ didn't kill anybody but he is a criminal. Good luck voting for that hag. If anyone can exploit their career in government to build a $100M+ net worth I think they may not be the best "reform" or "change" candidate on the ballot. No way a complete sell-out, whore lets big business run government. She will surely be looking out for the little guy.

 

[BGIF]

It's funny how many fearful the Ds are of Trump. 83% of that poll is NOT voting for Trump in an event, the convention, that is still a year away.

When you consider that the Rs are only about 1/3 of the registered voters, Trump's Election Day numbers could be record setting.

 

[nico7980]

It's funny how many fearful the Ds are of Trump. 83% of that poll is NOT voting for Trump in an event, the convention, that is still a year away.

When you consider that the Rs are only about 1/3 of the registered voters, Trump's Election Day numbers could be record setting.

Lol. You can't be serious. Fearful? Really? Trump is the best thing to happen for the Dems. Lol. Fearful.

Can you tell me what his policy agenda is?

 

[woolybug25]

It's funny how many fearful the Ds are of Trump. 83% of that poll is NOT voting for Trump in an event, the convention, that is still a year away.

When you consider that the Rs are only about 1/3 of the registered voters, Trump's Election Day numbers could be record setting.

I don't get the "libs are scared" narrative. That's not remotely true. I would say more Republicans are scared of Trump, simply because he would be a terrible representative of their party and would simply get demolished by a polished politician like Hillary.

I'm one of those rare people that doesn't vote on a party line. What scares me about Trump is that he would force me to vote between him and Hillary. At which point... I would rather vote for a meteor.

 

[Huntr]

I think Trump may have finally stepped a little too hard on his own dick.

Re:McCain

"He's a war hero because he was captured," Trump said. "I like people that weren't captured."

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I think Trump may have finally stepped a little too hard on his own dick.

Re:McCain

"He's a war hero because he was captured," Trump said. "I like people that weren't captured."

Trump is a complete buffoon. Wonder if he'll even make it to the first debate.

 

[EddytoNow]

Trump's latest comments about P.O.W./Senator John McCain just confirm that he has lost touch with reality. This guy has an ego beyond imagination. He thinks he can slander anyone and remain immune from any criticism.

If anything, this will probably help most of the Republican field, especially those who have already distanced themselves from Trump's earlier attack on immigrants. Ted Cruz, who supported Trump's immigrant comments, is going to have to back away from Trump as quickly as possible to avoid going down with the sinking ship. In contrast, Jeb Bush looks like a level-headed candidate that might actually give the Democrats a run for their money if he can win the nomination of his own party.

Deciding who qualifies to appear on stage for the Republican presidential debates is going to be pretty interesting. If they were wise they'd narrow the field every time one of their candidates says something stupid. Trump would be the first one eliminated, followed closely by Cruz.

 

[ACamp1900]

He's not seriously running for anything...

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

He's not seriously running for anything...

I agree that he was never seriously considering running. I just don't know what his plan is. What is he hoping to get out of this, besides fulfilling his role as a national joke?

 

[Cackalacky]

Imminent 10% rise in Republican polls incoming.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

From the Bernie Sanders rally in PHX last night. Huge turnout, almost 12,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nico7980]

Trump's latest comments about P.O.W./Senator John McCain just confirm that he has lost touch with reality. This guy has an ego beyond imagination. He thinks he can slander anyone and remain immune from any criticism.

If anything, this will probably help most of the Republican field, especially those who have already distanced themselves from Trump's earlier attack on immigrants. Ted Cruz, who supported Trump's immigrant comments, is going to have to back away from Trump as quickly as possible to avoid going down with the sinking ship. In contrast, Jeb Bush looks like a level-headed candidate that might actually give the Democrats a run for their money if he can win the nomination of his own party.

Deciding who qualifies to appear on stage for the Republican presidential debates is going to be pretty interesting. If they were wise they'd narrow the field every time one of their candidates says something stupid. Trump would be the first one eliminated, followed closely by Cruz.

I'm willing to bet he gets a bump out of this. Just go look at the comments sections of those stories. IF he makes it to the debate stage. Get your popcorn ready. This guy is gonna sink the Republican party.

 

[BGIF]

McCain: Trump owes POW families an apology - CNNPolitics.com

By Tom LoBianco, CNN
Updated 8:58 AM ET, Mon July 20,

(CNN)In his first response directly addressing Donald Trump's comments on his war record, Sen. John McCain said Monday that the real estate mogul should not apologize to him, but should instead apologize to the veterans captured in war and their families.

When asked Monday if he wanted an apology from Trump, McCain, whose supporters have been blasting Trump all weekend, said he doesn't need one.

"I don't think so, but I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country," McCain told MSNBC's "Morning Joe".

"I'm in the arena, as (Teddy Roosevelt) used to say," McCain said, skipping an opportunity to knock Trump further as his allies and other presidential contenders from Trump's own party have been outspoken in denouncing his remarks.

Trump disparaged McCain and other prisoners of war in remarks Saturday. "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

Trump disparaged McCain and other prisoners of war in remarks Saturday. "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

...

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Presented without comment <a href="https://t.co/ILyZcZbT5Z">https://t.co/ILyZcZbT5Z</a></p>— Tamara (@BookOfTamara) <a href="https://twitter.com/BookOfTamara/status/622974039473041409">July 20, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NDgradstudent]

I'm willing to bet he gets a bump out of this. Just go look at the comments sections of those stories. IF he makes it to the debate stage. Get your popcorn ready. This guy is gonna sink the Republican party.

Because Republican voters are tired of politicians like McCain, Bush, etc., who do not want to confront the immigration issue frankly. Instead, they believe (against all evidence) that new immigrants are "natural Republicans" and that immigration helps businesses (it only helps large corporations by depressing wages). If Trump succeeds in moving the immigration debate to the right, it is a victory. Trump might "sink" the party for one cycle, but mass immigration will sink it for a generation.

 

[GoIrish41]

Because Republican voters are tired of politicians like McCain, Bush, etc., who do not want to confront the immigration issue frankly. Instead, they believe (against all evidence) that new immigrants are "natural Republicans" and that immigration helps businesses (it only helps large corporations by depressing wages). If Trump succeeds in moving the immigration debate to the right, it is a victory. Trump might "sink" the party for one cycle, but mass immigration will sink it for a generation.

Confronting immigration frankly is not suggesting that an entire race of people are rapists. Immigrants who come to this country are not allowed to vote, so either party has an opportunity to make their pitch to their offspring, and to demonstrate over the long haul that theirs is the best party for these individuals and their families. By and large, these immigrants have leaned Democrat because of Republican policies like "bigger fences" and seeking to restrict voting rights. These people are not "natural" Democrats or "natural" Republicans. Their experiences shape their political leanings, which they act upon once they become citizens.

Also, if your issue with immigration reform is based on your party refusing to become more compassionate and reaching out to future citizens and instead trying to block immigration in the "melting pot" that has always been a cornerstone of the country, then your party is doomed to its fate. Republicans should listen to guys like Bush and McCain when it comes to immigration.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Because Republican voters are tired of politicians like McCain, Bush, etc., who do not want to confront the immigration issue frankly. Instead, they believe (against all evidence) that new immigrants are "natural Republicans" and that immigration helps businesses (it only helps large corporations by depressing wages). If Trump succeeds in moving the immigration debate to the right, it is a victory. Trump might "sink" the party for one cycle, but mass immigration will sink it for a generation.

There are multiple facets the immigration debate, including how immigration should work into the future. I think broad statements like the one above is incredibly naive.

As a country, we have gone from this:

To this:

Which has resulted in this:

Given the general workforce participation, along with the way our government relies of future revenues to pay for current expenses, I would say immigration is absolutely needed to ensure the future economic stability of this country. Smart reforms on expanding certain work visas and making their stay permanent makes perfect sense. Those are the immigrants we should pursue.

By the way, the fact on lowering wages was largely discredited by the Manhattan Institute.

One reason that Congress does not increase the number of visas is the popular perception that foreign workers, especially those with low skill levels, harm job opportunities of native-born workers. The concern that immigrants drive out native-born immigrants from jobs is predicated on the assumption that large numbers of immigrants are displacing American workers, even though, as we saw in the previous section, the numbers are low as a percentage of the labor force.

A major concern of those critical of immigration, such as Harvard University professor George Borjas, is that immigrants depress wages. Nevertheless, many economists have found that immigrants sometimes raise wages, rather than decreasing them. For example, senior economist Pia Orrenius of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas finds a slight increase in wages for professionals and a slight decline for manual workers from immigration of less than 1 percent.[36]

David Card of the University of California, Berkeley finds a decrease in wages of about 3 percent among low-skilled workers in high immigrant cities such as Miami and Los Angeles, and smaller effects in other cities and occupational groups. [37] Card (2009) goes on to find that immigration yields a 5 percent increase in overall wage inequality. This finding supports the other studies showing immigration increases wages of high-skilled workers and decreases wages of lowskilled workers. [38]

Professor Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, in a paper just published in the Journal of the European Economic Association, coauthored with Bocconi University Professor Gianmarco Ottaviano, concludes that immigration raised wages of native-born Americans by six tenths of a percent during the period from 1990 to 2006. It decreased wages of existing immigrants by 6.7 percent, because new immigrants are substitutes for prior waves of immigrants. [39]

Although immigrants no doubt will displace some low-skilled workers, primarily other immigrants, the negative effect on such workers is much smaller than the positive effect for everyone else. The economy as a whole gains, with substantially more winners than losers.

Unlike other economists, Borjas assumes that immigrants are substitutes for native-born workers. Furthermore, he assumes that capital is fixed and does not respond to changes in wage rates. [40] According to Borjas, low-skilled immigrants arrive in America and take jobs away from African-Americans. Due to the lack of job opportunities, African-Americans are drawn into illegal activities, get arrested, and are then put in prison. Borjas concludes that employment and incarceration rates of black men are highly sensitive to immigration, although "much of the decline in employment or increase in incarceration in the black population remains unexplained." [41]

One problem with this line of reasoning is that young black men began withdrawing from the labor force in the 1960s, when the share of immigrants in the labor force was less than 1 percent. The percentage of black men between ages 16 and 24 who were not in school, not working, and not looking for work rose to 18 percent in 1982 from 9 percent in 1964. It then reached 23 percent in 1997 [42] and remained at that level as of 2011. [43]

Borjas's findings that immigrants substantially lower Americans' wages not only have been questioned by other economists but have moderated over time. In 2003 Borjas found that immigrants lowered wages of average American-born workers by 3 percent and wages of high school dropouts by 9 percent. [44] A year later, he found that the effect on high school dropouts had moderated to a 7 percent loss. [45]

By 2006, Borjas had concluded that immigrants raised average wages of Americans by 0.1 percent and lowered the wages of the low-skilled, those without a high school diploma, by 5 percent. [46] This means that America has a net gain from immigrants. Since a relatively small percentage of American workers have less than a high school diploma (8.5 percent in 2012), it is possible for these workers to be compensated through transfer payments, leaving our economy still ahead.

In a 2011 paper, Borjas admits that "the economics literature has found it difficult to document the inverse relation between wages and immigrationinduced supply shifts." [47] If immigrants affect any wages, it is those of prior immigrants, who compete for the same jobs that new immigrants are after. But we do not see immigrants protesting in the streets to keep others out, as we see homeowners in scenic locations demonstrating against additional development. Rather, some of the biggest proponents of greater immigration are the established immigrants themselves, who see America's boundless opportunities as outweighing negative wage effects.

Issue Brief 18 | The Economic Benefits of Immigration