"Conservative" Trump voters are going to be very disappointed
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
I thought you like him because of his stance on HB1s or whatever (perhaps "like" is strong of a word). Is there wool in your eyes as well? What an awful candidate. He's gonna cost the GOP the Senate and who knows what else. It's their own fault for not shouting down the idiots years ago.
I don't think most of Trump voters consider themselves "conservative". I think the conservative arm of the GOP is a lot smaller than people think it is now, due to extremism that has made bad choices. One example, shutting down the government. Cruz wouldn't listen to a lot of people in his own party when they offered sound advice that it was going to backfire on them. Another example is threatening to note have a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. Some with a little bit of sound reasoning are saying this is not a good idea.
No. First filter is H1B's, that left me with 3 candidates I could choose from. Cruz, Trump, Sanders. Only one of them is a legitimate possibility, and even that I have to hold my nose.
Just so you remember, Obama told every Republican, "elections have consequences". So that all dems understand why there will be no vote, "elections have consequences" and he will not get a choice in this. Besides, Congress is out of session in July due to the election in Nov and I doubt if there would be time anyway. If the conservatives were such a small minority, how do you explain the dems loss of both houses since Obama took office and having loss a great majority of the seats?
I agree. Trump voters are looking for someone who isn't part of anything that previously existed in Washington, and I have the feeling the 'true' conservatives who back him are willing to bite their conservative lip for the sake of breaking the political mold that existed previously.
Gerrymandering. Simple as that. That will swing back around as the nuts keep it up and we have the next census. The dems have won 5 of last 6 popular votes in the Presidential elections. Bye bye to the GOP controlling congressional boundaries next time around.
Would you like to place a wager on this? If you think there won't be a vote, you are sadly delusional.
If the conservative arm of the Republican party is so big, why isn't Cruz winning more states? You can take the sound logic that I offered or continue to be delusional.
Did I say Presidential elections? No I said electionsl and it's not the gerrymandering on the Senate side since the whole state votes for them. You are completely wrong on that one. The reason the dems lost the senate and house is because most Americans do not like socialism like Obamacare and the politics of race baiting. Popular votes don't win the election. The electoral college does and it's pretty even the last time I counted.
There could be a hearing but it will drag out until Congress adjourns in July so that the people up or re-election can campaign. There will be no vote to bring a nominee out of committee. I will wager you that one.
Obama 332 Romney 206 2012
Obama 365 Mccain 173 2008
That's close? The point I was making is the demographics of the electorate is changing and it favors the Democrats. that is fairly obvious. Going forward, that changing electorate will help shape congressional districts. That will affect the makeup of congress just like it has always done. And it won't favor the GOP
You are 100% correct. The demographics are favoring the dems . As we let more and more people in here that have had no other govt than socialism, they will see nothing wrong with that form of govt. We will start to accept the mediocre economy that we have and face those that want free stuff and the party that wants to give it to them. We will continue down that path until we run out of those who want to excel have no reason to excel.
You are using winner take all electoral results. Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral. McCain was a terrible candidate. Romney was better but white people who were trying to shed their guilt voted for a terrible President a second time. Most President s are hard to beat for a second term in office. Even bad ones. You can take that for any of the last two.
WOW! That is sad....no, it's pathetic. I am amazed that you are an educated person and really think this way.
I started to just let this post go and dismiss it, but I can't.
So tell us, where are "these people" coming to America from that have came from socialist governments?
I can't tell if you're referring to banks and wall street firms or auto manufacturers.
All the Latin American countries are socialist and the Mideast are from mostly dictatorships. Shut-up and do what we tell you. I'm very educated, I would say much more than you are. Do you remember the people who said they got an Obama phone? Those that said, I want some from Obama stash? Free stuff and that's how Hilliary and Obama pander to them. Rich people have too much and we are going to take it from them and give it to you. Pretty soon you run out of rich people to pay the bills. It's coming if we don't change the way we run our govt.
The economy is mediocre when it comes to the public. People's incomes are down and GDP grew at a shopping 2%. Just great. Every sector has lost jobs. Those jobs have been lost to prop up profits which businesses are supposed to do. If in 2008 you sold 1 , but in 2006 you sold 10, and now you sell 3, it's an increase but not enough to employ additional people. I'm just surprised that educated people think that the economy has flourished under this president. It's what you expect for a socialist, treading water.
You missed the point ... I was talking about all of the money that was taken from the people to bail out multi-billion dollar firms. Talk about taking more in taxes from those same billion dollar firms to help the people that unwillingly helped them out before, and suddenly people scream socialism.
I haven't seen any educated people say that the economy has flourished, only that it is a lot better than it was. However, regarding where it was, it was on the verge of complete collapse. 800,000 jobs per month were being lost. The DOW was down around 8,000. The GDP was NEGATIVE. Other than the national debt, everything is improved. I'm sorry you don't like those facts, but those are the facts.
Has it flourished? No. Has it improved? Yes. I don't see how anybody could possibly argue that it hasn't.
From where it was "a lot better" still doesn't equate to "flourishing".
Yes, it is better than in 08. It could be better if we had pro business people in the white house, that's my opinion. As for the bailouts, I wasn't for them in any form, as I'm not for govt subsidies for ethanol, solar etc. My opinion on the meltdown was that it was precipitated by our govt in the first place. Encouraging banks to give loans for houses that people had no business owning, because there was no way they could pay both interest and principal. When you say educated people, I guess you are leaving out the people in govt who tout the recovery? [winking]
I think any sane person would.
I get on here a lot of times just for the brain exercise. It's fun. I enjoy the banter but I could go have a cold one with anybody on here. Well, killer wouldn't be invited! [cheers]
I kinda wonder what Trump will do with the Freedom Coalition. He's a 'everything is negotiable' kinda guy and they are all about stonewalling everything that is not conservative. He may just mock the living $&it out of them publicly and with his strong public support (at least for now) we may see them cave on issues they previously held firmly to.
It's bad politics. The longest out of time it has ever taken to replace a justice is something like 120 days. On the date of Scalia's death this president had more than 300 days left in his term. I'm fine with a nominee receiving strong scrutiny, but a nominee needs to get a review. If this president has anot ounce of politician in him, he will nominate a minority with a moderate record, likely someone who breezed through a prior confirmation as a federal judge. That let's him paint the Senate as obstructionists to rational politics. That's bad for Republicans in the Senate, and that's also bad for a Republican presidential candidate. In that situation, the Senate would be dumb to not act. They'd be gambling with their rent money. Of course Obama could always go the other way and nominate someone very liberal. That would be dumb on his part though.
It is bad politics and this is typical of the stonewalling GOP. Their staunchest conservative on the bench is gone and they're totally in deer-in-headlights mode trying to stonewall to the next administration. Problem is, with the war they're now waging on Trump, they don't have a guy in the race.
It is interesting to watch a party attack their own front runner while the other party's front runner is under threat of indictment, good times.
How did you know I was talking about you? I thought for sure you'd assume it was somebody else. [cheers]
No, the longest wait from nomination to vote is 125 days, and that was 100 years ago. Seats have been vacant for longer, but only because nominees were rejected by the Senate -- the record there is 8, submitted by John Tyler over a period of 27 months in the 18 friggin 40s. The last time a justice was nominated and confirmed in an election year was 1932, and it took a whopping 9 days for Benjamin Cardozo to be confirmed, probably because the GOP had both the White House and the Senate. GOP has nothing to stand on historically, it's just their continued approach of "we'll hold our breath until you turn blue" to everything Obama has submitted.
The question at hand wasn't the longest wait from nomination to vote. The question at hand was how long it's taken to replace a judge. I modern times it was 222 days from the time Powell retired and Ginsburg was approved. A delay mostly created by Democrats blocking Bork, including our current sitting Vice President.
I said all along that the Senate GOP has blown this replacement. They should have said from day 1 that they would withhold judgement until Obama nominates someone and then could have easily blocked those nominations as they saw fit.
As it stands, Obama, not the GOP, has failed to nominate anyone yet, and if HE was smart he would have done so by now.
Obama was meeting with the Judiciary committee members individually prior to putting up a nominee, which is standard practice. He'll put someone up soon, and I'm very curious to see who it is. I'm hoping he plays it smart, because I think he can exert enough pressure to force hearings if he plays it right.
I also agree that the Senate GOP is playing this wrong. See who he puts up before stonewalling.
I hate to quote Trump, but the GOP in the Senate are "stupid people" on this issue right now.
