Burn the witch!

[Ivytalk]

Clinton lost again last night. Why? Probably because Wisconsin is devoid of a significant black population.

Clinton - 1,279
Sanders - 1,027

And his Super delegate count is starting to go up, by 1s and 2s.

Sanders has won the last 6 contests. And sets him up to have some momentum going in to Wyoming's caucus on Saturday and possibly into NY on the 19th.

If Bernie beats The Witch in NY, she's in deep shyt. The Donk convention could turn out to be just as entertaining as the GOP's.

Superdelegates.

[Baldy]

It also produced sustained increases in GDP, jobs, and household income for the middle class, but we'll save that lesson for some other time.

So you agree with low tax rates on top earners, increased spending, and increased taxes on the middle class?

I agree with 0 (zero) taxes on all income and spending only on the necessary functions of government.

Marginal and effective tax rates on all income levels were lowered during the Reagan years. However, I do know you like to play semantic games with payroll tax increases (minimal ones) under Reagan. Many of those taxes were actually enacted under Carter in 1977 and only phased in during the Reagan years.

Unfortunately, the payroll taxes enacted under Reagan were part of a compromise ( ) with the Donks who demanded the taxes in exchange for the lower marginal income tax rates Reagan wanted.

[Baldy]

It also produced sustained increases in GDP, jobs, and household income for the middle class, but we'll save that lesson for some other time.

So you agree with low tax rates on top earners, increased spending, and increased taxes on the middle class?

So you don't agree with sustained increases in GDP, jobs, or household income for the middle class?

[kalm]

So you agree with low tax rates on top earners, increased spending, and increased taxes on the middle class?

I agree with 0 (zero) taxes on all income and spending only on the necessary functions of government.

Marginal and effective tax rates on all income levels were lowered during the Reagan years. However, I do know you like to play semantic games with payroll tax increases (minimal ones) under Reagan. Many of those taxes were actually enacted under Carter in 1977 and only phased in during the Reagan years.

Unfortunately, the payroll taxes enacted under Reagan were part of a compromise ( ) with the Donks who demanded the taxes in exchange for the lower marginal income tax rates Reagan wanted.

Excellent! So you don't agree with Reaganomics but like trumpeting the outcomes...

[Baldy]

I agree with 0 (zero) taxes on all income and spending only on the necessary functions of government.

Marginal and effective tax rates on all income levels were lowered during the Reagan years. However, I do know you like to play semantic games with payroll tax increases (minimal ones) under Reagan. Many of those taxes were actually enacted under Carter in 1977 and only phased in during the Reagan years.

Unfortunately, the payroll taxes enacted under Reagan were part of a compromise ( ) with the Donks who demanded the taxes in exchange for the lower marginal income tax rates Reagan wanted.

Excellent! So you don't agree with Reaganomics but like trumpeting the outcomes...

Reaganomics was the best solution for the time, but apparently you prefer a flat GDP, stagflation, sky high misery index and gas prices instead.

[kalm]

Excellent! So you don't agree with Reaganomics but like trumpeting the outcomes...

Reaganomics was the best solution for the time, but apparently you prefer a flat GDP, stagflation, sky high misery index and gas prices instead.

The difference between you and I is that I use the words you actually post rather than what I think you believe.

[Ibanez]

Clinton lost again last night. Why? Probably because Wisconsin is devoid of a significant black population.

Clinton - 1,279
Sanders - 1,027

And his Super delegate count is starting to go up, by 1s and 2s.

Sanders has won the last 6 contests. And sets him up to have some momentum going in to Wyoming's caucus on Saturday and possibly into NY on the 19th.

If Bernie beats The Witch in NY, she's in deep shyt. The Donk convention could turn out to be just as entertaining as the GOP's.

Superdelegates.

What are the polls saying about NY?

[kalm]

If Bernie beats The Witch in NY, she's in deep shyt. The Donk convention could turn out to be just as entertaining as the GOP's.

Superdelegates.

What are the polls saying about NY?

Bernie is down about the same as he was in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago.

[SDHornet]

Clinton lost again last night. Why? Probably because Wisconsin is devoid of a significant black population.

Clinton - 1,279
Sanders - 1,027

And his Super delegate count is starting to go up, by 1s and 2s.

Sanders has won the last 6 contests. And sets him up to have some momentum going in to Wyoming's caucus on Saturday and possibly into NY on the 19th.

If Bernie beats The Witch in NY, she's in deep shyt. The Donk convention could turn out to be just as entertaining as the GOP's.

Superdelegates.

Kudos to bernie for making this interesting.

[YoUDeeMan]

GO BERNIE!!!

[Baldy]

Reaganomics was the best solution for the time, but apparently you prefer a flat GDP, stagflation, sky high misery index and gas prices instead.

The difference between you and I is that I use the words you actually post rather than what I think you believe.

Not quite. I use data to back up facts.

On the other hand, you present an editorial from Glenn Greenwald or from some writer from The Atlantic or Raw Story and present what they believe as fact.

[kalm]

The difference between you and I is that I use the words you actually post rather than what I think you believe.

Not quite. I use data to back up facts.

On the other hand, you present an editorial from Glenn Greenwald or from some writer from The Atlantic or Raw Story and present what they believe as fact.

Please show me where I stated I prefer a flat GDP, high misery index, and high gas prices...

[Baldy]

Not quite. I use data to back up facts.

On the other hand, you present an editorial from Glenn Greenwald or from some writer from The Atlantic or Raw Story and present what they believe as fact.

Please show me where I stated I prefer a flat GDP, high misery index, and high gas prices...

After you learn the definition of the word apparently, read the thread again and then get back to me.

[EWURanger]

And dumb people. Lots of dumb people.

Surprise, surprise...this country is full of them.

The hilarious part is that one side actually believes they are smarter than the other

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the people that are at the fore-front of the Tea Party movement are stupid. They're not. They've been incredibly effective at convincing people to vote against their own interests by invoking religion, fear-mongering racism, communism, etc...all in the name of "patriotism." What a joke.

It's insane how far right the political spectrum in this country has shifted when the Democratic front-runner is essentially a moderate Republican with a few left-leaning social views. And even then, those are mostly poll-driven rather than based on actual beliefs in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the Democratic challenger is basically the equivalent of a New Deal Democrat - but we call him a communist.

It's a complete shit-show on the other side. As much of a disaster as Trump is, his entire campaign is a big "fuck you" to the Tea-Baggers that have taken over the Republican Party. Although I don't agree with most of what he says, the Republican Party needs a Trump.

[kalm]

Surprise, surprise...this country is full of them.

The hilarious part is that one side actually believes they are smarter than the other

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the people that are at the fore-front of the Tea Party movement are stupid. They're not. They've been incredibly effective at convincing people to vote against their own interests by invoking religion, fear-mongering racism, communism, etc...all in the name of "patriotism." What a joke.

It's insane how far right the political spectrum in this country has shifted when the Democratic front-runner is essentially a moderate Republican with a few left-leaning social views. And even then, those are mostly poll-driven rather than based on actual beliefs in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the Democratic challenger is basically the equivalent of a New Deal Democrat - but we call him a communist.

It's a complete shit-show on the other side. As much of a disaster as Trump is, his entire campaign is a big "fuck you" to the Tea-Baggers that have taken over the Republican Party. Although I don't agree with most of what he says, the Republican Party needs a Trump.

Well said on all points.

Trump is good for the Republican Party in the long run.

[SDHornet]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the people that are at the fore-front of the Tea Party movement are stupid. They're not. They've been incredibly effective at convincing people to vote against their own interests by invoking religion, fear-mongering racism, communism, etc...all in the name of "patriotism." What a joke.

It's insane how far right the political spectrum in this country has shifted when the Democratic front-runner is essentially a moderate Republican with a few left-leaning social views. And even then, those are mostly poll-driven rather than based on actual beliefs in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the Democratic challenger is basically the equivalent of a New Deal Democrat - but we call him a communist.

It's a complete shit-show on the other side. As much of a disaster as Trump is, his entire campaign is a big "fuck you" to the Tea-Baggers that have taken over the Republican Party. Although I don't agree with most of what he says, the Republican Party needs a Trump.

Well said on all points.

Trump is good for the Republican Party in the long run.

If you mean good in that it will likely be the end of the conk establishment/party as we know it then yes. My hope is that he enters the convention with the most delegates, and Cruz 2nd; then the conktards nominate some off the wall establishment guy who sat on the sidelines for the whole primary process. This will enrage conks and essentially kill the GOP.

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

[Ivytalk]

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

And you believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, and Puff the Magic Dragon.

[kalm]

Well said on all points.

Trump is good for the Republican Party in the long run.

If you mean good in that it will likely be the end of the conk establishment/party as we know it then yes. My hope is that he enters the convention with the most delegates, and Cruz 2nd; then the conktards nominate some off the wall establishment guy who sat on the sidelines for the whole primary process. This will enrage conks and essentially kill the GOP.

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

Again, according to Republican rules, nobody with less than 8 primary wins can be nominated. That rule can be changed but only by the delegates who are controlled by Trump and Cruz.

It will be either Trump or Cruz.

[SDHornet]

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

And you believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, and Puff the Magic Dragon.

One can dream.

[SDHornet]

If you mean good in that it will likely be the end of the conk establishment/party as we know it then yes. My hope is that he enters the convention with the most delegates, and Cruz 2nd; then the conktards nominate some off the wall establishment guy who sat on the sidelines for the whole primary process. This will enrage conks and essentially kill the GOP.

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

Again, according to Republican rules, nobody with less than 8 primary wins can be nominated. That rule can be changed but only by the delegates who are controlled by Trump and Cruz.

It will be either Trump or Cruz.

As posted in the other thread, Preibus was talking about changing that rule at the convention. At that point everything is "fair" game.

[Baldy]

Well said on all points.

Trump is good for the Republican Party in the long run.

If you mean good in that it will likely be the end of the conk establishment/party as we know it then yes. My hope is that he enters the convention with the most delegates, and Cruz 2nd; then the conktards nominate some off the wall establishment guy who sat on the sidelines for the whole primary process. This will enrage conks and essentially kill the GOP.

Then and only then may there be a possible 3rd party to emerge; hopefully a party based on a common sense approach to solving America's issues (because neither the GOP or Dems have this approach). This is my hope, this is the only thing I like about the whole Trump situation.

Convention season will be rather interesting for a change. Forget about the cluster fuck on the Conk side for a moment. The shit storm the Donks have created will be just as awesome. The establishment Donk empty pantsuit crook versus the old Socialist curmudgeon in early stages of dementia.

It's gonna be delicious.

[kalm]

Again, according to Republican rules, nobody with less than 8 primary wins can be nominated. That rule can be changed but only by the delegates who are controlled by Trump and Cruz.

It will be either Trump or Cruz.

As posted in the other thread, Preibus was talking about changing that rule at the convention. At that point everything is "fair" game.

Can Preibus change it or do the delegates, and will it apply to the current convention? The current rule was voted on in 2012 specifically for 2016.

[Ibanez]

As posted in the other thread, Preibus was talking about changing that rule at the convention. At that point everything is "fair" game.

Can Preibus change it or do the delegates, and will it apply to the current convention? The current rule was voted on in 2012 specifically for 2016.

A week before the Convention, the 2016 Convention Rules Committee must convene to put together a package of rules to recommend for consideration by all delegates.

Delegates from each state and territory elect two representatives from within their own delegations to the Convention Rules Committee – 112 delegates in total.

https://gop.com/convention-facts/?convention_type=rules

[kalm]

Can Preibus change it or do the delegates, and will it apply to the current convention? The current rule was voted on in 2012 specifically for 2016.

A week before the Convention, the 2016 Convention Rules Committee must convene to put together a package of rules to recommend for consideration by all delegates.

Delegates from each state and territory elect two representatives from within their own delegations to the Convention Rules Committee – 112 delegates in total.

https://gop.com/convention-facts/?convention_type=rules

So why did they vote on 2016 rules in 2012? They can change the rules after the fact?

[Ibanez]

https://gop.com/convention-facts/?convention_type=rules

So why did they vote on 2016 rules in 2012? They can change the rules after the fact?

You sure they didn't vote on rules for 2012 to run until 2016?