2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

Saying that Ross Perot had "serious policy stance positions" is an outrageous position.

Bullshit Raz. How serious something is is not based on how much you like it dude. Trump has not even attempted to be substantial.

[Valmy]

I don't remember much about his policies but I do recall he actually had policies.  One policy of his that I do recall his opposition to NAFTA.

Yep.

[Savonarola]

From Dilbert, February 14, 1990



Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[Razgovory]

No he didn't.  People like being told shocking nonsense.  Some people think that is telling truth to power.  You want a politician who says thing that people don't want to hear, look at Walter Mondale.  Nobody wants to here that the US has limits or needs to needs to raise taxes.  They want to hear it's morning in America.  They want to hear that the Mexicans are rapist wetbacks. They want to here that if there are bad things, it's someone else's fault.  For the cynic who fallen into the trap of believing that every one is crooked is a some sort of worldly wisdom, a third party candidate is quite attractive.  Ross Perot was a racist populist who thought the CIA was trying to disrupt his daughter's wedding.  I see nothing attractive about him.

It seems calling him more substantial than Donald Trump was too outrageous of a statement for Raz.

Saying that Ross Perot had "serious policy stance positions" is an outrageous position.

I don't remember much about his policies but I do recall he actually had policies.  One policy of his that I do recall his opposition to NAFTA.

I don't think that opposing something is by itself a "serious policy stance position".  All politicians oppose some things, for stance selling  school kids organs to zoos for meat.  Give me something novel that he was for some sort of legislation he wished to push.

[Razgovory]

Worse, populist.  That most despised group on Languish.  It is a bit amusing so many here have a fond memory for the Strom Thurmond wing of the Democratic party.  If they were interested in balancing the budget where were they in 2001?  That was the time to do so.

Of course they were In 2001 they were still actually relevant as a block before Obamacare pretty much killed them off. Their conservative constituencies just elected Republican nutcases after that.

By the time I started liking the Blue Dogs Strom Thurmond had been a Republican for over 30 years along with the rest of his kind. I have a hard time thinking it was based on memories of them, when they were still in office but for the other party.

Oh?  If they were interesting in balancing the budget back in 2001, they would have naturally voted against the tax cuts that Bush implemented.  The Tax cuts moved the country from balanced budgets to deficits.  Show me 10 of these supposed dogs that voted against the Tax cuts and voted against the affordable health care act.

[jimmy olsen]

Really hope those Sunday numbers are the beginning of the collapse!

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1170a22016Politics.pdf

Trump's frontrunner status, moreover, reflects the crowded GOP race. He leads the 16-candidate field with 24 percent support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are registered to vote, up sharply from 4 percent in May. While enough for a lead, that also means 76 percent prefer someone else, or none of them.

Scott Walker has 13 percent support, Jeb Bush 12 percent, with the rest in single digits.
Trump's support was 28 percent in this survey's first three nights of polling. While the sample size of registered leaned Republicans on Sunday is quite small, he dropped to the single digits that day.

His improvement overall, compared with an ABC/Post poll in May, occurred largely across the board. Support for Rand Paul dropped by 5 percentage points, for Ted Cruz by 4 and for several other candidates by generally non-significant 1- to 3-point margins.

[Monoriu]

Can't wait to see President Trump saying "you're fired/hired" in White House press conferences that announce the resignations or appointments of cabinet members 

[Admiral Yi]

Oh?  If they were interesting in balancing the budget back in 2001, they would have naturally voted against the tax cuts that Bush implemented.  The Tax cuts moved the country from balanced budgets to deficits.  Show me 10 of these supposed dogs that voted against the Tax cuts and voted against the affordable health care act.

There were 196 Nay votes in the House and 38 Nay votes in the Senate.

[Valmy]

Worse, populist.  That most despised group on Languish.  It is a bit amusing so many here have a fond memory for the Strom Thurmond wing of the Democratic party.  If they were interested in balancing the budget where were they in 2001?  That was the time to do so.

Of course they were In 2001 they were still actually relevant as a block before Obamacare pretty much killed them off. Their conservative constituencies just elected Republican nutcases after that.

By the time I started liking the Blue Dogs Strom Thurmond had been a Republican for over 30 years along with the rest of his kind. I have a hard time thinking it was based on memories of them, when they were still in office but for the other party.

Oh?  If they were interesting in balancing the budget back in 2001, they would have naturally voted against the tax cuts that Bush implemented.  The Tax cuts moved the country from balanced budgets to deficits.  Show me 10 of these supposed dogs that voted against the Tax cuts and voted against the affordable health care act.

And if I do that what do I win?

[Razgovory]

Worse, populist.  That most despised group on Languish.  It is a bit amusing so many here have a fond memory for the Strom Thurmond wing of the Democratic party.  If they were interested in balancing the budget where were they in 2001?  That was the time to do so.

Of course they were In 2001 they were still actually relevant as a block before Obamacare pretty much killed them off. Their conservative constituencies just elected Republican nutcases after that.

By the time I started liking the Blue Dogs Strom Thurmond had been a Republican for over 30 years along with the rest of his kind. I have a hard time thinking it was based on memories of them, when they were still in office but for the other party.

Oh?  If they were interesting in balancing the budget back in 2001, they would have naturally voted against the tax cuts that Bush implemented.  The Tax cuts moved the country from balanced budgets to deficits.  Show me 10 of these supposed dogs that voted against the Tax cuts and voted against the affordable health care act.

And if I do that what do I win?

That your assertion that these blue dogs actually care about deficit spending will be supported.

[Valmy]

That your assertion that these blue dogs actually care about deficit spending will be supported.

Well 24 of the 52 Dogs voted against the Affordable Care Act. Of those 24 only 8 were even in office in 2001 so it is impossible for my assertion to be supported. I guess you showed me.

I have to admit that is a pretty fiendishly clever way of winning an argument: create an arbitrary standard of proof that is impossible to meet.

[Valmy]

There were 196 Nay votes in the House and 38 Nay votes in the Senate.

Ok the 8 Dogs voted:

Marion Berry: Nay
Mike Ross: Yay
Collin Peterson Yay
Gene Taylor Nay
Mike McIntyre Did Not Vote. Abstained Courteously.
Tim Holden Nay
John Tanner Nay
Jim Matheson Yay

So I showed you four. That's something.

[Valmy]

Wait is the assertion here that voting for the Affordable Care Act automatically means you do not care about deficits? I thought the thing was sold as being revenue neutral?

[dps]

Wait is the assertion here that voting for the Affordable Care Act automatically means you do not care about deficits? I thought the thing was sold as being revenue neutral?

And you think that anybody actually bought that it was revenue neutral?

[Valmy]

Wait is the assertion here that voting for the Affordable Care Act automatically means you do not care about deficits? I thought the thing was sold as being revenue neutral?

And you think that anybody actually bought that it was revenue neutral?

Thanks Hans.

But the point I was making is that it was designed to provide cover for just these sorts of dudes. What extent has it been revenue neutral? Federal Spending on Health Care did not shoot up after it was passed, at least no more than it was already shooting up.