OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on December 11, 2015 - 7:41am

I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 27, 2016 - 7:57am.

Same issue with the under 25 crowd. Not sure what the complaint is other than the State department is being incompetent in execution in checking out make sure the State isn't getting bilked.

bearishgurl wrote:
Okay, my peeps (both over 55) are gone now and had documentation in their CC accounts that they had proved their (W-2) incomes to CC in January and early February and have been reinstated ... for now, retroactive back to 2/1. CC had bumped them off their plans without even reading their uploads, which is typical.

CC has access to both of their tax return numbers until 2020 and has had that access since the beginning of last year.

However, one of them is likely going to have to "re-prove" her income to CC come June or July. We'll see what happens. She's going to check her CC account the 2nd business day of every month (after her premium is paid) to make sure her plan is still active.

enron, yes, the people who create an account on CC and state they are not seeking a subsidy and purchase a CC plan without a subsidy don't have any problems. But why would anyone want to go thru a bureaucratic gubment middleman (CC) to buy a healthplan if they weren't eligible for subsidy? What would be the purpose of doing that? They could just log onto a carrier's website or "ehealthinsurance" as you listed here and probably get the same plan for $14-15 month less because the plan isn't paying any monthly "commissions" to CC!

I know about all those ways to purchase healthplans off the exchange and will be doing so myself for 2017. I actually purchased my former ("grandfathered") healthplan online in 2004 but they bumped me off the plan at the end of 2013 when they left CA's individual market (with 5 other large carriers) because they refused to offer "ACA compliant" plans in CA.

spdrun wrote:
. . . Also, with the realtor example, aren't most salesmen paid on 1099? That's not reported till the end of the year, not reported monthly. . . .
If a CC enrollee who is accepting a subsidy is over 55 and DID NOT prove their income last year with W2's, then they will likely find themselves having to prove their income several times annually to keep their subsidy. If any of their reported income was through commissions, then yes, they wouldn't get that 1099 until the following January and CC knows this. The commissioned salesperson over 55 years of age will be required to prove when they were paid commissions by scanning and uploading their (dated) commission stmts or checkstubs into the CC website.

An "over-55" CC enrollees' CC file is automatically sent electronically to their County SS Dept who will "work it up" for Medi-Cal eligibility at the same time the enrollee is covered with a subsidy helping to pay their premiums. County Medi-Cal workers have the authority to go into a CC enrollee's CC case and change their income numbers as they see fit, without informing the enrollee and often do. (For instance, remove military retirement income, adjust interest or dividend income or a remove a deduction they don't feel qualifies for MAGI, etc). For those who have reported W-2 income in the previous year and/or listed it in their current income on CalHEERS, the Medi-Cal worker in their county will cull the state EDD index beginning one month after every quarter (4/30, 7/31, 10/31 and 1/31, after employers have reported earnings) to try to match CC enrollees' reported or projected earnings with what their employer reported. If employers reported less monthly earnings than the Medi-Cal threshold for the enrollee's filing status (or in any months leading up to the current month), that is cause for Medi-Cal forced placement. It doesn't matter if the employee may have been on FML or ran out of leave and that is why their paycheck(s) were short for that month or a period of months. It only matters that their gross pay for one or more months fell below 138% of the "poverty level," rendering them "Medi-Cal eligible."

CC enrollees below 55 years of age aren't scrutinized as closely and their tax returns (usually reporting W-2 income) are accepted at face value because for them, their Medi-Cal premium may cost just as much or more than the subsidy they are receiving and more importantly, the law does not provide for Medi-Cal estate recovery for CC enrollees under the age of 55. There is little incentive for CC or County SS Depts to go through all that extra work of constantly monitoring younger CC enrollees' CC accounts and hassling them for proof of income when the state wouldn't be allowed to place any liens on them for the cost of Medi-Cal managed care premiums. In most cases, it's cheaper to give them a subsidy if they have an easily proveable W-2 income within $15K annually of the Medi-Cal threshold.

Boomers are an absolute cash cow for states who adopted expanded Medicaid under the ACA and CA is wasting no time making sure they are going to get their cut. Our homes and other properties are sitting ducks for attachment and the state is chomping at the bit to obtain the right to start their tab running and lay claim on them.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 27, 2016 - 12:41pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
Same issue with the under 25 crowd. Not sure what the complaint is other than the State department is being incompetent in execution in checking out make sure the State isn't getting bilked.
It's not "their (State's) money," NSR. Healthcare subsidies come from Federal funds and it is actually the IRS who is "in charge" of vetting taxpayers' incomes for subsidy eligibility and amount. The IRS has access to the forms of ALL income reported to each taxpayer because those paying entities are required to report this info to the IRS. CC does not.

NSR, why don't you explain to me how a CC enrollee who received a tax refund in 2015 of a portion of CC premiums they paid in 2014 (because they were not awarded a large enough subsidy for their incomes by CC in 2014) was told by CC in writing DURING 2014 that they are NOT eligible for a subsidy (eligible only for Medi-Cal) and threatened with forced placement of their CC acct to Medi-Cal? OR, the CC enrollee was told by CC in writing that they were not eligible for a subsidy anymore during the same year that the IRS determined they didn't receive enough subsidy for that year and refunded them premium monies after they filed their tax returns?

This debacle is happening again this year for early 2015 tax return filers. They're getting $400 to $900 back from the IRS this year for not receiving enough subsidy from CC in tax year 2015, yet ALL have been hassled in writing by CC and/or Medi-Cal workers since the 3rd quarter of 2015 (and now, again, in 2016) to "re-prove" the SAME income to CC (or Medi-Cal) for "subsidy eligibility" which the IRS has already vetted! Lots and lots people over the age of 55 are on "fixed incomes" which change little from year to year unless they remove income from their retirement savings.

This whole "make-work procedure" by the state and counties is nothing more than a function of (greedy) state gubments overarching and sticking their noses into everyone's business because they found loopholes in the ACA which they believe permits them to do so for the sole purpose of obtaining the right to eventual "estate recovery" on the estates of those CC enrollees receiving subsidies who are over the age of 55. In CA, it's as if our 58 county SS agencies don't have enough work with "poor" US citizens at their doors seeking cash and food aid as well as illegal immigrants to deal with who are attempting to use phony identities and addresses to receive aid.

It was a really "bad idea" to expand Medicaid/Medi-Cal in the states who adopted it and the predominately DEM Congress who passed this crap were idiots. The states who adopted "expanded Medicaid" are (very methodically and purposefully) attempting to snag thousands upon thousands of high-asset boomers into the their dragnets for the sole purpose of eventual "estate recovery." The vast majority of these individuals are reporting legitimate incomes above (often far above) the Medi-Cal threshold which CC and their respective SS agencies then discount or render "exempt" in the back room (and unbeknownst to the taxpayer/CC enrollee) for the sole purpose of force-placing them on Medicaid/Medi-Cal behind their backs! For example, I will receive a portion of my sponsor's military retirement every month for the rest of my life and the portion of my (non-taxable) Health Insurance Reimbursement from my retirement association every month until I am 65 (at which time my allowance will increase to pay for my Medicare supplements for Parts B and D). But both of those "monthly incomes" are exempt from keeping me from Medi-Cal eligibility! My experience with "the system" with the 7-8 people I have helped sign up to CC is that it is grossly incompetent and can't understand numbers on tax forms indicating the individual has other lifetime income such as annuities or trust income, etc and will receive it until the "fund" runs out (which will likely be many years ... in most cases, AFTER the individual turns 65). CC is also too incompetent to determine from a 59.5+ yo's tax return that they removed tax-free $$ from retirement accts last year to live on.

This situation is especially difficult for boomers with CC accounts due to the now exorbitant cost of premiums of CC plans for their age group. Prior to the ACA, I knew several people over age 55 who purchased their own plans (incl myself) and no way did ANY of them pay monthly premiums of over $1000 until about age 62 (for a comprehensive plan, NOT an HDHP)! Now, HMO, EPO and PPO premiums are hitting the $1000 month mark starting at Gold level for age 56 for most of the CC plans (which is nearly 3x the cost of a very good pre-ACA HDHP). By the time one hits the age of 62, monthly premiums for Silver plans and up now cost from $775 to $1350 per month and are rising 8-20% per year in CA! I can tell you that the vast majority of boomers would rather not take a subsidy (and didn't need one to pay for their coverage prior to the ACA) but the "ACA compliant" plans are now so pricey that many have no choice but to accept a subsidy if they wish to NOT outlive their retirement savings. The requirement that ALL plans now be "ACA-compliant" has driven up the price for those plans exponentially for this age group who typically doesn't need or want a good portion of services which are "ACA compliant" (i.e. maternity svcs, chiropractic, mental health, drug and alcohol detox/rehab, svcs for autistic children, etc). Yet, by law, every CA resident who is NOT on Medi-Cal must now pay for ALL of these services every month in their premiums as they are mandatory inclusions in our coverage.

Boomers' healthplan premiums are high enough. We shouldn't be forced to subsidize millenial families having babies (while they pay premiums which cost 1/3 to 1/4 of ours). Who was there to "subsidize" our "maternity bills?" Ummm, actually, no one. We paid our own medical bills with our own medical coverage.

The ACA is the biggest scam this country has ever seen and the only entities benefiting from it are the insurance companies who opted to participate in the state exchanges. They are raking in billions from the gubment only to offer very narrow networks (and often no networks at all in some jurisdictions) to their sitting-duck state-exchange planholders in exchange for those billions. The ACA isn't even good for millenials. Before it was enacted, relatively healthy individuals in their 20's were able to easily obtain a NATIONWIDE HDHP with a very REPUTABLE carrier with a HUGE selection of providers on the open market for $94 to $110 month (30-somethings cost a little more).

As a result of the ACA, healthplan premiums are now so inflated that the majority without access to health insurance now need a "subsidy" to help pay for it every month. This phenomenon has the effect of creating a "license" for state and local gubment to insert itself into Joe and Jane 6p's personal business. To this end, CA now needs more and more CC workers and County SS workers (who vest for lifetime pensions after five years of service). It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL of the populace, people, plain and simple.

Our country is now spending trillions on premium subsidies, essentially to line the pockets of the exchange carriers and to create extra state bureaucracies and beef up county bureaucracies. The (PPO) exchange carriers' reimbursements to providers have actually decreased by more than 100% since the inception of the ACA, causing many GREAT longtime providers who are in a position to retire to voluntarily give up their practices.

If a candidate such as Trump has an agenda to decimate the ACA and start over, I'll volunteer my services to that end. I now have enough "ammunition" which will prove to be so utterly ridiculous to "John Q Public registered voter" that it will make CC and CA County SS agencies look like the flaming "make-work" idiots that they are. I'm getting very close to filling out that new voter registration form I have bookmarked, and, depending upon the outcome of the CA primary election, drafting letters (with [redacted] exhibits) .... to be mailed (certified) to the "appropriate entities" just in time for the "general election campaign season." If I'm ever needed out of town to testify to the PTB or a campaign rally as to this travesty taking place every business day, all day at the hands of CA state gubment, I'll be there with bells on :=0

/disgusted rant

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 27, 2016 - 4:09pm.

California runs the California exchange. California communicates enrollment info. California screws it up. And many other states too, I'm sure

As for your premiums rocketing and blaming ACA, frankly you apparently haven't been listening for the last 20 years as businesses have been complaining about double digit premium growth since then.

Your just seeing it for a change. Nothing new. My prior employer screwed up my coverage the same way. People make mistakes and the more protected they are the more careless they are in performing their job duties

You rant you want to exclude coverage, what do you think your premiums will do when everyone under 50 starts dumping coverage for Alzheimer's, dementia and all the other typically older conditions?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 27, 2016 - 5:34pm.

Wow, clinton is trouncing sanders in s Carolina. Just as I was beginning to think that sanders could beat trump in the general.

I would have been sad for Clinton if she lost. She has been working her heart out for decades.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 5:52pm.

Brian, the projected +30 win in SC is huge win for Hillary. It's going to be tough for Bernie to regain buzz, momentum & media coverage after this.

Actually there is very insightful artical by Nate Silver that I recommend. Basically even though Bernie did well in IA and won NH, he did not win even those states by as large enough margin as he should have, given the demographics of those states. So positive media aside, his performance in even IA / NH was not where it needed to be-

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bern...

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 27, 2016 - 6:04pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
California runs the California exchange. California communicates enrollment info. California screws it up. And many other states too, I'm sure

As for your premiums rocketing and blaming ACA, frankly you apparently haven't been listening for the last 20 years as businesses have been complaining about double digit premium growth since then.

Your just seeing it for a change. Nothing new. My prior employer screwed up my coverage the same way. People make mistakes and the more protected they are the more careless they are in performing their job duties

You rant you want to exclude coverage, what do you think your premiums will do when everyone under 50 starts dumping coverage for Alzheimer's, dementia and all the other typically older conditions?

NSR, Alzheimer's and dementia are typical diseases of those over the age of 65 and already on Medicare so your argument in this regard is moot. If young people don't want to sign up on the exchanges and decide to be subject to the penalty instead, I don't care. A lot of them just out of college, yet too old to be their parents' policies aren't making much and thus their penalty won't be much. This group can go on Medi-Cal. It won't affect their futures or estates one bit. They can stay on Medi-Cal until they get a job with coverage. I'm all for the Medi-Cal Kids program as well. Medi-Cal is fine for the younger groups but it's NOT okay if it is "force-placed" on someone who very clearly has been affording and can afford their own healthcare premiums until they reach the age of 65 (with or without a smallish subsidy). Once someone over the age of 55 is "force-placed" on Medi-Cal" (esp behind their backs where they may not even be aware of it for the first month or two), their county SS Medi-Cal worker is the only person who can release them off Medi-Cal and will only do so if the ex-CC enrollee successfully PROVES their (allowable) monthly income to their Medi-Cal worker which is over the Medi-Cal threshold OR proves that they have purchased ACA-approved coverage OFF the exchange and that coverage has already started! (One CANNOT sign up for a plan on the exchange if they are currently on Medi-Cal. The exchanges' websites will not permit this.) Even then, it takes Medi-Cal 4-12 months (avg of 8-9 mos) to "release" a former CC enrollee off Medi-Cal (who never should have been ON Medi-Cal in the first place! Meanwhile, a state tab of $625 to $635 month is running for their Medi-Cal managed-care premiums paid on their behalf (which they never signed up for and never used) solely for the purpose of "estate recovery."

THIS is the "vise grip" which is regularly employed on the over-55 CC-enrollee cohort in CA. It's a big "gotcha" and a potential future GOLD MINE for the state! As such, the "individual mandate" for this group could very well prove to be unconstitutional if it was tested in Federal Court.

This is also why I'm going to close my CC account at the end of this year after obtaining coverage OFF the exchange eff: 1-1-17 during "open enrollment" in the fall. Hopefully, the ACA will eventually be repealed and CA will get back those six major carriers who left the state's individual health-plan market at the end of 2013 and there will be "competition" among sellers of nationwide PPOs which don't cost $2200+ month. These companies will all come back if they can medically underwrite people again. People with bad health can apply to the state insurance pool which every carrier will have to join who is doing biz in the state. They will rotate accepting applicants with pre-existing conditions, much like auto insurers in the state pool do with driver's with SR-22 filings and too many points on their licenses. Those premiums will be "affordable" by being "subsidized" and the truly "poor" with pre-existing conditions can go on Medi-Cal ... as it has always been. The healthy applicants for individual healthplans will each pay a small surcharge in their monthly premiums to help cover the premiums of the "state pool applicants with pre-existing conditions." This won't be NEAR AS EXPENSIVE for the healthy group because their premium amount will be based upon their past usage and overall health as determined by the results of their carriers' physical examinations administered to them during the application process. In addition, there will be six more major carriers in the state to compete against one another and ALL offer PORTABLE NATIONWIDE PPOs, which is what most boomers want. Actual subsidies will only be offered to those who have pre-existing conditions which would typically cause their healthplan rates to skyrocket. All the people who are healthy and receiving subsidies now won't need them because their healthplans will be much cheaper.

I also like Trump's idea of "public hospitals." (UCSD Hospital in Hillcrest back in the '70's and '80's, along with the now defunct "Physicians and Surgeon's" Hospital in SE SD used to be SD County's "public hospitals.") "Public hospitals" can provide care to the uninsured indigent who fell thru the cracks and get reimbursed the Medicare rate for their care by the Federal Government.

The "individual mandate" needs to be scrapped as well, imho.

After I "prove" my income to CC once again next month, I won't be "proving" any more of my personal biz to (supremely incompetent) state and local bureaucrats anymore. I have already given them several years access to my tax returns when I signed up to CC, I spent nearly my entire working life playing stupid games with bureaucrats and the truth is that I don't have to anymore. It's nothing but a fool's errand. I paid all my exorbitant health premiums (yes, even MY share of my health premium is way more than it should be) on time since the ACA has been in force and I am now done. It is illegal to dump someone's coverage if they have paid their premium on time for that month. The carriers who elected to participate in CA's exchange are weak and have caved into CC, lock, stock and barrel. They will tell you that they have absolutely no say in anything regarding the continuity of coverage of any of their planholders who signed up through CC whilst taking your money every month. CC runs the show and I don't want incompetent bureaucrats with thousands of $10-$15 hr employees (most of whom don't even have associate degrees and a good portion who undoubtedly only received GEDs) fvcking with my income and bumping me from my health coverage behind my back after I already paid my premium for that month ... ESPecially when I am on frequently on the road for weeks at a time where anything can happen to me in the blink of an eye. I don't need that kind of stress and am no longer in a place in life where I have to play with these idiots. End of story.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 27, 2016 - 6:32pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
Brian, the projected +30 win in SC is huge win for Hillary. It's going to be tough for Bernie to regain buzz, momentum & media coverage after this.

Actually there is very insightful artical by Nate Silver that I recommend. Basically even though Bernie did well in IA and won NH, he did not win even those states by as large enough margin as he should have, given the demographics of those states. So positive media aside, his performance in even IA / NH was not where it needed to be-

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bern...

Yes I read the article earlier. The results in SC show that sanders is not gaining traction with blacks.

Submitted by Coronita on February 27, 2016 - 7:01pm.

zk wrote:

If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I don't think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody's super-excited about Hillary, but because they'd be super-excited about making sure Trump didn't win.

To me, though, the brokered convention looks more likely than ever, with Rubio the nominee.

+1

I'll take this further and say, if it's Hillary vs. Trump, the turnout for anyone voting against Trump won't be low.

Submitted by joec on February 27, 2016 - 7:18pm.

So am I the only one here who doesn't like Hillary? I really hate 2 party politics.

Submitted by spdrun on February 27, 2016 - 7:23pm.

I don't like Hillary.

Submitted by svelte on February 27, 2016 - 7:38pm.

Not much of a Hillary fan either.

I might just leave the Pres box unchecked, as I've done a couple of times before. Kinda my way of saying "all y'all suck".

Submitted by Coronita on February 27, 2016 - 7:52pm.

joec wrote:
So am I the only one here who doesn't like Hillary? I really hate 2 party politics.

No, I don't like her either. But I like trump even less. Which is really too bad.

I can probably work around hillary since basically she's in bed with wall street.

Trump is just a flat out lunatic, and it empowers everything about this country that is just wrong. It's like empowering the lowest of the low, the most radical, racist,bigoted, angry people who aren't willing to lift a finger for themselves.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 8:10pm.

i understand people don't like Hillary.

What I don't understand is why people think Cruz or Rubio is a better choice than Trump if you don't believe in the basic dogma of conservatism. Their positions are equally repealing as Trump's are to me. They mostly say the same things as Trump, but in a more polished, classy, upper-class way!

Submitted by Coronita on February 27, 2016 - 8:10pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
i understand people don't like Hillary.

What I don't understand is why people think Cruz or Rubio is a better choice than Trump if you don't believe in the basic dogma of conservatism. Their positions are equally repealing as Trump to me .

Cruz was a nutjob I never thought had a chance. Rubio is a RINO, but to me seems harmless.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 8:17pm.

flu wrote:
enron_by_the_sea wrote:
i understand people don't like Hillary.

What I don't understand is why people think Cruz or Rubio is a better choice than Trump if you don't believe in the basic dogma of conservatism. Their positions are equally repealing as Trump to me .

Cruz was a nutjob I never thought had a chance. Rubio is a RINO, but to me seems harmless.

How so? Ideologically there is not much difference between them. They both got elected as Tea party insurgents. If you look at Heritage Scorecard ( gold standard of "conservativeness" in voting) Cruz scores 100% and Rubio scores 90% . They both are cut from the same cloth. There is nothing centrist/ RINO about Rubio.

Submitted by Coronita on February 27, 2016 - 8:41pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
flu wrote:
enron_by_the_sea wrote:
i understand people don't like Hillary.

What I don't understand is why people think Cruz or Rubio is a better choice than Trump if you don't believe in the basic dogma of conservatism. Their positions are equally repealing as Trump to me .

Cruz was a nutjob I never thought had a chance. Rubio is a RINO, but to me seems harmless.

How so? Ideologically there is not much difference between them. They both got elected as Tea party insurgents. If you look at Heritage Scorecard ( gold standard of "conservativeness" in voting) Cruz scores 100% and Rubio scores 90% . They both are cut from the same cloth. There is nothing centrist/ RINO about Rubio.

Lol. If the extreme right wingers hate him, all the better.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwi...

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 9:04pm.

Calling eachother RINO during the primaries is a common tactic. Current negative articles about Rubio from the extreme right are transient. They will die down as soon as Cruz is out of the race.

My prediction is that if Rubio gets the nomination, all of the GOP, including extreme right will fall in line and work for his election.

If Trump wins on the other hand, then defections are possible.

In short, there is not that much difference between what Rubio's positions are and what the far right wants. I would not make any assumptions about him saying one thing to win primary and doing something else after getting elected. In fact, with a likely majority in house, senate and Supreme Court I will fully expect him to deliver on what he is saying!

Submitted by Coronita on February 27, 2016 - 9:08pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
Calling eachother RINO during the primaries is a common tactic. Current negative articles about Rubio from the extreme right are transient. They will die down as soon as Cruz is out of the race.

My prediction is that if Rubio gets the nomination, all of the GOP, including extreme right will fall in line and work for his election.

If Trump wins on the other hand, then defections are possible.

In short, there is not that much difference between what Rubio's positions are and what the far right wants. I would not make any assumptions about him saying one thing to win primary and doing something else after getting elected. In fact, with a likely majority in house, senate and Supreme Court I will fully expect him to deliver on what he is saying!

The biggest issue I have with Trump, again, is his appeal to the most foul and bigoted personalities in this country.

Well, i for one hope Hillary wins. I like this second term obama and congress. I think it's working great now that we have some balance restored.

Submitted by an on February 27, 2016 - 9:11pm.

joec wrote:
So am I the only one here who doesn't like Hillary? I really hate 2 party politics.

I don't like Hillary but I hate Trump.

Submitted by an on February 27, 2016 - 9:20pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
Calling eachother RINO during the primaries is a common tactic. Current negative articles about Rubio from the extreme right are transient. They will die down as soon as Cruz is out of the race.

My prediction is that if Rubio gets the nomination, all of the GOP, including extreme right will fall in line and work for his election.

If Trump wins on the other hand, then defections are possible.

In short, there is not that much difference between what Rubio's positions are and what the far right wants. I would not make any assumptions about him saying one thing to win primary and doing something else after getting elected. In fact, with a likely majority in house, senate and Supreme Court I will fully expect him to deliver on what he is saying!


What is Trump position? All I hear is fear mongering stuff. He didn't say anything with substance, so how can you say his position is like Cruz or Rubio. Since I don't know what his policy view point, other than building the damn wall, so I can't say I hate is policy. But I do hate him because of his personality and who he inspires.

Submitted by NotCranky on February 27, 2016 - 9:29pm.

Came up with some slogans with kids tonight over dinner. Man did we laugh.

Vote for Trump, Re-white American history!

Vote for Hilary, It's as good as getting your nuts crushed in a rat trap!

It's a free country, vote for whichever weirdo you want!

Vote for Hilary , she's the best thing since sliced beans!

Vote For Bernie, Free Geritol for everyone!

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 10:16pm.

AN wrote:

What is Trump position? All I hear is fear mongering stuff. He didn't say anything with substance, so how can you say his position is like Cruz or Rubio. Since I don't know what his policy view point, other than building the damn wall, so I can't say I hate is policy. But I do hate him because of his personality and who he inspires.

On immigration all are for deporting the undocumented. All are against any significant immigration reform. Rubio once had more flexible position on this issue, from his gang of eight days, but since then he has backtracked on it ( However they are all accused by others to be secretly in favor of "amnesty")

All are against any form of gun control and favor more expansion of guns in American society.

All are anti abortion. ( Trump, however, acknowledges that sometimes planned parenthood does some good things )

They favor significantly reduced taxes on the super-rich. Rubio will however throw some bones at non-super-rich in the form of child tax credits.

Cruz and Rubio favor entitlement reform (i.e. weakening social security, medicare, Medicaid ). Trump is probably not in favor of this.

All would get rid of Obamacare without specifying what will replace it. Trump promises people won't die for lack of care ( Thank you!). Cruz/Rubio won't promise that.

No one will restrain Wall Street & they favor getting rid of Dodd-Frank etc.( And you think Hillary is pro-wall-street). Trump however does not think very highly of the Wall Street traders!

All are for Macho foreign policy. Cruz will carpet bomb Syria. Rubio will pick fights with Putin. Trump will buddy up with Putin. Guantanamo will be refilled. Water boarding will be routine. All will roll back Iran nuclear deal. However Trump may not be as pro-Israel as the other two. Cruz & Trump however, inconsistently, sometimes also take non-interventionist stands on issues like Rand Paul. Rubio is consistently in the neo-con camp.

No one believes in climate change. Nothing will be done there.

Rubio/Cruz will nominate conservative justices to Supreme Court. Trump's position is unclear.

They are all against expansion of LGBT rights, equal pay etc. Trump might be OK with increased minimum wage

Rubio/Cruz are enthusiastically for globalization & trade pacts. Trump is apparently not into those!

Submitted by an on February 27, 2016 - 10:27pm.

I still don't know what Trump would do. On a whole host of stuff. Even with what you posted. However, what you posted, Trump is as similar to the other two as Trump to Bernie. In the past, he also said he is in favor of universal healthcare, full support for pro choice, contributed to many Democrats, etc. So I have no idea where he really is. My interpretation of him is he is great at reading the crazies in the Republican party and take full advantage of it.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 10:33pm.

AN wrote:
However, what you posted, Trump is as similar to the other two as Trump to Bernie.

I never said ( or at least never wanted to say) that Trump is similar to Rubio & Cruz.

I said basically two things.

1. If you don't like Trump and you are not a believer in conservative ideology , then you should dislike Rubio and Cruz even more.

2. There is not that much difference between Rubio and Cruz and the extreme right of the Republican Party.

Submitted by an on February 27, 2016 - 10:44pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
AN wrote:
However, what you posted, Trump is as similar to the other two as Trump to Bernie.

I never said ( or at least never wanted to say) that Trump is similar to Rubio & Cruz.

I said basically two things.

1. If you don't like Trump and you are not a believer in conservative ideology , then you should dislike Rubio and Cruz even more.

2. There is not that much difference between Rubio and Cruz and the extreme right of the Republican Party.


Isn't your #1 essentially is saying if you're a Democrat, then you should dislike Rubio and Cruz?

#2, Rubio is part of the gang of 8, which in my view makes him much more centrist. I view that as a good thing, but am fully aware that during the primary, the candidates have to run either left or right. Just as Hillary is trying to run far left to match Bernie.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 11:10pm.

AN wrote:

Isn't your #1 essentially is saying if you're a Democrat, then you should dislike Rubio and Cruz?

#2, Rubio is part of the gang of 8, which in my view makes him much more centrist. I view that as a good thing, but am fully aware that during the primary, the candidates have to run either left or right. Just as Hillary is trying to run far left to match Bernie.

#1 includes most but not all democrats. (There are democrats in the south & Appalachia who might be ideologically closer to GOP, but they are small in numbers these days). It could also include centrist independents & some (small number of) moderate republicans who would have voted for Bush or Kasich over Hillary if they were on the ballot.

Submitted by an on February 27, 2016 - 11:14pm.

How can you be a Republican and not a believer of conservative ideology? I'm a centrist independent and I believe in some of the conservative ideology.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 27, 2016 - 11:19pm.

AN wrote:
How can you be a Republican and not a believer of conservative ideology? I'm a centrist independent and I believe in some of the conservative ideology.

Kevin Faulconer :)

Submitted by an on February 28, 2016 - 12:15am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
AN wrote:
How can you be a Republican and not a believer of conservative ideology? I'm a centrist independent and I believe in some of the conservative ideology.

Kevin Faulconer :)


His actions seems to prove otherwise ( minimum wage veto and courting businesses).

Submitted by Coronita on February 28, 2016 - 3:23am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:

On immigration all are for deporting the undocumented. All are against any significant immigration reform. Rubio once had more flexible position on this issue, from his gang of eight days, but since then he has backtracked on it ( However they are all accused by others to be secretly in favor of "amnesty")

Again, there's a difference between a candidate supporting a particular policy versus inspiring hate because you aren't white.

Rubio and to a lesser extent Cruz never suggested "mexico isn't bring their best to america, nor suggest all latinos here illegally are rapists and murderers". Not did Rubio or Cruz suggest the problem with companies is H1-B indians and asians and China.

And what appears to have happened is as Trump as gained considerable ground on based on his hate tactic, it seems like the rest of the candidates double-downed on stupidity and adopted an equally radical platform, all to win the the most racist voter base in america

Trump basically torpeadoed any chance of any moderate republican voting for this party. In as much I care less about the national elections, as I do about weak voter turnout in CA for the local elections for the GOP, the last thing I would want is for the democrats in CA to regain a supermajority in the state governments. In as much it's equally bad if the GOP dominates government, it's just as bad in CA if there's a supermajority of democrats.

Quote:

All are against any form of gun control and favor more expansion of guns in American society.

And what has been done about this recently?

Quote:

All are anti abortion. ( Trump, however, acknowledges that sometimes planned parenthood does some good things )

Good point

Quote:

They favor significantly reduced taxes on the super-rich. Rubio will however throw some bones at non-super-rich in the form of child tax credits.

Hillary would do exactly the same thing. But in addition would end up try taxing the upper middle class more, claiming they were "rich". Then again, it would probably be a wash, because Hillary is in bed with wall street, so the stock market would probably do alright as well as banks.

Quote:

Cruz and Rubio favor entitlement reform (i.e. weakening social security, medicare, Medicaid ). Trump is probably not in favor of this.

Good

Quote:

All would get rid of Obamacare without specifying what will replace it. Trump promises people won't die for lack of care ( Thank you!). Cruz/Rubio won't promise that.

We know this will never get repealed.

Quote:

No one will restrain Wall Street & they favor getting rid of Dodd-Frank etc.( And you think Hillary is pro-wall-street). Trump however does not think very highly of the Wall Street traders!

No candidate with the exception of Bernie will ever go head to head against wall street. period. Trump, again, redirects and points the finger at individuals "traders" as the source of problem. Again, his strategy of deflecting hate at the real problem at people versus the policy or corporate entity. See the common theme? Trump gets people rallied up because he points out the problems that america hates (specifically white america). But then, instead of pointing at the real source of the problem, switches-and-baits the cause of the problems at individual groups of PEOPLE, not institutions or policy.

Quote:

All are for Macho foreign policy. Cruz will carpet bomb Syria. Rubio will pick fights with Putin. Trump will buddy up with Putin. Guantanamo will be refilled. Water boarding will be routine. All will roll back Iran nuclear deal. However Trump may not be as pro-Israel as the other two. Cruz & Trump however, inconsistently, sometimes also take non-interventionist stands on issues like Rand Paul. Rubio is consistently in the neo-con camp.

True

Quote:

No one believes in climate change. Nothing will be done there.

Not much has been done the past 8 years. Where's are green energy policy from the past 8 years?

Quote:

Rubio/Cruz will nominate conservative justices to Supreme Court. Trump's position is unclear.

They are all against expansion of LGBT rights, equal pay etc. Trump might be OK with increased minimum wage


True

Quote:

Rubio/Cruz are enthusiastically for globalization & trade pacts. Trump is apparently not into those!

Trump is for sealing the border to anyone not white,sealing opportunities to anyone not white. That in itself trumps (pun intended) any other reason to vote for him in my book.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.