Presidential Race 2016

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

I recognize the left uses them ...

 

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

...not the religious right...

Even so, they haven't offended me as much as the RINOs have.

 

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

We've been mischaracterized by the left media for too many years.

 

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

They find a freak or 2 and paint all of us with the same broad brush.  

Annoying, isn't it?

[pumaAttack]

1 minute ago, 14ledo81 said:

Who gets to decide "whose" threatened is correct?

 

Why weren't people upset that transgender individuals were using the same bathroom as their sons?  

An overwhelming, mid 90s, percent of sexual assaults occur from somebody the victim knows, but go ahead and blame a transgender man for having to use the bathroom.

 

Common sense comes into play when you decide who is actually threatened. 

 

 

[rehmwa]

13 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

It SHOULD be your business if a fellow citizen is discriminated upon because of their race/gender/orientation/religion/whatever.

The bathroom laws are your status quo where citizens are discriminated upon because some people "feel" threatened.  The Government has a duty to protect the individual freedoms of everyone and sometimes that requires action because the status quo is not good enough.

That is consistent with what I'm saying.  Did you miss where my position was NOT 'status quo'.  Your party bias is keeping you from reading.

as for the gas comment - I agree also with the sentiment about being good stewards, but still not to force it on others - that seems to be an area where you want to force others to your viewpoint rather than convince them to CHOOSE for the themselves to do the right thing....

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

This was sorta my point.  The vast majority of conservatives feel this way.  I don't know any, in fact, that want government intervention on any social issues.  Rather, we take the stance of let the people decide via states rights,  and the ballot box.  We've been mischaracterized by the left media for too many years.  They find a freak or 2 and paint all of us with the same broad brush.  

I am not political at all - hardly know anything about it.  I always thought, though, that "conservatism" meant as you say . .1.  Fiscally thrifty and 2. Socially not nosy.

I can't really understand how Ted Cruz is a "conservative" because he is 2. Socially very nosy to the point of being insane.

He's a prominent member of the party - he was in contention for the Presidency.  And it's not just him, either - there are plenty of "Conservative" politicians who are socially very nosy. 

I think I basically agree with everything you say except that it's a freak or 20, not a freak or 2.  Either that or The Republican's are not really "conservative" . .or else I have my own definition wrong.  Something not computing. 

Anyway - I definitely prefer the "leave me alone and mind your business" platform.  But . .minding your business includes not screwing it up for everyone around you . .so it could be compatible with limiting your ability to drive a high mileage vehicle, etc.     

[pumaAttack]

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

That is consistent with what I'm saying.  Did you miss where my position was NOT 'status quo'.  Your party bias is keeping you from reading.

as for the gas comment - I agree also with the sentiment about being good stewards, but still not to force it on others - that seems to be an area where you want to force others to your viewpoint rather than convince them to CHOOSE for the themselves to do the right thing....

No...

The government sets stricter pollution laws and forces the car companies to produce only vehicles that meet those standards. 

The consumer can still pick any vehicle brand, style, color, model, they want.  You are not taking away the choice from the consumer, you are making the choices sustainable for future generations.  

Edited May 4, 2016 by pumaAttack

[Lihu]

18 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Why weren't people upset that transgender individuals were using the same bathroom as their sons?  

An overwhelming, mid 90s, percent of sexual assaults occur from somebody the victim knows, but go ahead and blame a transgender man for having to use the bathroom.

Common sense comes into play when you decide who is actually threatened. 

These are pretty good points.

 

20 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Annoying, isn't it?

Good one.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0XV2CT

Clinton's scared, and rightly so.

[newtogolf]

38 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Why weren't people upset that transgender individuals were using the same bathroom as their sons?  

An overwhelming, mid 90s, percent of sexual assaults occur from somebody the victim knows, but go ahead and blame a transgender man for having to use the bathroom.

Common sense comes into play when you decide who is actually threatened. 

At what point do you ask society to buy into the "reality" of an individual and at what price?  I have nothing against transgenders but by definition they are people of one biological gender that identifies as the other gender.  Do we grant white students the ability to compete for scholarships set aside for African Americans if those white students "identify" as African American?  

I don't think anyone has a real issue with transgenders using the bathroom they identify with because they represent such a small segment of society.  The problem is these laws open the potential for anyone to exploit those laws to satisfy their sexual perversions.  

How does one differentiate between an actual transgender who identifies as a female and uses the ladies locker room at the gym versus a pervert who's willing to put on a dress and a wig to gain access to the ladies locker room?  

[Dave2512]

Pretty easy one looks the part and the other looks they are going to Halloween party.

Not sure what this has to do with the presidential race.

[rehmwa]

32 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

The consumer can still pick any vehicle brand, style, color, model, they want.

you say no, but your comment says 'yes'.  Unless you're talking about taking that regulation to ridiculous extents, then certainly the line is crossed. 

You're coming across as thinking there's a disagreement - I don't think there is so far. 

Another thing to note is that Libertarianism does not equal anarchy.

hit 'em straight - thanks for the dialogue

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

How does one differentiate between an actual transgender who identifies as a female and uses the ladies locker room at the gym versus a pervert who's willing to put on a dress and a wig to gain access to the ladies locker room?  

Clearly one doesn't.  One is required to pretend that all bathroom visitors are comprised of only one of these two positions and then argue strenuously for whatever position fits that assumption.

For the children

[Lihu]

56 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

At what point do you ask society to buy into the "reality" of an individual and at what price?  I have nothing against transgenders but by definition they are people of one biological gender that identifies as the other gender.  Do we grant white students the ability to compete for scholarships set aside for African Americans if those white students "identify" as African American?  

I don't think anyone has a real issue with transgenders using the bathroom they identify with because they represent such a small segment of society.  The problem is these laws open the potential for anyone to exploit those laws to satisfy their sexual perversions.  

How does one differentiate between an actual transgender who identifies as a female and uses the ladies locker room at the gym versus a pervert who's willing to put on a dress and a wig to gain access to the ladies locker room?  

Not sure that all transgender individuals are choosing their direction? About 1 in 2000 people are born hermaphrodite, which means they are born with both sets of genitals. If they provide private stalls in all the bathrooms, that could easily remedy the issues at extra cost of course. In any case, how did we veer so far off topic?

Trump seems to have a plan to beat Clinton. Let's see if it works?

Who thinks Kasich would be a good VP running mate?

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not sure that all transgender individuals are choosing their direction? About 1 in 2000 people are born hermaphrodite, which means they are born with both sets of genitals.

If they provide private stalls in all the bathrooms, that could easily remedy the issues at extra cost of course.

In any case, how did we veer so far off topic?

Trump seems to have a plan to beat Clinton. Let's see if it works.

Trump has a good shot at beating Clinton because the liberal media won't be able to bury the Clinton FBI investigation stories while covering the elections.  Bernie was a nice guy and didn't push to deeply into the Clinton scandals but Trump won't be as nice.  

Most democrats that I know have no idea that she's being investigated for her involvement with the Clinton Foundation or how the e-mail scandal ties into it.  

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Who thinks Kasich would be a good VP running mate?

Does Trump want Kasich in the VP debates with how mellow Kasich has been in the Primaries? Does that help even Trump out with some of the voters who find him too offensive? Kasich's history is more inline with mainstream Republicans. Would that backfire on Trump's message of being anti-establishment?

 

[newtogolf]

Just now, saevel25 said:

Does Trump want Kasich in the VP debates without mellow Kasich has been in the Primaries? Does that help even Trump out with some of the voters who find him too offensive? Kasich's history is more inline with mainstream Republicans. Would that backfire on Trump's message of being anti-establishment?

 

I think Trump selects Governor Susana Martinez from New Mexico, she can help him with his poor rating with women and Hispanics.  

[saevel25]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-teases-vp-requirements/story?id=38869060

 

Quote

"I think probably I would like to go with somebody with great political experience," Trump told "Good Morning America" today of his potential pick.

-Trump

 

[Braivo]

24 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump has a good shot at beating Clinton because the liberal media won't be able to bury the Clinton FBI investigation stories while covering the elections.  Bernie was a nice guy and didn't push to deeply into the Clinton scandals but Trump won't be as nice.  

Most democrats that I know have no idea that she's being investigated for her involvement with the Clinton Foundation or how the e-mail scandal ties into it.  

He is going to hammer her for this. He has already labeled her "Crooked Hillary" and that name will stick with her. 

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Does Trump want Kasich in the VP debates with how mellow Kasich has been in the Primaries? Does that help even Trump out with some of the voters who find him too offensive? Kasich's history is more inline with mainstream Republicans. Would that backfire on Trump's message of being anti-establishment?

 

Trump is going to want to get things done in DC, so I believe he will select someone with connections to legislature. Jeff Sessions is a real possibility, but he may not want to take him out of congress, he may be more valuable inside. I have seen Newt Gingrich mentioned, it's possible. 

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I think Trump selects Governor Susana Martinez from New Mexico, she can help him with his poor rating with women and Hispanics.  

Interesting, I hadn't considered this type of pick. I really think he will try to get someone close to the DC politics though, a legislator or former legislator. I don't think Trump will make his choice based on who makes him more electable, I believe he thinks he can win this all on his own. He will be strategic and think long-term. 

[Gunther]

I initially was thinking Christie or Rudy but I'm now starting to believe it'll be a woman.  He has more female execs in his company than male so he clearly appreciates them for their leadership skills.  And the added benefit is the woman vote, especially since he's turned off a lot of Republican women with his brashness.

In an effort to throw another name in the hat, I'd be ecstatic if he chose Condi Rice, who would benefit him immeasurably on geo-political issues and I would guess also knows her way around the hallways of Congress. 

He named Carson to his VP search/vetting team so I guess that eliminates him from consideration.  He'll announce in July.

[Ernest Jones]

43 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I initially was thinking Christie or Rudy but I'm now starting to believe it'll be a woman.  He has more female execs in his company than male so he clearly appreciates them for their leadership skills.  And the added benefit is the woman vote, especially since he's turned off a lot of Republican women with his brashness.

In an effort to throw another name in the hat, I'd be ecstatic if he chose Condi Rice, who would benefit him immeasurably on geo-political issues and I would guess also knows her way around the hallways of Congress. 

He named Carson to his VP search/vetting team so I guess that eliminates him from consideration.  He'll announce in July.

His choices may be somewhat limited by the fact that most of the people that have the intelligence and skill-sets that Trump needs find him to be a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment.  

[Gunther]

12 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

His choices may be somewhat limited by the fact that most of the people that have the intelligence and skill-sets that Trump needs find him to be a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment.  

His unfavorables are an impediment, to be sure.  But given that Hillary is also a repulsive dirtbag and an embarrassment, I think that's a wash.