CDZ Do I have the electoral Data Right?

[william the wie]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

 

[Boss]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Wow... power-packed with bling! You have at least the makings of 5 threads there. Which one would you like to discuss? Or do you want a quick answer on all? Let me see how that goes...

1) It's already impossible to define the ACA as a single entity. There have now spawned about 2,500 various entities created in the wake of the legislation. So to "get rid of Obamacare" is simply not realistic anymore, certain aspects of it will be with us from now on. I think you will find that both parties are interested in reforming Obamacare. I've always maintained that the minute you turned this over to government was when we were screwed as a nation. You've lost freedom you'll never have again. The results of any government expansion.

2) States are going to have to deal with their own problems more. The Fed is not some rich Uncle who can bail you out every time you get over your head. Many years ago, I wrote a science fiction story about the future... in it, the nation was comprised of 12 states... mega-states. As some states went bankrupt, they were absorbed by other states. Centers of power changed. NY encompassed the entire Northeast. The State of Great Lakes encompassed all the Great Lakes states and most of the Midwest. The Gulf State was all the Southern Gulf Coast states except for Texas, which was still Texas... (some things never change.) But even Texas had changed, a lot of the southern part was ceded to Mexicalifornia... a new state that included Mexico, southern Cali, Nevada, Arizona and part of southern Texas. Anyway... all fictional, but based on the paradox we face today... states going tits up and no money to bail them out anymore.

3) Again, we cannot sustain an on-going UN peacekeeping presence around the world. That is why we formed the UN. Our role is leadership and we should lead. If our national security is threatened, we should use all means at our disposal to dispatch the threat quickly and efficiently, and in no uncertain terms. If we can't do that, find another solution.

4) Goes back to point #3... we cannot police the world. We just don't have the money or resources. We have to stomp out state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot risk allowing it to fester and grow as we've done for the past 8 years. Putting an end to this will require not being pretty and I don't know that America has the stomach for it. Still, it's a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Radical Jihad isn't going anywhere. I'm humane... a humanitarian... I believed we needed to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism 20 years ago. Think of all the innocent people who's lives would have been saved? But most of the nation wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and the problem continues to worsen, which in turn, will end up costing more innocent lives. Pay me now... or pay me later.

5) NAFTA has not worked out well for our country. Since it's implementation, we have lost almost all our manufacturing sector jobs. We can't sell our expensive products elsewhere and we've flooded our own market with cheap products from abroad. So we turned out being chumps with NAFTA and the only people who seem to not comprehend this are those who gain some advantage through the agreement. We need better trade deals which enable our market to flourish and grow.

 

[320 Years of History]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Held by whom?

• By me?
• By the candidates whose names you cited?
• By Mr. Obama?
• By various segments within the two major parties?
• By the Tea Party? The Libertarians?
• By activist Democrats?
• By reactionary Republicans?
• Where applicable, by the specific states' elected leaders at either the federal or state level?
• By one or several foreign nations?
• By the U.N or by a specific unit of it?
• By people who do/don't think the ACA is a failure?

 

[william the wie]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Wow... power-packed with bling! You have at least the makings of 5 threads there. Which one would you like to discuss? Or do you want a quick answer on all? Let me see how that goes...

1) It's already impossible to define the ACA as a single entity. There have now spawned about 2,500 various entities created in the wake of the legislation. So to "get rid of Obamacare" is simply not realistic anymore, certain aspects of it will be with us from now on. I think you will find that both parties are interested in reforming Obamacare. I've always maintained that the minute you turned this over to government was when we were screwed as a nation. You've lost freedom you'll never have again. The results of any government expansion.

2) States are going to have to deal with their own problems more. The Fed is not some rich Uncle who can bail you out every time you get over your head. Many years ago, I wrote a science fiction story about the future... in it, the nation was comprised of 12 states... mega-states. As some states went bankrupt, they were absorbed by other states. Centers of power changed. NY encompassed the entire Northeast. The State of Great Lakes encompassed all the Great Lakes states and most of the Midwest. The Gulf State was all the Southern Gulf Coast states except for Texas, which was still Texas... (some things never change.) But even Texas had changed, a lot of the southern part was ceded to Mexicalifornia... a new state that included Mexico, southern Cali, Nevada, Arizona and part of southern Texas. Anyway... all fictional, but based on the paradox we face today... states going tits up and no money to bail them out anymore.

3) Again, we cannot sustain an on-going UN peacekeeping presence around the world. That is why we formed the UN. Our role is leadership and we should lead. If our national security is threatened, we should use all means at our disposal to dispatch the threat quickly and efficiently, and in no uncertain terms. If we can't do that, find another solution.

4) Goes back to point #3... we cannot police the world. We just don't have the money or resources. We have to stomp out state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot risk allowing it to fester and grow as we've done for the past 8 years. Putting an end to this will require not being pretty and I don't know that America has the stomach for it. Still, it's a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Radical Jihad isn't going anywhere. I'm humane... a humanitarian... I believed we needed to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism 20 years ago. Think of all the innocent people who's lives would have been saved? But most of the nation wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and the problem continues to worsen, which in turn, will end up costing more innocent lives. Pay me now... or pay me later.

5) NAFTA has not worked out well for our country. Since it's implementation, we have lost almost all our manufacturing sector jobs. We can't sell our expensive products elsewhere and we've flooded our own market with cheap products from abroad. So we turned out being chumps with NAFTA and the only people who seem to not comprehend this are those who gain some advantage through the agreement. We need better trade deals which enable our market to flourish and grow.

All of the above are at least defensible and reasonable positions that at worst need tweaking but I am wondering why I am not hearing about such positions from candidates and the news about how increases in net premiums (what is paid out of pocket by those getting subsidies) have effectively ended Ocare in western MS?

Why is Turkey's invasion of Iraq or KSA's invasion of Yemen is not news/debate worthy?

While I tend towards the least bad alternative on NAFTA that simply means I think it sucks less than the TPP or free trade with the EU.

Why aren't these Issues on the agenda?

 

[Boss]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Wow... power-packed with bling! You have at least the makings of 5 threads there. Which one would you like to discuss? Or do you want a quick answer on all? Let me see how that goes...

1) It's already impossible to define the ACA as a single entity. There have now spawned about 2,500 various entities created in the wake of the legislation. So to "get rid of Obamacare" is simply not realistic anymore, certain aspects of it will be with us from now on. I think you will find that both parties are interested in reforming Obamacare. I've always maintained that the minute you turned this over to government was when we were screwed as a nation. You've lost freedom you'll never have again. The results of any government expansion.

2) States are going to have to deal with their own problems more. The Fed is not some rich Uncle who can bail you out every time you get over your head. Many years ago, I wrote a science fiction story about the future... in it, the nation was comprised of 12 states... mega-states. As some states went bankrupt, they were absorbed by other states. Centers of power changed. NY encompassed the entire Northeast. The State of Great Lakes encompassed all the Great Lakes states and most of the Midwest. The Gulf State was all the Southern Gulf Coast states except for Texas, which was still Texas... (some things never change.) But even Texas had changed, a lot of the southern part was ceded to Mexicalifornia... a new state that included Mexico, southern Cali, Nevada, Arizona and part of southern Texas. Anyway... all fictional, but based on the paradox we face today... states going tits up and no money to bail them out anymore.

3) Again, we cannot sustain an on-going UN peacekeeping presence around the world. That is why we formed the UN. Our role is leadership and we should lead. If our national security is threatened, we should use all means at our disposal to dispatch the threat quickly and efficiently, and in no uncertain terms. If we can't do that, find another solution.

4) Goes back to point #3... we cannot police the world. We just don't have the money or resources. We have to stomp out state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot risk allowing it to fester and grow as we've done for the past 8 years. Putting an end to this will require not being pretty and I don't know that America has the stomach for it. Still, it's a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Radical Jihad isn't going anywhere. I'm humane... a humanitarian... I believed we needed to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism 20 years ago. Think of all the innocent people who's lives would have been saved? But most of the nation wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and the problem continues to worsen, which in turn, will end up costing more innocent lives. Pay me now... or pay me later.

5) NAFTA has not worked out well for our country. Since it's implementation, we have lost almost all our manufacturing sector jobs. We can't sell our expensive products elsewhere and we've flooded our own market with cheap products from abroad. So we turned out being chumps with NAFTA and the only people who seem to not comprehend this are those who gain some advantage through the agreement. We need better trade deals which enable our market to flourish and grow.

All of the above are at least defensible and reasonable positions that at worst need tweaking but I am wondering why I am not hearing about such positions from candidates and the news about how increases in net premiums (what is paid out of pocket by those getting subsidies) have effectively ended Ocare in western MS?

Why is Turkey's invasion of Iraq or KSA's invasion of Yemen is not news/debate worthy?

While I tend towards the least bad alternative on NAFTA that simply means I think it sucks less than the TPP or free trade with the EU.

Why aren't these Issues on the agenda?

Well.... No one really gets a say in what the MEDIA decides to present. They have proven they are in the tank for establishment government. So, while there are certainly conservatives out there talking about specifics on these issues and more, the media is focused on trying to cause sensationalism, controversy, something to derail the Conservative movement.

Now, Conservatives don't really have an "agenda" per say. Agenda's are for ideologues and Conservatism is a philosophy. It involves many ideologies and the "agenda" is fluid... it revolves around strengthening our economy and addressing our problems in pragmatic ways. This involves looking at history and wisdom gleaned from the past. Doing things that work and avoiding things we know won't work.

None of it matters unless Conservatives can get elected and right now, they are facing overwhelming odds from a media, and activist left-wing AND an establishment GOP base who are all HELL BENT on seeing to it that a Conservative is not elected to power. The very LAST thing they want is to engage in an intelligent debate on the issues you raise because they know they will lose if they do. Their only hope is to smear and denigrate anything Conservative with every breath, as much as they can, keep pouring it on, keep up the intensity and never stop.

 

[william the wie]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Wow... power-packed with bling! You have at least the makings of 5 threads there. Which one would you like to discuss? Or do you want a quick answer on all? Let me see how that goes...

1) It's already impossible to define the ACA as a single entity. There have now spawned about 2,500 various entities created in the wake of the legislation. So to "get rid of Obamacare" is simply not realistic anymore, certain aspects of it will be with us from now on. I think you will find that both parties are interested in reforming Obamacare. I've always maintained that the minute you turned this over to government was when we were screwed as a nation. You've lost freedom you'll never have again. The results of any government expansion.

2) States are going to have to deal with their own problems more. The Fed is not some rich Uncle who can bail you out every time you get over your head. Many years ago, I wrote a science fiction story about the future... in it, the nation was comprised of 12 states... mega-states. As some states went bankrupt, they were absorbed by other states. Centers of power changed. NY encompassed the entire Northeast. The State of Great Lakes encompassed all the Great Lakes states and most of the Midwest. The Gulf State was all the Southern Gulf Coast states except for Texas, which was still Texas... (some things never change.) But even Texas had changed, a lot of the southern part was ceded to Mexicalifornia... a new state that included Mexico, southern Cali, Nevada, Arizona and part of southern Texas. Anyway... all fictional, but based on the paradox we face today... states going tits up and no money to bail them out anymore.

3) Again, we cannot sustain an on-going UN peacekeeping presence around the world. That is why we formed the UN. Our role is leadership and we should lead. If our national security is threatened, we should use all means at our disposal to dispatch the threat quickly and efficiently, and in no uncertain terms. If we can't do that, find another solution.

4) Goes back to point #3... we cannot police the world. We just don't have the money or resources. We have to stomp out state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot risk allowing it to fester and grow as we've done for the past 8 years. Putting an end to this will require not being pretty and I don't know that America has the stomach for it. Still, it's a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Radical Jihad isn't going anywhere. I'm humane... a humanitarian... I believed we needed to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism 20 years ago. Think of all the innocent people who's lives would have been saved? But most of the nation wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and the problem continues to worsen, which in turn, will end up costing more innocent lives. Pay me now... or pay me later.

5) NAFTA has not worked out well for our country. Since it's implementation, we have lost almost all our manufacturing sector jobs. We can't sell our expensive products elsewhere and we've flooded our own market with cheap products from abroad. So we turned out being chumps with NAFTA and the only people who seem to not comprehend this are those who gain some advantage through the agreement. We need better trade deals which enable our market to flourish and grow.

All of the above are at least defensible and reasonable positions that at worst need tweaking but I am wondering why I am not hearing about such positions from candidates and the news about how increases in net premiums (what is paid out of pocket by those getting subsidies) have effectively ended Ocare in western MS?

Why is Turkey's invasion of Iraq or KSA's invasion of Yemen is not news/debate worthy?

While I tend towards the least bad alternative on NAFTA that simply means I think it sucks less than the TPP or free trade with the EU.

Why aren't these Issues on the agenda?

Well.... No one really gets a say in what the MEDIA decides to present. They have proven they are in the tank for establishment government. So, while there are certainly conservatives out there talking about specifics on these issues and more, the media is focused on trying to cause sensationalism, controversy, something to derail the Conservative movement.

Now, Conservatives don't really have an "agenda" per say. Agenda's are for ideologues and Conservatism is a philosophy. It involves many ideologies and the "agenda" is fluid... it revolves around strengthening our economy and addressing our problems in pragmatic ways. This involves looking at history and wisdom gleaned from the past. Doing things that work and avoiding things we know won't work.

None of it matters unless Conservatives can get elected and right now, they are facing overwhelming odds from a media, and activist left-wing AND an establishment GOP base who are all HELL BENT on seeing to it that a Conservative is not elected to power. The very LAST thing they want is to engage in an intelligent debate on the issues you raise because they know they will lose if they do. Their only hope is to smear and denigrate anything Conservative with every breath, as much as they can, keep pouring it on, keep up the intensity and never stop.

Well right now the left hotspots and their tame media are in the monetary tank. NYT has had so many sugardaddies over the past decade I've lost count. WaPo is starting to follow suit. On the conservative side Fox Buisness News is about the only out right failure out there. Since people watch business channels either to find out what to think or to find out what the lemmings are doing a conservative business channel is less useful than a football bat.

 

[Boss]

The R race has effectively shrunk to Trump, Cruz and Carson. Cruz has avoided burning bridges with any of the other candidates so he is everybody else's second choice and a virtual shoe-in for VP if he doesn't take the top spot.

Bernie is much more popular among D activists than Hillary and is therefore a slight favorite for getting the nomination.

What is not clear is what positions are held for the following issues:

The collapse of Ocare mostly in the Red/Purple states with MS being the poster child for unaffordable care.

The default on debt by the blue/purple states with IL being the poster child of state default.

The Neo-con emphasis on war as the main instrument of foreign policy.

The failed states that result from current foreign policy.

NAFTA being about the only functional part of the World economy.

Wow... power-packed with bling! You have at least the makings of 5 threads there. Which one would you like to discuss? Or do you want a quick answer on all? Let me see how that goes...

1) It's already impossible to define the ACA as a single entity. There have now spawned about 2,500 various entities created in the wake of the legislation. So to "get rid of Obamacare" is simply not realistic anymore, certain aspects of it will be with us from now on. I think you will find that both parties are interested in reforming Obamacare. I've always maintained that the minute you turned this over to government was when we were screwed as a nation. You've lost freedom you'll never have again. The results of any government expansion.

2) States are going to have to deal with their own problems more. The Fed is not some rich Uncle who can bail you out every time you get over your head. Many years ago, I wrote a science fiction story about the future... in it, the nation was comprised of 12 states... mega-states. As some states went bankrupt, they were absorbed by other states. Centers of power changed. NY encompassed the entire Northeast. The State of Great Lakes encompassed all the Great Lakes states and most of the Midwest. The Gulf State was all the Southern Gulf Coast states except for Texas, which was still Texas... (some things never change.) But even Texas had changed, a lot of the southern part was ceded to Mexicalifornia... a new state that included Mexico, southern Cali, Nevada, Arizona and part of southern Texas. Anyway... all fictional, but based on the paradox we face today... states going tits up and no money to bail them out anymore.

3) Again, we cannot sustain an on-going UN peacekeeping presence around the world. That is why we formed the UN. Our role is leadership and we should lead. If our national security is threatened, we should use all means at our disposal to dispatch the threat quickly and efficiently, and in no uncertain terms. If we can't do that, find another solution.

4) Goes back to point #3... we cannot police the world. We just don't have the money or resources. We have to stomp out state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot risk allowing it to fester and grow as we've done for the past 8 years. Putting an end to this will require not being pretty and I don't know that America has the stomach for it. Still, it's a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Radical Jihad isn't going anywhere. I'm humane... a humanitarian... I believed we needed to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism 20 years ago. Think of all the innocent people who's lives would have been saved? But most of the nation wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and the problem continues to worsen, which in turn, will end up costing more innocent lives. Pay me now... or pay me later.

5) NAFTA has not worked out well for our country. Since it's implementation, we have lost almost all our manufacturing sector jobs. We can't sell our expensive products elsewhere and we've flooded our own market with cheap products from abroad. So we turned out being chumps with NAFTA and the only people who seem to not comprehend this are those who gain some advantage through the agreement. We need better trade deals which enable our market to flourish and grow.

All of the above are at least defensible and reasonable positions that at worst need tweaking but I am wondering why I am not hearing about such positions from candidates and the news about how increases in net premiums (what is paid out of pocket by those getting subsidies) have effectively ended Ocare in western MS?

Why is Turkey's invasion of Iraq or KSA's invasion of Yemen is not news/debate worthy?

While I tend towards the least bad alternative on NAFTA that simply means I think it sucks less than the TPP or free trade with the EU.

Why aren't these Issues on the agenda?

Well.... No one really gets a say in what the MEDIA decides to present. They have proven they are in the tank for establishment government. So, while there are certainly conservatives out there talking about specifics on these issues and more, the media is focused on trying to cause sensationalism, controversy, something to derail the Conservative movement.

Now, Conservatives don't really have an "agenda" per say. Agenda's are for ideologues and Conservatism is a philosophy. It involves many ideologies and the "agenda" is fluid... it revolves around strengthening our economy and addressing our problems in pragmatic ways. This involves looking at history and wisdom gleaned from the past. Doing things that work and avoiding things we know won't work.

None of it matters unless Conservatives can get elected and right now, they are facing overwhelming odds from a media, and activist left-wing AND an establishment GOP base who are all HELL BENT on seeing to it that a Conservative is not elected to power. The very LAST thing they want is to engage in an intelligent debate on the issues you raise because they know they will lose if they do. Their only hope is to smear and denigrate anything Conservative with every breath, as much as they can, keep pouring it on, keep up the intensity and never stop.

Well right now the left hotspots and their tame media are in the monetary tank. NYT has had so many sugardaddies over the past decade I've lost count. WaPo is starting to follow suit. On the conservative side Fox Buisness News is about the only out right failure out there. Since people watch business channels either to find out what to think or to find out what the lemmings are doing a conservative business channel is less useful than a football bat.

I was just explaining why we're not hearing the issues you raised being addressed. It's not because the conservative candidates haven't addressed them. You can go to any of their websites and find much of what you're looking for in terms of substance on the issues. You can also listen to their speeches and they will tell you what their plans are to deal with those issues. But right now, the media is working with the establishment power base of both parties to try and derail the Conservatives. So, regrettably, you're just not going to see them devote coverage to these things... they had rather talk about what Trump said about Carson or Cruz, or what Kasich said about Trump, or dissect some trivial tid-bit to death... ANYTHING but talk about issues.

 

[william the wie]

They're liberal arts majors who might not know an issue if it bit them in the butt but more importantly headcount is so low tear and print is all they have time for. Thanks for the analysis. And is that avatar Supergirl's boss?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Do I have the electoral Data Right?"

No, this for the most part incorrect.

About a third of democrats are having a Silly Season fling with Sanders; Clinton will win South Carolina and not look back, the majority of former Sanders supports will be solidly behind Clinton going into the convention and come Election Day.

That most red states refused to expand Medicaid will work to the benefit of the democratic nominee.

The fiscal issues of a given blue state won't benefit the republican nominee.

The propensity of most on the right for military 'solutions' and 'nation building' will benefit the democratic nominee.

NAFTA won't be a factor in the GE.