If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
SS Disability (making up >1/3 of SS, now), Medicaid (used by >80% of those on welfare), and Medicare (parts A & B are used by the disabled), all have been compromised to add to the entitlement pile. Don't pretend like they haven't. WTF? See how quickly your "dime" just ballooned out to a quarter?
Holy sweet Yeezy, you're dense! Of course it is, it's human nature. It's the fundamental aspect of the Left's platform: Wealth redistribution. Once you've "taxed the rich", how else do you think most of it gets "redistributed", osmosis?
I'll be charitable, it's via systems that attempt to fill the gap from the bottom > up, and that means more, and larger, entitlements. Of course people are being enticed by; "free" money, "free" college, "free" healthcare, "free" childcare, "free" food, etc. etc. and if you'd bothered to read those links you'd see how much damage it's done to blacks in particular, even to the point they feel such things are due them, simply for being in this country (hence the term "entitlement").
As I indicated above ... reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit. Remember when I said this?
In any event, I'll give you an example of just how woefully misguided you are in your thinking.
And then I went on to make my point about how Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we know it" yet incurred no significant political fallout from African-American voters? Did you see the part that said "AN EXAMPLE"? In this entire discussion thus far I have yet to even use the word "ENTITLEMENT" until now because I was NOT speaking about entitlement spending in general.
Again, I've already told you that I have no interest in chasing you down that rabbit hole. I have no interest in your anecdotal videos. So either produce some evidence of widespread political fallout that Bill Clinton suffered with African-American voters when he signed the welfare reform legislation or just move on.
As I indicated above ... reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit. Remember when I said this?
Says the most obtuse person on this forum. I could crack walnuts with your skull.
*BLEH*
The practical aspects of welfare haven't changed, professor, and most blacks have never heard of the toothless reform he signed anyway, because it didn't change anything in their lives. They sure do believe in the regularity of their monthly gov't checks, though. "We'll take care of him because he'll take care of us." It's the govt's job to pay for people's kids! Ya know?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The practical aspects of welfare haven't changed, professor,
Stated with no supporting references whatsoever.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and most blacks have never heard of the toothless reform he signed anyway, because it didn't change anything in their lives. They sure do believe in the regularity of their monthly gov't checks, though. "We'll take care of him because he'll take care of us." It's the govt's job to pay for people's kids! Ya know?
Let's set aside that your country ass can probably count on one hand the number of black people you actually interact with on a regular basis. Because the fact of the matter is that "most blacks" aren't on welfare in the first place and thus the majority aren't receiving those "monthly gov't checks". Which would be a very obvious explanation for why it's not a major motivating factor in African-American voting patterns. But of course you've convinced yourself otherwise because that's just what you do. Little things like facts be damned. We'll just note that you still haven't produced any evidence of widespread political fallout that Bill Clinton encountered with African-American voters when he signed welfare reform legislation. Because the historical record clearly shows that his favorabilty ratings took no hit whatsoever. All you continue to do as our Resident Forum Internet Expert is state your bigoted opinions as fact. So let's just move on shall we?
Pathetic. And you call ME a bigot? Actually I can count on all my fingers and toes (and then some), how many black people I interact with (likely because I have so many working for me and their kids are my daughter's playmates). IOW, probably as many as YOU do, professor Know-nothing. There was no fallout, because: 1. The blacks who would have reacted have never heard of it, and 2. It never impacted their lives and they kept getting their monthly checks anyway. Just as long as "someone keeps paying for their kids". I wonder if that woman felt let down that Obama didn't pay off her mortgage? Probably not, on "the Plantation" no one complains.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Perhaps I gave you too much credit when I said I didn't think you were an idiot? You cite a reference showing an increase in welfare spending during the Obama Administration in the aftermath of the Great Recession which took place on G. W. Bush's watch. Which is stupid enough in and of itself because social safety net spending ALWAYS increases during an economic downturn. But it's a special kind of stupid in light of the fact that the fundamental point of welfare reform was to implement a time limit on it. But let you tell it the government checks have just kept on rolling in for anyone who was already on welfare during the Clinton Administration. Hmmm ...
You are the "special kind of stupid". Point out examples of blacks who lost their monthly handouts, those who were "timed out", because I've yet to see a case of it. A black woman who lives on one of my properties has 7 kids, by 6 different dudes (though she's never been married) and receives enough in benefits ($52k /yr) to afford a 4 BR lakeside apt, a Yukon Denali (with a back bumper littered with Obama stickers), and a Mercedes CLK convertible (pretty sure that was a gift from one of her babydaddies), not counting all the money and benefits she receives from local charities, including >$1500 in toys for her children this last Christmas, from two different groups (she "couldn't afford toys", because she bought herself a new $1200 fur coat, while her brood runs around in rags, ironically enough). This would seem insane, if I didn't know so many more just like her. It's their way of life; how she was raised, and her mother's mother before her, and nothing has changed it, and honestly, I unable to see how it can change, unless they take her kids and tie her tubes... which would be considered inhumane and a violation of her rights. Work? She'd laugh in your face.
That's the Left's cycle with minorities, the guaranteed voters, because God forbid anyone disrupt the gravy train. "Obama's gonna pay my mortgage!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I was at the 7-11 by my house and there was a young Mexican woman and her two kids ahead of me in line. She bought some soda and candy for them. After she left the clerk showed me the receipt. She used an EBT card. The receipt shows the balance available. It was over $2000
As the Michigan approaches, Hillary Clinton has been making sure to tout her efforts to help Flint. But her record tells a different story.
In 2005, while she was running for re-election as New York’s U.S. Senator, Clinton voted against a measure to ban the manufacturing of a known carcinogen that had affected drinking water supplies for millions of Americans. A chemical called methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), which is an additive that makes fuel burn cleaner, had found its way into 31 states’ drinking water wells by 2000. Three years later, the Environmental Working Group estimated that some 15 million Americans were drinking water contaminated with MTBE. Amid this news, seventeen states filed a class-action lawsuit against the makers of MTBE.
As International Business Times reported, one of the manufacturers of MTBE was ExxonMobil, a major supporter of the Clinton Foundation. In 2005, Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) introduced an amendment to a sweeping energy policy bill that would have banned the use of MTBE. While the amendment passed overwhelmingly with 70 votes in favor and 26 opposing, Hillary Clinton joined 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats in voting against the measure. According to OpenSecrets.org, Clinton raised over $74,000 from the oil and gas industry for her 2006 re-election effort. To date, ExxonMobil has given roughly $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Sam Wang has pointed out that Ted Cruz has been outperforming all his polls. I did notice the caucus thing, and assumed Trump supporters were embarrassed in such public fora, but Sam shows its happening everywhere, even open primaries.
You are the "special kind of stupid". Point out examples of blacks who lost their monthly handouts, those who were "timed out", because I've yet to see a case of it.
There is 5 year lifetime limit. Across the board. Again, this was the fundamental point of the welfare reform legislation enacted during the Clinton Administration.
Myth 5: Once a person goes on welfare, they'll freeload off it for years.
Eligibility requirements prevent government aid recipients from getting benefits if they don't demonstrate dire need. TANF programs, for example, have a federal lifetime limit of five years.
"You might be on consecutively for five years and fall off," Mink says, "but if you fall into dire straits five years from now, forget it. You can't get back into the program."
A black woman who lives on one of my properties has 7 kids, by 6 different dudes (though she's never been married) and receives enough in benefits ($52k /yr) to afford a 4 BR lakeside apt, a Yukon Denali (with a back bumper littered with Obama stickers), and a Mercedes CLK convertible (pretty sure that was a gift from one of her babydaddies), not counting all the money and benefits she receives from local charities, including >$1500 in toys for her children this last Christmas, from two different groups (she "couldn't afford toys", because she bought herself a new $1200 fur coat, while her brood runs around in rags, ironically enough). This would seem insane, if I didn't know so many more just like her. It's their way of life; how she was raised, and her mother's mother before her, and nothing has changed it, and honestly, I unable to see how it can change, unless they take her kids and tie her tubes... which would be considered inhumane and a violation of her rights. Work? She'd laugh in your face.
That's the Left's cycle with minorities, the guaranteed voters, because God forbid anyone disrupt the gravy train. "Obama's gonna pay my mortgage!"
And the black woman on welfare driving a Yukon Denali story huh? That one is quite literally all over the Internet. If you are going to resort to racist stereotypes you should at least try to be more original.
There is 5 year lifetime limit. Across the board. Again, this was the fundamental point of the welfare reform legislation enacted during the Clinton Administration. *blah* *blah*
That doesn't apply to women with minor children and SNAP benefits, professor, or are you going to gloss over that, like you do so many other things? And the "story", it happens so frequently, everyone knows this type of person (here we call them "career mommas" or "serial moms"). If you weren't such a L.A.D, you'd admit it too. $52k is easy with that many kids, when you combine all federal and state benefits as a single mother w/ >5 children, professor.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Maybe she's SCAMMING the system? It's not like they put checks into the system.
No, no scam required, just a very busy uterus.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
While states can set their own time limit policies, they cannot provide cash assistance from federal TANF funds for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient.
and SNAP benefits, professor, or are you going to gloss over that, like you do so many other things?
I'm not "glossing over" anything. You issued this challenge ....
Point out examples of blacks who lost their monthly handouts, those who were "timed out", because I've yet to see a case of it.
... and I responded with the example of TANF which does in fact have a 5 year time limit on cash assistance. So those "monthly handouts" ... aka government checks ... simply do NOT go on indefinitely.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
And the "story", it happens so frequently, everyone knows this type of person (here we call them "career mommas" or "serial moms"). If you weren't such a L.A.D, you'd admit it too. $52k is easy with that many kids, when you combine all federal and state benefits as a single mother w/ >5 children, professor.
But let's talk about SNAP (aka "food stamps") since you want to play this game. It does NOT have a time limit at all and anyone can continue receiving them indefinitely as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. Here's some interesting facts about food stamp recipients:
And despite prevailing racial stereotypes, which first became mainstream during President Ronald Reagan's tenure and his propagation of the myth of a "welfare queen" from the South Side of Chicago, the overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients are white. And curiously, many of them are Republicans. USDA data show that in 2011, 37 percent of food stamp users (pdf) were from white, non-Hispanic households.
And of the 254 counties where the number of food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican candidate Mitt Romney won 213 in last year's presidential election. Bloomberg's John McCormick and Greg Giroux compiled research revealing that Kentucky's Owsley County -- which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote -- had the largest proportion of food stamp recipients of all the communities where Romney won.
What is most curious is that this isn't surprising. The poorest states in the union tend to be the most reliably red, with Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas among the top 10.
According to the Bloomberg research, more than half of Owsley County's population -- 52 percent -- received food stamps in 2011 alone. The county's racial makeup is 97.6 percent white, and it has a median household income of $19,344 -- in comparison with the national median household income of $52,762. In fact, 4 in 10 of the country's residents live below the poverty line, based on U.S. census statistics.
84% of all US counties where food stamp usage doubled voted for Romney. Owsley County, Kentucky. Lily-white and Republican. And the Food Stamp Capital of the US. Try to keep that in mind the next time you want to start talking dumb sh*t about black people and welfare.
I'm not "glossing over" anything. You issued this challenge ....
... and I responded with the example of TANF which does in fact have a 5 year time limit on cash assistance. So those "monthly handouts" ... aka government checks ... simply do NOT go on indefinitely.
"For families meeting established criteria, states may decide not to count a month of assistance
toward the state time limit. This is sometimes referred to as “stopping the clock.” And
once families have reached the time limit, states may choose to extend benefits for those meeting
other criteria."
Depending on the state, as many as 40% of single-parent homes, usually headed by a single mother, with >2 children, have their clocks "stopped". You honestly think they wouldn't leave gaping loopholes?
But let's talk about SNAP (aka "food stamps") since you want to play this game. It does NOT have a time limit at all and anyone can continue receiving them indefinitely as long as they meet the eligibility requirements.
The Root article
and you have the gall to browbeat people over their sources, professor? I'll bite, though. Yes, there are more white people on SNAP, because whites make up a larger percentage of the population. Looking at it proportionately (which those grossly biased articles tend to ignore) that isn't the case, though. Blacks make up 13.5% of the population but use 30% of SNAP's resources each year, with >28% of households on SNAP benefits, making up >25% of their avg income.
So, they make a living via the system program loopholes, loopholes that gov't agencies even teach them how to use, and that doesn't influence their voting?
"If I help him, he's going to help me."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Duh. That's what I'm talking about. Has his support collapsed to the point he'll lose Florida?
I think he'll lose it to Cruz, and then he'll be done.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"For families meeting established criteria, states may decide not to count a month of assistance
toward the state time limit. This is sometimes referred to as “stopping the clock.” And
once families have reached the time limit, states may choose to extend benefits for those meeting
other criteria."
Depending on the state, as many as 40% of single-parent homes, usually headed by a single mother, with >2 children, have their clocks "stopped". You honestly think they wouldn't leave gaping loopholes?
What I think is that once again your own reference doesn't support your claims. So what does the very next section say about this?
Exemption Policies
As mentioned in Chapter 1, PRWORA outlines several groups of families who are exempted from the federal time limit. These include families in which the adult is not in the assistance unit (child-only cases), families living on an Indian reservation or in an Alaska native village experiencing high unemployment, families excluded under a state waiver policy, and fami lies assisted exclusively by state MOE funds.
In addition to these exemption criteria for the federal time limit, most states exempt other groups of families from their state time limits. For these families, unless their assistance is paid for with state MOE funds exclusively, the federal clock continues to run. Under such disparate policies, families in some states are operating under separate federal and state clocks with different accumulations of months toward their limits. Thirty-four states exempt at least some families with adults from their state time limit. Figure 2.2 shows how many states offer exemptions to families who meet the most common criteria. (Appendix Table A.3 lists the exemption criteria for each state.)
The most common state exemption policy is to exempt families in which the parent is disabled (shown in combination with “caring for disabled family member”). About half the states stop the state clock for this reason, although some have placed conditions on the exemp tion. For example, a state may exempt adults with mental health problems but require that they enroll in a treatment program. Of the states that have this exemption, most also exempt families in which the adult is caring for a disabled family member.
Victims of domestic violence are exempted from time limits in 15 states. It is important to distinguish this state exemption policy, which stops the clock, from the federal extension policy, which allows states to provide federal TANF assistance to victims of domestic violence after they have reached the 60-month federal time limit. In these 15 states, victims of domestic violence will not accumulate months toward their state time limit — although they will continue to accumulate months toward the federal time limit during the exemption period.
Sixteen states exempt families in which the head of the household is elderly. Most states have defined this category to include caretakers who are at least 60 years old, with one state limiting the age to those who are at least 62. This is one of the few exemption criteria that is a per manent condition (because the caretaker will not get any younger). Twelve states exempt families with very young children. The child’s maximum age ranges from about 3 months (in Arkansas, Delaware, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) to 2 years (in Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts limits the age of the child to 3 months if the family cap applied — that is, if the child was born after the family began receiving assistance and no additional cash benefits were provided for the child). When a child “ages out” of this category, the clock will restart.
You know what we DON'T see in this list of exemptions for the 5 year time limit for cash assistance? Anything that looks like this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That doesn't apply to women with minor children.
Even in the "child-only" cases your claim still doesn't hold water because the adult is not eligible for a welfare benefit.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and you have the gall to browbeat people over their sources, professor?
I sure do.
About The Root
The Root is the No. 1 online source of news and original commentary from an African-American perspective. Founded in 2008 under the leadership of professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. of Harvard University, The Root offers a fresh take on breaking news, as well as solid analysis of politics, social issues and culture. The Root raises the profile of black voices in mainstream media and engages anyone interested in black culture around the world. The Root is owned by the Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO). Visit us at theroot.com, on Twitter @TheRoot247 and on Facebook.
My source is affiliated with Harvard University and the Washington Post. The specific article I cited referenced research done by Bloomberg. So yeah I'd say it has a lot more credibility than the random anonymous, right-wing blogs you tout.
I'll bite, though. Yes, there are more white people on SNAP, because whites make up a larger percentage of the population. Looking at it proportionately (which those grossly biased articles tend to ignore) that isn't the case, though. Blacks make up 13.5% of the population but use 30% of SNAP's resources each year, with >28% of households on SNAP benefits, making up >25% of their avg income.
Actually blacks receive 25% of SNAP benefits. Which is still higher than our percentage of the population. But that is to be expected given the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately poor. Now if you had produced statistics showing that the poverty rate among blacks and whites was similar but blacks are still overrepresented among SNAP recipients then you might have had some semblance of a point. But we both know you can't do that.
The real question is ... why do you get panties your in a wad when a black person receives SNAP benefits? I mean you have multiple posts thus far bemoaning welfare when you put a black face on it. But only a mere sentence to acknowledge that the vast majority of SNAP recipients are white. Or really I should say "dismiss" because you immediately pivoted back to putting a black face on the issue. Perhaps because you exemplify what this data makes abundantly clear?
When asked what racial group made up the majority of welfare recipients, 26 percent of all respondents correctly said “whites,” 34 percent said blacks, 13 percent said Hispanics and the rest were unsure. Again, however, these divides break down along racial and partisan lines, with 36 percent of white respondents incorrectly saying black people make up the majority of welfare recipients, compared with 32 percent of Hispanic respondents and 23 percent of black respondents. Among Democrats, 25 percent said blacks make up the majority of welfare recipients, compared with 45 percent of Republicans.
These popular notions are at odds with reality. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, more than 40 percent of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients are non-Hispanic whites, while a quarter are African-American. A Center for Budget and Policy Priorities study that examines the full range of government benefits found that “Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 64 percent of the population in 2010 and received 69 percent of the entitlement benefits.” They also found that African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population but receive 14 percent of benefits. These numbers are even more disturbing given that whites make up only 42 percent of the poor while African-Americans make up 22 percent of the poor.
So are you sure you want to go down the "proportionately" road? You might want to reconsider. In any event, I'll wrap it up with this ....
He [Mitt Romney] was referring specifically to the 47 percent of Americans who supposedly don’t pay taxes, though that statistic is muddled by payroll taxes, state and local taxes and consumption and sin taxes. Republican supporters of Romney doubled-down on these comments by drawing a sharp moral divide between the “makers” and “takers” in U.S. society. However, the comments also serve as a subtle racial provocation to white conservatives, many of whom believe that these “takers” are all people of color.More blatant examples are former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s famous “food stamp president” comment, and former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum’s claim that government spending goes to “blah people.”
These narratives appear to be deeply ingrained among white Americans, particularly among conservatives. In the YouGov survey, respondents were asked to say, “For the following groups of people indicated whether you think they tend to give more to society than they take or take more than they give.” On net, respondents said that working-class people (+62), middle-class people (+54) and women (+46) were givers. In the middle were white people (+18) and men (+13). The groups who were categorized as “takers” included Hispanic people (-4), black people (-25) and upper-class people (-31). Among whites, however there was a massive ideological gap on the question of whether black people were viewed as net contributors or net takers, with liberal whites saying black people were net contributors (+18), while moderate whites (-38) and conservative whites (-62) overwhelmingly said black people are net takers.
The data suggest that the makers and takers narrative likely isn’t about class, but about race. Among Republicans, black people are overwhelmingly considered “takers” (-53), while the working class is overwhelmingly seen as contributors (+56). It’s unlikely, then, that when a GOP politician says “takers” or refers disparagingly to those on welfare, he is trying to conjure up an image of a white construction worker who can’t pay taxes, as opposed to an unemployed black single mother.
So in a nutshell white conservatives tend to be stubbornly ignorant when it comes to social safety net spending. Especially hostile to the idea when they incorrectly perceive it to be primarily benefitting minorities. And particularly resistant to correction on the matter. Which is all incredibly laughable consider the fact that Romney absolutely cleaned up with the white Republicans on food stamps vote!
What I think is that once again your own reference doesn't support your claims.
Yes it does, you're just distorting again. They can "stop the clock" at will in >30 states, but you keep misdirecting around that because it doesn't fit "the Narrative".
I sure do.
Of course, despite MoJones, the Root, and HuffPo being the most biased, distorted sources online, even compared to Faux news. They're essentially the EIB and Breitbart of the Left. the only real blessing is that at least you aren't referencing The Young Turds.
Actually blacks receive 25% of SNAP benefits. Which is still higher than our percentage of the population. But that is to be expected given the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately poor. Now if you had produced statistics showing that the poverty rate among blacks and whites was similar but blacks are still overrepresented among SNAP recipients then you might have had some semblance of a point. But we both know you can't do that.
Ironic, since you've been maneuvering trying to avoid the point for some time now. Blacks see Dems as the "Free Shit" party. Why else would they vote for them? They don't see eye-to-eye on gay rights (a disproportionate number of blacks still oppose gay marriage), religion (blacks by-and-large are the 2nd most religiously conservative ethnic group in the USA, right behind Latinos, while the standard bearers for the Left are areligious, if not openly atheist), a substantial majority of blacks support the death penalty (despite being 2x more likely to be executed than whites), and the majority are pro-life (no need to explain the Left's position there).
The real question is ... why do you get panties your in a wad when a black person receives SNAP benefits? I mean you have multiple posts thus far bemoaning welfare when you put a black face on it. But only a mere sentence to acknowledge that the vast majority of SNAP recipients are white. Or really I should say "dismiss" because you immediately pivoted back to putting a black face on the issue. Perhaps because you exemplify what this data makes abundantly clear?
I really don't care who does, kids have to eat (even if their parents won't work), just don't act like it doesn't influence voting, fool. Which is what this was all about. FREE SHIT INFLUENCES VOTERS, a "chicken in every pot", goes the old saying. Denying that is stupid.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He hasn't actually led in Florida polls for a long time, so he might very well lose it. To Cruz though? No, I think to Trump if anything.
Well, the impetus to my question was we've seen Rubio fade before and then come back. Is that what's happening again? Can Florida give him a third life?
Trump had a rough weekend so Nate Silver relapsed on his denial and did his hundredth version of "this might be the end of Trump." Really wish the guy would stick to numbers.
Based upon what we are seeing thus far who thinks the Republicans WILL or WILL NOT have a presidential nominee with 1237 delegates by the time of the convention? My money is that we are more likely to NOT have a clear-cut nominee and there will be a brokered convention.
I don't follow, so I don't get the significance. What does that mean to you?
Since it's unprecedented (to me), I'm not quite sure.
At one end of the spectrum, the robot is acting glitchy, or the robot thinks it's important because that particular article somehow reached critical clickthrough mass.
At the other end, Sergey told the robot it needs to turn up the heat on Donald or get a Google Wave up the exhaust port.
Based upon what we are seeing thus far who thinks the Republicans WILL or WILL NOT have a presidential nominee with 1237 delegates by the time of the convention? My money is that we are more likely to NOT have a clear-cut nominee and there will be a brokered convention.
OAW
It looks like Trump support has waned a little bit. Cruz's support is understated. Rubio looks done. Kasich is a wild card.
I won't say until after next Tuesday but this weekend has made a contested convention look less unlikely.
Well, the options are "Trump picks up 1237" and "contested convention" - nobody else has a real chance anymore. Cruz' best states have already voted, and Rubio is too far off the path with zero momentum a week before the most important primaries.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Why is it that when a communist cannot debate an argument with facts and figures, they resort to adhominem attacks? Is it a quirk they pick up from their "leaders"?
Why is it that when a communist cannot debate an argument with facts and figures, they resort to adhominem attacks? Is it a quirk they pick up from their "leaders"?
So where Ted Cruz is winning is interesting. It's mostly the Midwest (his home state notwithstanding). As noted before, trump is winning all the south and most of the north east. I'm not sure what demographics he's pulling from the NE, but his wins in the black belt are pretty transparent (evangelicals seem to cherish their racism more than their religiosity there).
Cruz if very much for real. I heard talk of Kasich being in the running for Michigan and Cruz edged him out there. I'll be curious to see how the west coast swings.
Oh and Rubio got zero delegates last night. His support has vanished.
You guys wouldn't believe the amount of Trump support down here. They're absolutely everywhere. You can hear them talking loudly at dinner tables, see their stickers plastered everywhere, and I've notice innumerable "Make America Great Again" hats.
I hesitate to call them conservatives. I think they're better described as Republican anarchists.
Oh and Rubio got zero delegates last night. His support has vanished.
The criticism centering around his rehearsed lines contrast poorly against loose-cannon, "tell it like it is" Donald Trump. Rubio picked the wrong campaign to bust out practiced lines from speechwriters.
The criticism centering around his rehearsed lines contrast poorly against loose-cannon, "tell it like it is" Donald Trump. Rubio picked the wrong campaign to bust out practiced lines from speechwriters.
I think you're analysis is incorrect. Rubio doesn't give rehearsed lines because he likes the style, he does it because he lacks substance. And his support hasn't collapsed because of the contrast with Trumps free-wheeling style, it collapsed because he's still very green and it showed. I'm still flabbergasted that his poll numbers were able to recover after he blue-screened in NH. He probably lasted so long because he was superficially ideal - young and Hispanic, with a slight tint of Obamas hope and populism. He was a strategic choice for many people, and basically the default - trump isn't a conservative, Ted Cruz is odious, Carson is an airhead, Kasich is uncharismatic... What does that leave you?
You guys wouldn't believe the amount of Trump support down here. They're absolutely everywhere. You can hear them talking loudly at dinner tables, see their stickers plastered everywhere, and I've notice innumerable "Make America Great Again" hats.
I hesitate to call them conservatives. I think they're better described as Republican anarchists.
Sorry bud, they're just xenophobes and racists.
Edit: Forgot, a significant amount are authoritarians.
(
Last edited by The Final Dakar; Mar 9, 2016 at 01:31 PM.
)
Most are sick of the problems associated with open borders and nobody knowing WHO they let in.
Notice the ad hominem tactic again. Communist speak for: That person doesn't support my communist politician/policy, so they are racist/homophobes/sexist/etc....
One only has to listen to the words from Trump's mouth to know him for a racist sexist etc. No agenda necessary. One doesn't even need to be a card-carrying member of a McCarthy-era fear-target.
See how quickly your "dime" just ballooned out to a quarter?
Of course it is, it's human nature. It's the fundamental aspect of the Left's platform: Wealth redistribution. Once you've "taxed the rich", how else do you think most of it gets "redistributed", osmosis? 
I could crack walnuts with your skull.
Point out examples of blacks who lost their monthly handouts, those who were "timed out", because I've yet to see a case of it. A black woman who lives on one of my properties has 7 kids, by 6 different dudes (though she's never been married) and receives enough in benefits ($52k /yr) to afford a 4 BR lakeside apt, a Yukon Denali (with a back bumper littered with Obama stickers), and a Mercedes CLK convertible (pretty sure that was a gift from one of her babydaddies), not counting all the money and benefits she receives from local charities, including >$1500 in toys for her children this last Christmas, from two different groups (she "couldn't afford toys", because she bought herself a new $1200 fur coat, while her brood runs around in rags, ironically enough). This would seem insane, if I didn't know so many more just like her. It's their way of life; how she was raised, and her mother's mother before her, and nothing has changed it, and honestly, I unable to see how it can change, unless they take her kids and tie her tubes... which would be considered inhumane and a violation of her rights. 
Top