Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Last Night's Debate
greenblood
Member Posts: 14,560
in Tug Tavern
I really like Trump's stance on trade and immigration. He's not going to be deporting 12 million people. But I could see him deporting any illegal immigrant that gets booked on a crime charge. Even though Cruz went at him saying government waste would only solve 3% of the social security problem, I think Trump had a good point. By increasing jobs in this country, we'll be able to increase the number of people paying into social security, that is how Trump wants to fix the problem. Which I got to say, I like it, but he'll need to back it up.
Cruz had a good night. Although, Trump kind of stonewalled Cruz' argument about the Iran deal. Cruz wanted to rip it up, and Trump pretty much said, who cares, they already got our money and spent it. Cruz had a softer tone tonight, and didn't come across as snobbish as he has in the past
Marco pretty much spoke word for word on my argument regarding climate change, which makes me believe that my theory is garbage, and I'll have to do a little more research on that. He's pretty much irrelevant at this point, as his campaign will end on March 15th.
Kasich wasn't as good last night as he was the debate prior. He came off as a little too patronizing, kind of like talking to us like he was our dad or the other dad. He's going to be the establishment's choice after Rubio's campaign dies in a few days, which in many ways only hurts him.
Overall Analysis:
The needle didn't move much. I think anybody supporting a specific candidate left the campaign unchanged.
I think Trump's mellow debate last night went a long ways to maybe pull a few detractors that won't vote for him in a general election. He's going to need to keep that up though.
Cruz had a good night. Although, Trump kind of stonewalled Cruz' argument about the Iran deal. Cruz wanted to rip it up, and Trump pretty much said, who cares, they already got our money and spent it. Cruz had a softer tone tonight, and didn't come across as snobbish as he has in the past
Marco pretty much spoke word for word on my argument regarding climate change, which makes me believe that my theory is garbage, and I'll have to do a little more research on that. He's pretty much irrelevant at this point, as his campaign will end on March 15th.
Kasich wasn't as good last night as he was the debate prior. He came off as a little too patronizing, kind of like talking to us like he was our dad or the other dad. He's going to be the establishment's choice after Rubio's campaign dies in a few days, which in many ways only hurts him.
Overall Analysis:
The needle didn't move much. I think anybody supporting a specific candidate left the campaign unchanged.
I think Trump's mellow debate last night went a long ways to maybe pull a few detractors that won't vote for him in a general election. He's going to need to keep that up though.
Comments
-
Time is running out for Cruz to make a run.
This week its going to be Cruz in the cross hairs. Let's see how the "Outsider" from the United States Senate, paid for by a bailed out bank, married to a Goldman Director he met while they both worked in key staff positions for #George Bush... can overcome the pressure. -
ben carson supporting Trump signals that TNIO
-
GOP wants Obama to stand by our allies, except when it comes to Iran, or Gitmo, or refugees, or ...
-
What I found funny is when Cruz was puffing his chest on ethanol and how he stood up to special interest.
Trump said ... Ted is right he changed his position.
Cruz stumbled, sputtered, and then changed the subject.
It was a good moment for Trump. -
The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
-
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
-
This. Threatening to deport 11 million people is a negotiating chip. The conversation has already moved to acceptance of a wall and deporting the criminals when caught. Next is getting rid of sanctuary cities.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Then I have no issue with letting the hard working immigrants who only want a better life for their future presidential candidate to stay -
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
-
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
-
Who cares what it costs? Float the bonds, buy them up and lets get to work. It.don't.matter.no.more!
-
I'm not quite sure where your math is coming from. You're forgetting the $50 billion of infrastructure projects, which is the exact category that building the wall would fit into. The $30 billion to modernize schools is also a de-facto jobs project by itself as it would employ a large number of people to complete those upgrades. As is the $15 billion that was earmarked to hire construction workers to refurbish homes. The National Infrastructure Bank would have cost another $10 billion, and would have facilitated the infrastructure portion of the bill. Hell, over half of the cost of the bill consisted of $245 billion of payroll tax cuts to incentivize small business growth. By my math, I calculate 76% of the bill going directly to stimulating job growth.greenblood said:
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
Whether or not you think government created jobs was a healthy prescription for the 2011 economy is an entirely separate matter, but the bill absolutely aims to stimulate job growth. -
Trump needs to hammer the point that he's been in leadership, dealt with crisis, has a track record etc, versus Cruz who is just a junior senator that because no one likes him would have a difficult time getting shit done. He should also hammer Cruz on the Goldman Sachs & Bush connection versus he not taking any corporate money and already being a billionaire with nothing to gain from the presidency.
I'm a libertarian but the government has a role to play in helping the economy. Bond yields are so low around the world that there could be a huge global infrastructure rebuild during the next global expansion. If governments can borrow money for free and rebuild then they should do so, as infrastructure helps future growth according to the stats. -
But you are forgetting the portion of the bill that was designed to continue to pay people as they sit on their asses.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not quite sure where your math is coming from. You're forgetting the $50 billion of infrastructure projects, which is the exact category that building the wall would fit into. The $30 billion to modernize schools is also a de-facto jobs project by itself as it would employ a large number of people to complete those upgrades. As is the $15 billion that was earmarked to hire construction workers to refurbish homes. The National Infrastructure Bank would have cost another $10 billion, and would have facilitated the infrastructure portion of the bill. Hell, over half of the cost of the bill consisted of $245 billion of payroll tax cuts to incentivize small business growth. By my math, I calculate 76% of the bill going directly to stimulating job growth.greenblood said:
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
Whether or not you think government created jobs was a healthy prescription for the 2011 economy is an entirely separate matter, but the bill absolutely aims to stimulate job growth. -
Okay? Does the inclusion of other provisions mean that it's not a jobs bill?greenblood said:
But you are forgetting the portion of the bill that was designed to continue to pay people as they sit on their asses.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not quite sure where your math is coming from. You're forgetting the $50 billion of infrastructure projects, which is the exact category that building the wall would fit into. The $30 billion to modernize schools is also a de-facto jobs project by itself as it would employ a large number of people to complete those upgrades. As is the $15 billion that was earmarked to hire construction workers to refurbish homes. The National Infrastructure Bank would have cost another $10 billion, and would have facilitated the infrastructure portion of the bill. Hell, over half of the cost of the bill consisted of $245 billion of payroll tax cuts to incentivize small business growth. By my math, I calculate 76% of the bill going directly to stimulating job growth.greenblood said:
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
Whether or not you think government created jobs was a healthy prescription for the 2011 economy is an entirely separate matter, but the bill absolutely aims to stimulate job growth. -
I hope Trump gets tough as well on these lax bankruptcy laws the U.S. has.
-
Why do we need a wall? We've got drones and missiles.
-
SerpentineLoneStarDawg said:Why do we need a wall? We've got drones and missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2_w-QCWpS0 -
When you throw in 50 billion in entitlements it's no longer a jobs bill. HthGreenRiverGatorz said:
Okay? Does the inclusion of other provisions mean that it's not a jobs bill?greenblood said:
But you are forgetting the portion of the bill that was designed to continue to pay people as they sit on their asses.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not quite sure where your math is coming from. You're forgetting the $50 billion of infrastructure projects, which is the exact category that building the wall would fit into. The $30 billion to modernize schools is also a de-facto jobs project by itself as it would employ a large number of people to complete those upgrades. As is the $15 billion that was earmarked to hire construction workers to refurbish homes. The National Infrastructure Bank would have cost another $10 billion, and would have facilitated the infrastructure portion of the bill. Hell, over half of the cost of the bill consisted of $245 billion of payroll tax cuts to incentivize small business growth. By my math, I calculate 76% of the bill going directly to stimulating job growth.greenblood said:
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
Whether or not you think government created jobs was a healthy prescription for the 2011 economy is an entirely separate matter, but the bill absolutely aims to stimulate job growth. -
Where is the conservative jobs bill? The way Congress works, the Senate can make changes to the bill. Why didn't they take out the entitlements and pass the bill?greenblood said:
When you throw in 50 billion in entitlements it's no longer a jobs bill. HthGreenRiverGatorz said:
Okay? Does the inclusion of other provisions mean that it's not a jobs bill?greenblood said:
But you are forgetting the portion of the bill that was designed to continue to pay people as they sit on their asses.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not quite sure where your math is coming from. You're forgetting the $50 billion of infrastructure projects, which is the exact category that building the wall would fit into. The $30 billion to modernize schools is also a de-facto jobs project by itself as it would employ a large number of people to complete those upgrades. As is the $15 billion that was earmarked to hire construction workers to refurbish homes. The National Infrastructure Bank would have cost another $10 billion, and would have facilitated the infrastructure portion of the bill. Hell, over half of the cost of the bill consisted of $245 billion of payroll tax cuts to incentivize small business growth. By my math, I calculate 76% of the bill going directly to stimulating job growth.greenblood said:
Rubio and Kasich aren't tough on immigration, so Cruz is the only one that would oppose that plan. However, even Cruz realizes that having a hard nose line on immigration doesn't get you elected in the general election. He would have gotten hammered if he pressed Trump on that.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm not at all opposed to that policy, but that sure does sound like quite the expansion of government spending. It would have fit in quite well with Obama's American Jobs Act that never got off the ground. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Cruz or Rubio make much of a stink about this. For a party that has become so austerity-obsessed, you would think they'd hit Donald harder about such a progressive policy proposal.greenblood said:
The wall would have to be built first. Then you deport the illegals that commit crimes. When they are arrested, if found to be illegal, they serve their time then thrown across the border after time served. The others that don't commit crimes will be given a path to being legal. The border would have to be secured first and foremost.GreenRiverGatorz said:The immigration bluster is something that has been very overlooked on the right. Right now the DHS has the capacity and budget to deport an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants per year, which barely outpaces the ~600,000 illegals that enter the country every year. Without a massive spending increase, how exactly does any candidate plan to put a dent into the 11+ million illegals that are currently in the country?
Did you even look at the bill? Here's a sample of the bullshit in it:
$49 Billion to extend unemployment benefits- more incentive to do nothing
$8 Billion tax credit for long term unemployed- again, more incentive to do nothing
$30 Billion to modernize 35,000 schools- what the hell does this have to do with more jobs?
Prohibiting discrimination in hiring against persons who are unemployed because of their status as unemployed persons- So I couldn't take into consideration that you've sat on your ass for the last 2 years?
43.4% of the funding was going to the spending and extension of unemployment benefits.
Kind of sounds like the antithesis of an actual American Jobs Act.
You may think it was a great proposal, while I see it as being an extended welfare system being disguised as a job creator.
Whether or not you think government created jobs was a healthy prescription for the 2011 economy is an entirely separate matter, but the bill absolutely aims to stimulate job growth.
