How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics to win the WH in 2016?

[JimH52]

Terrorism is the biggest of the isms currently. So deal with it..

The gun issue in this nation is so vast and so diverse that no one can corral it into one specific pen. That's why we have a justice system to sort it all out, and to categorize it properly in each case as is presented. If the sentences a judge gives would be in tune with the severity of the crimes being conducted, then this nation would return to being normal again. As long as we got those who tolerate and sympothize with those who do heinus crimes, then this nation will continue to self destruct under the calamity of it all.

No, the gun issue could be addressed, just like other issues such as cancer and HIV. But the NRA keeps paying GOP Congressmen to block research on one of our most deadly social issues.

Kinda makes you proud, huh?

 

[beagle9]

It doesn't really matter. Except for some out liars, Republicans have lost Hispanics, gays, blacks, Muslims, scientists, college professors, teachers and so on.

Your to confident in the MSM controlling these crowds minds forever, but the people have had enough now... You will see... Dems are done for a while, so get used to it.

 

[JimH52]

It doesn't really matter. Except for some out liars, Republicans have lost Hispanics, gays, blacks, Muslims, scientists, college professors, teachers and so on.

Your to confident in the MSM controlling these crowds minds forever, but the people have had enough now... You will see... Dems are done for a while, so get used to it.

I suggest you put all you money on Donald "Orangeman" Trump. He is your best bet to win it all!

 

[rightwinger]

The entire congress had exactly the same intel that Bush had. No one lied. Grow up.

Bush filtered the intel and only forwarded the intel that supported his case

Slam dunk my ass

That is a lie. The congress had the exact same intel and came to the exact same erroneous conclusions. Go back and look at the statements of prominent dems at the time, they all said exactly the same things that Bush said.

We agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money, but you need to stop lying about the history for attempted political gains.

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

 

[healthmyths]

Bush filtered the intel and only forwarded the intel that supported his case

Slam dunk my ass

That is a lie. The congress had the exact same intel and came to the exact same erroneous conclusions. Go back and look at the statements of prominent dems at the time, they all said exactly the same things that Bush said.

We agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money, but you need to stop lying about the history for attempted political gains.

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

Of course YOU missed the POINT entirely!
Saddam all he had to do was Certify to the UN there were NO WMDs! The sanctions would be lifted. Children that by the way HE could have FED starved because
he chose to LIE about WMDs existing at the expense of the children. December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The proper casus belli for regime change in Baghdad was Saddam's non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions over a period of more than 12 years.
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal

All Saddam had to do is certify what YOU said... he had no WMDs! Do you understand he by not certifying says HE DOES have WMDs and in doing so he
doesn't care if 144,000 kids starve per year.
If as you would have loved to see Saddam still in power today OVER 2 million children would have starved and WE still wouldn't know for sure if Saddam had WMDs!

 

[rightwinger]

That is a lie. The congress had the exact same intel and came to the exact same erroneous conclusions. Go back and look at the statements of prominent dems at the time, they all said exactly the same things that Bush said.

We agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money, but you need to stop lying about the history for attempted political gains.

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

Of course YOU missed the POINT entirely!
Saddam all he had to do was Certify to the UN there were NO WMDs! The sanctions would be lifted. Children that by the way HE could have FED starved because
he chose to LIE about WMDs existing at the expense of the children. December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The proper casus belli for regime change in Baghdad was Saddam's non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions over a period of more than 12 years.
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal

All Saddam had to do is certify what YOU said... he had no WMDs! Do you understand he by not certifying says HE DOES have WMDs and in doing so he
doesn't care if 144,000 kids starve per year.
If as you would have loved to see Saddam still in power today OVER 2 million children would have starved and WE still wouldn't know for sure if Saddam had WMDs!

Hate to tell you

But my country would not continue sanctions if they were killing 144,000 children a year

 

[rightwinger]

That is a lie. The congress had the exact same intel and came to the exact same erroneous conclusions. Go back and look at the statements of prominent dems at the time, they all said exactly the same things that Bush said.

We agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of lives and money, but you need to stop lying about the history for attempted political gains.

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

Of course YOU missed the POINT entirely!
Saddam all he had to do was Certify to the UN there were NO WMDs! The sanctions would be lifted. Children that by the way HE could have FED starved because
he chose to LIE about WMDs existing at the expense of the children. December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The proper casus belli for regime change in Baghdad was Saddam's non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions over a period of more than 12 years.
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal

All Saddam had to do is certify what YOU said... he had no WMDs! Do you understand he by not certifying says HE DOES have WMDs and in doing so he
doesn't care if 144,000 kids starve per year.
If as you would have loved to see Saddam still in power today OVER 2 million children would have starved and WE still wouldn't know for sure if Saddam had WMDs!

Hate to tell you

But my country would not continue sanctions if they were killing 144,000 children a year

 

[Redfish]

Why was saving 2 million children from starving a waste?
Now leaving Iraq before it was stabilized was stupid but who asked that to happen? Obama as a political promise!
The biggest fault I had with Bush was he was too concerned that the President shouldn't respond to the false claims by the biased MSM.
Leaving Iraqis with a GDP per person that grew from $600 to $6,000 in ten years was wrong?
No the biggest waste was when we let traitors like these make comments like these that as Obama recently said
“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate."
So Obama what do you think this "rhetoric" did for recruitment???

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Going into Iraq looking for WMDs that were either never there or had been moved to Syria was a waste of American lives and money.

which 2 million children did us going to war save from starving? If feeding people was the mission, that could have been done without putting American military lives at risk.

The intel was flawed and we can debate about why it was flawed and who is responsible for that. But the fact is that the entire world believed it, whether the USMB liberals believe it or not.

If the goal was to remove Saddam, that could have been done covertly with little expense and putting very few lives at risk.

It was bad policy and accomplished nothing.

Explain to me why you would believe Saddam had NO WMDs when all he had to do was certify there were none and the UN SANCTIONS that per this NYT article;
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also... you obviously don't believe in keeping your word, much less any legal agreements do you?
More important though YOU obviously don't recall or even KNEW anything about the "1991 CEASE FIRE" much less were you aware of Bill Clinton's signing the
1998 Liberation of Iraq !
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was public law that Saddam be used! And Clinton signed it!

Such a bizarre train of logic

OUR sanctions are killing 144,000 children and you blame Saddam because he does not make us happy

What possible humanitarian purpose would sanctions have that are killing 144,000 children?

Of course YOU missed the POINT entirely!
Saddam all he had to do was Certify to the UN there were NO WMDs! The sanctions would be lifted. Children that by the way HE could have FED starved because
he chose to LIE about WMDs existing at the expense of the children. December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The proper casus belli for regime change in Baghdad was Saddam's non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions over a period of more than 12 years.
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal

All Saddam had to do is certify what YOU said... he had no WMDs! Do you understand he by not certifying says HE DOES have WMDs and in doing so he
doesn't care if 144,000 kids starve per year.
If as you would have loved to see Saddam still in power today OVER 2 million children would have starved and WE still wouldn't know for sure if Saddam had WMDs!

Hate to tell you

But my country would not continue sanctions if they were killing 144,000 children a year

The sanctions were not killing children. Saddam's actions were killing them. As another poster said, all Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions and he would probably still be alive today. Saddam is responsible for those deaths, not the USA.

 

[Redfish]

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Well, if Hillary wins, you can move to Canada. they are letting in those murderous Syrian women and children refugees. You better have alternate plans, little fellow.

If Hillary Clinton wins, then the USA as a free democratic representative republic is over. The USA will become a large fiscally broke version of European socialism. some of you seem to want that, and you deserve what you vote for.

I will be just fine. I have taken steps to protect my money and income. So I'm not going anywhere.

You guys said the same thing about Obama in 2008 and again in 2012
You said it when the stimulus passed
You said it when Obamacare passed
You told us we would see $6 a gallon gas if Obama was elected

Do conservative economic predictions ever come true?

the national debt has doubled under obama
obamacare is going broke
gas is cheap because there is a surplus of it, not because of anything Obama did
unemployment has been at all time highs
more on foodstamps than ever before'
more in poverty than ever before
more under employed than ever before
the country more divided than ever before
the gap between rich and poor is larger under obama

yes, those predictions about Obama have come true.

So, I guess these fabrications help you sleep at night?

which one is fabricated? every statement is valid.

 

[Redfish]

and the UK is seeing the results of that stupid decision today. Run that election today and you would get just the opposite result.

No, you wouldn't. It's been proven again and again, when it comes to elections, people are more concerned with their own lives, than of things which are on the edge of their own lives.

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

 

[Redfish]

Terrorism is the biggest of the isms currently. So deal with it..

The gun issue in this nation is so vast and so diverse that no one can corral it into one specific pen. That's why we have a justice system to sort it all out, and to categorize it properly in each case as is presented. If the sentences a judge gives would be in tune with the severity of the crimes being conducted, then this nation would return to being normal again. As long as we got those who tolerate and sympothize with those who do heinus crimes, then this nation will continue to self destruct under the calamity of it all.

Agree, and said another way. until liberal ideology is removed from the court system, senseless murders will continue.

 

[rightwinger]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

 

[Redfish]

In summary on the OP. The 2016 election will not be decided by the Hispanic vote. The OP is a red herring.

 

[Redfish]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

 

[rightwinger]

In summary on the OP. The 2016 election will not be decided by the Hispanic vote. The OP is a red herring.

It will be decided by inept Republican candidates

 

[rightwinger]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

 

[healthmyths]

No, you wouldn't. It's been proven again and again, when it comes to elections, people are more concerned with their own lives, than of things which are on the edge of their own lives.

Immigration and personal safety are the top issues with US voters today. I would say that those issues are "concerned with their own lives"

But tell me, why do you on the left want open borders and why do you want to let everyone into this country?

Today, yes. When the election comes around, will they be?

But it's funny, the Right makes obscurity and issue by idiotic wars and inept mismanagement, the latter both at home and abroad, and then comes along like a knight in shining armor and says it's the one to save everyone from the mess it made in the first place.

However when it comes to politicians talking about issues, you'll be amazed at how quickly people turn away from these issues. Just go look up the UK elections in 2001 and 2005 if you don't believe me.

Immigration isn't a real "reality issue", their kid's education is, their healthcare is, their jobs are. This is the bread and butter of what makes people tick.

We will see, won't we? If there is another radical muslim attack in the USA, keeping their kids alive will be the primary issue with most voters. They may be over reacting, but staying alive is high on the human priority list.

Well, there is long term-ism and short term-ism, if an attack happens within the realm of short term-ism then this can have an impact on an election. It happened in Spain in 2004 when bombs went off 3 days before an election the right were expected to win.

People don't make assumptions that their kids are going to die tomorrow. If they did, then they'd vote for the party that proposes gun control.

You have 10,500 deaths per year to guns. You have maybe 0-20 deaths per year due to terrorism. Which do you think is going to weigh on their minds more?

How many of those 10,500 are committed by legal gun owners? A few, and mostly in self defense. and yes, the San Bernardo shooters owned their guns legally. The problem is not guns or gun owners, the problem is a system that does not identify potential terrorists and deal with them before they kill innocents.

Actually the problem is NOT enforcing the existing 300 Federal/state laws from the 3,144 counties or 19,354 towns and cities laws.
Here is the current status of gun law prosecutions.

President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws,
cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent

See the below table from Syracuse University http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

DOWN 34% from 2005 under Bush!

The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks.
The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009.
But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.
U.S. files criminal charges in fraction of gun denial cases, Mayors Against Illegal Guns says
NOTE: the Leftwing BIASED Poltifact owned by the newspaper known as "Pravda West" said this was a half truth!
Right they just can't admit to the reality!

There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators. This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."

The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law.

Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced
WHY!!!

 

[healthmyths]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

Edward Morfin, a 57-year-old maintenance worker, speaks fluent Spanish. His surname is common in Mexico.
But when Donald Trump made headlines last month for saying that Mexico sends immigrants to this country who are criminals, including rapists, Morfin wasn't outraged — he was glad.
"Finally somebody got up there and said what needed to be said," said Morfin, who was relaxing on a recent night at an Albuquerque festival that featured cumbia and salsa bands and a parade of classic cars. "He said what everybody's thinking but is afraid to say out loud."

Morfin is hardly typical of Latino public opinion. Nationwide, nearly 80% of Latino voters consider Trump's comments offensive, according to a recent survey commissioned by Univision, the Spanish-language entertainment and news network.
Donald Trump's comments offend many U.S. Latinos, but not all

Indeed, a new poll of GOP primary voters in Nevada by One America News Networkshows Trump in first place among Hispanics.
He was the choice of 27.7% of respondents overall.
But, among Hispanics, the figure jumped to 31.4%. That showing did not escape Trump, who mentions the poll often.
Trump on track to win GOP Hispanic vote: Column

 

[Redfish]

In summary on the OP. The 2016 election will not be decided by the Hispanic vote. The OP is a red herring.

It will be decided by inept Republican candidates

Sadly, it will be decided by an ignorant population and a biased media. Just like Obama's two wins were.

 

[Redfish]

How well does the GOP have to do with Hispanics in 2016?

To have a prayer in the election, they probably need to pull 40% of the vote. It is possible Rubio could get that
In reality, it probably will not matter either way. Republicans are unlikely to reach 270, even with more support from Hispanics

ALL HAIL QUEEN HILLARY---------------------RIGHTWINGERS CHOICE FOR SAVIOR OF THE EARTH.

Are you really that fricken stupid?

Don't like it?

Field a candidate who can beat ther

Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates can beat her. It is very possible that she will not be the dem nominee now that the FBI has proven that she transmitted top secret classified data on an unsecure private server.

Watch, if the dem power brokers think she will lose because of this, the Obama AG will indict her. Remember, the obamas and Clintons hate each other.

But don't worry, you have plugs biden waiting in the wings, LOL