What Does An Actual RINO Look Like?

[bripat9643]

Oh, and I have a nasty spoiler for you, bri.

The GOP is going to grant amnesty to the illegals. Just a matter of time.

It's what 80 percent of America wants. And you know how the Right is always harping on and on about The Will of the People.

When it suits them...

Wrong. 70% of Americans want them deported.

That's a flat-out lie.

August 2015: In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

65% favor citizenship. 14% favor legal status.

79%


Immigration

Legal status or citizenship is 59 + 19 = 78 percent.

"Deport them" = 18 percent. They are on the losing side, big time. Your claim of 70 percent is bogus, bripat.


Poll Roundup Majority of Americans Support Immigration Reform With Citizenship

Gallup
June-July 2013

• 83% of conservatives support allowing immigrants to become citizens

Plenty more evidence in the link.

On immigration, Republicans favor path to legal status, but differ over citizenship

What Americans Want From Immigration Reform in 2014

62% of Americans favor providing a way for immigrants who are currently living in the United States illegally to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, while 17% support allowing them to become permanent legal residents

The Republican response:

Only 13 percent of Americans favor passing immigration reform without a path to citizenship for illegals.

13 percent.

Your poll doesn't say what you claim. It says "should they be allowed to stay in the country legally?" That's far different than "should they be allowed to become citizens?"

 

[Zander]

If you got a call from a pollster, would you be truthful? or would you fuck with them?

 

[Rustic]

Poach more Rinos for the good of the country...

 

[Arianrhod]

Trump scared of the eagle about to rip his eyeballs out. Perfect!

Lol, and you take that to be an omen.

Pride goeth before a fall.

 

[OKTexas]

Wasn't Sanders part of the congress that balanced the budget?

Sanders is a Republican now?

Did you read the OP? My B/U.

There is only one candidate in both parties who has ever actually balanced the federal budget.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[amrchaos]

Some of you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

Look, when you compare Rubio, Kasich, etc to Trump in the primaries, you are talking about their performance mainly with dedicated Republicans.

Now when you use that to guess at their performance against Hillary, you change the dynamics of the race by adding in voters that are not dedicated Republicans.


There are polls that talk about potential matchups in the general elections. Those are the polls you should look at when comparing a candidates performance against Hillary Clinton.

Look at it this way, Trump is able to dominate in an election with Republicans only. In fact, I can predict a landslide for Trump against Clinton in the GOP primaries.

However, in the General, Clinton beats Trump hands down. In fact, Clinton performs at her best against Trump versus generic GOP candidate.


Most general election polls give a better edge to Rubio and Kasich against Clinton. Probably because most non-Republican voters behave more like establishment GOP voters.


P.S. Kasich may be boring, but his style is a lot more comforting than Hillary's.

 

[OKTexas]

As Chairman of the House budget committee, Kasich was a key figure. No one else can make the claim they helped balanced the federal budget.

Kasich knows how to do it, and he knows how to work with the opposition to get it done. Because he has done it before.

Nor can any others claim to have increased employment in their state, and taken their state's budget from a deficit to a surplus.

He has long time Legislative AND Executive experience.

There isn't any other candidate with that skill set.

But who do we have leading the polls? A complete and total RINO and two first term senators.

Gee, how'd it work out the last time we elected a first term senator?

Rubio will get better with time, but everyone in Congress HATES Cruz. How would that work out if he is President?

As Chairman of the House budget committee, Kasich was a key figure. No one else can make the claim they helped balanced the federal budget.

Wasn't Sanders part of the congress that balanced the budget?

Two things.

1) Sanders had no part in putting together the balanced budget.

2) Sanders voted against the balanced budget.

See for yourself: H.R. 2015 (105th): Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- House Vote #345 -- Jul 30, 1997


Nice try. Not.

So the answer is YES, he was part of the congress that balanced the budget, his vote was irrelevant to the question. My point was Kasich can't be given sole credit, I think if any one person can take credit it would be Newtster, he's the one that ultimately got it done.

You were obviously committing a stupid logical fallacy. You were desperately trying to take away credit that can't be taken away. As if a member of Congress who had no part in the budget process was just as creditable as the guy who was the Chairman of the committee that wrote the budget.

You should be very, very careful, and think about the benchmark you are setting in your hack partisan haste, dummy. In your pathetic attempt to take away Kasich's achievement, you are taking away every achievement of EVERYONE who has ever served in Congress. Including Rubio and Cruz.

Your idiot fallacy failed, and now you have to backtrack.

Kasich helped write the balanced budget. You can't deny that, because it is a fact.

No other candidate has ever written a balanced federal budget.

Dig a little deeper:

Gov. Kasich has a $14 billion Obamacare problem - Watchdog.org

“Without the federal funny money that increases America’s national debt, John Kasich’s ‘Ohio miracle’ utterly collapses,” Mayer added.
Defending Obamacare expansion as a way to reclaim Ohio money from the feds has worked for Kasich so far, as his poll numbers have jumped following his official July 21 campaign announcement.
That’s likely to change in the near future, since Kasich is competing for attention with Obamacare expansion foes that include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former Texas governor Rick Perry.
Where did Kasich get the idea his Obamacare expansion would be paid for with Ohio money and not new federal spending? He made it up.

Medicaid expansion “brought our money back to Ohio, 14 billion,” Kasich told Sean Hannity during a July 21 Fox News interview.

In fact, it's probably a good idea to read what papers in Ohio think of Kasich.

Has Gov. Kasich helped the economy?

Gotta love this article from the partisan Mother Jones:

John Kasich was against poor people before he was for them

Once again, the budget brought tax savings for the wealthy, and higher taxes for those who can least afford them. An analysis of the 2015 budget by the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy found that about half the benefit of the tax cuts, totaling about $1 billion, would go into the pockets of the top 1 percent of Ohioans, while the only group that would see a tax increase was the bottom 20 percent of earners.

If even a quarter is true, then, wow.
You gotta admit. That sounds very, very GOP.

Can you say a temporary fix to a permanent problem?

 

[Toro]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump scared of the eagle about to rip his eyeballs out. Perfect!

Lol, and you take that to be an omen.

Pride goeth before a fall.

Yep, you exemplify that well.

 

[amrchaos]

Kasich/Rubio would carry Ohio and Florida, and win the election.

Trump won't even win New York.

The calculus is obvious, folks.

And we'd get a balanced federal budget out of the deal. Again. Finally.

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

Partisan lock states are already filled in.

Regardless of either Clinton or Sanders being nominated...

A Kasich/Rubio ticket is guaranteed to carry the following states:
-Ohio
-Florida
-North Carolina
-Nevada
-Virginia

That alone secures a GOP victory.

In addition, Kasich/Rubio would likely lock in CO against HRC (though not guaranteed against Sanders) and likely secures Iowa against Sanders (though not guaranteed against Clinton). A Kasich/Rubio ticket has a maximum of 291 potential EC votes, which is more than any other GOP candidate's potential.

With PA and WI being virtually lock votes for the Democrats, they operate from a 247 base of essentially locked in votes. Whomever is the Democratic nominee, they can concentrate 100% of their efforts in FL and secure victory. In order for the GOP to win in November we have to:

- Revert, then secure, Florida: FL has been brought to the precipice of falling into blue statedom. It must be returned to it's previous status of being a red leaning swing state. A Rubio VP nod accomplishes that. But the work is not finished there. FL will still have to be won. It will take a moderate and pragmatic POTUS candidate to ultimately win over FL. Most GOP candidates will easily scare FL into the blue column.

-Lock up Ohio: Anything short of locking up Ohio would be the GOP equivalent of telling the Democrats "Eh, maybe we want it, maybe we don't. We'll let you know in December." The Dems can afford to gamble that carrying OH in the previous two elections will carry adequate momentum to bring the state back to them if the GOP neglects the state. As a result, Democrats would be able to count OH as among several layers of contingency. A Kasich candidacy locks up Ohio and reduces the number of strategic plans the Democrats can hope to layer up.

The GOP needs to do those things just to get to a parity with the Democrats. That would only leave NH, VA, IA, CO, and NV as battlegrounds, with VA being the most important for the GOP.

Why is Nevada and Virginia a lock for the GOP with that ticket exactly? Actually, I should question Florida too, just because Rubio is on the ticket guarantees nothing, look at Wisconsin in 2012. It could work out this way but you really think Kasich's name would be first on the ticket? Sounds like fantasy. Possible but Trump had better fall in NH real quick, it's Kasich's only shot at relevance until Ohio.

Actually, Rubio pointed something out about this years Primaries versus previous years that needs exmining.

According to Rubio, you don't even need to win any primaries until Super Tuesday. Why? Because it is still possible to win the GOP primaries without the early wins. However, you have to win a state in Super Tuesday to have a chance.

This is due to the number of committed candidates. As long as you have as many as the GOP, New Hampshire and Ohio are only good for momentum.

Hence, they are not so useful to Trump, a little more useful for Cruz. Not necessary to win to win the primaries.

This is a good theory, but the other candidates have to find a way to break the medias focus on Trump in order to gain votes.

 

[OKTexas]

Kasich/Rubio would carry Ohio and Florida, and win the election.

Trump won't even win New York.

The calculus is obvious, folks.

And we'd get a balanced federal budget out of the deal. Again. Finally.

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

Partisan lock states are already filled in.

Regardless of either Clinton or Sanders being nominated...

A Kasich/Rubio ticket is guaranteed to carry the following states:
-Ohio
-Florida
-North Carolina
-Nevada
-Virginia

That alone secures a GOP victory.

In addition, Kasich/Rubio would likely lock in CO against HRC (though not guaranteed against Sanders) and likely secures Iowa against Sanders (though not guaranteed against Clinton). A Kasich/Rubio ticket has a maximum of 291 potential EC votes, which is more than any other GOP candidate's potential.

With PA and WI being virtually lock votes for the Democrats, they operate from a 247 base of essentially locked in votes. Whomever is the Democratic nominee, they can concentrate 100% of their efforts in FL and secure victory. In order for the GOP to win in November we have to:

- Revert, then secure, Florida: FL has been brought to the precipice of falling into blue statedom. It must be returned to it's previous status of being a red leaning swing state. A Rubio VP nod accomplishes that. But the work is not finished there. FL will still have to be won. It will take a moderate and pragmatic POTUS candidate to ultimately win over FL. Most GOP candidates will easily scare FL into the blue column.

-Lock up Ohio: Anything short of locking up Ohio would be the GOP equivalent of telling the Democrats "Eh, maybe we want it, maybe we don't. We'll let you know in December." The Dems can afford to gamble that carrying OH in the previous two elections will carry adequate momentum to bring the state back to them if the GOP neglects the state. As a result, Democrats would be able to count OH as among several layers of contingency. A Kasich candidacy locks up Ohio and reduces the number of strategic plans the Democrats can hope to layer up.

The GOP needs to do those things just to get to a parity with the Democrats. That would only leave NH, VA, IA, CO, and NV as battlegrounds, with VA being the most important for the GOP.

Kasich and Rubio are a couple of RINOs who have no chance to win the Nomination. Trump is already winning in the states you listed. Get used to saying "President Trump."

Trump may be leading in the primaries, but that means nothing in regards to the general election. You understand the difference between a primary and a general election, right?

Hillary hasn't got a chance against Trump in the general election. He is going to rake her over the coals night and day over her emails, Benghazi and attacking Bills victims to keep them quiet. Hillary's poll numbers are sinking by the day.

Never worked before, obscene child. The Big Quack has to have positive policy on specific issues that the media can vet as being "doable."

Right, really specific, like, Hope and Change! LMAO

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Zander]

Some of you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

Look, when you compare Rubio, Kasich, etc to Trump in the primaries, you are talking about their performance mainly with dedicated Republicans.

Now when you use that to guess at their performance against Hillary, you change the dynamics of the race by adding in voters that are not dedicated Republicans.


There are polls that talk about potential matchups in the general elections. Those are the polls you should look at when comparing a candidates performance against Hillary Clinton.

Look at it this way, Trump is able to dominate in an election with Republicans only. In fact, I can predict a landslide for Trump against Clinton in the GOP primaries.

However, in the General, Clinton beats Trump hands down. In fact, Clinton performs at her best against Trump versus generic GOP candidate.


Most general election polls give a better edge to Rubio and Kasich against Clinton. Probably because most non-Republican voters behave more like establishment GOP voters.


P.S. Kasich may be boring, but his style is a lot more comforting than Hillary's.

The polls taken before a nominee is solidified are notoriously inaccurate.

Example- In 2008- all of the national polls showed that McCain would easily beat Obama or hiLIARy in the general. Once he became the nominee, he dropped like a fucking stone.

 

[amrchaos]

Cruz and Rubio both poll better than Trump against Hillary for the general election.

Unfortunately, all three of them LOSE to her.

That will change the more the public sees of her.

We are going to be forced to see more of Hillary Clinton?


-->Most of America


-->Democrats

 

[Toro]

The polls taken before a nominee is solidified are notoriously inaccurate.

Example- In 2008- all of the national polls showed that McCain would easily beat Obama or hiLIARy in the general. Once he became the nominee, he dropped like a fucking stone.

Not true.

McCain almost always trailed Obama. He surged into the convention, as often happens, which was the only time he ever led Obama. He then fell back to where he was prior to the convention. He was polling higher right before the election than he was a year prior.

2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics

 

[oreo]

The problem is that Republicans, especially the right wing of the party NEVER pay attention to the Demographics of the electorate. They don't do election history or math either. Republicans are the minority party at 41 million, Democrats are stronger at 46 million, and Independents are the largest party today making up for 40% of the entire electorate.

1. Independents nor women will vote for far right candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, (Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry) or any candidate that does not give exceptions on abortion for the life of the mother, rape or incest.

2. Women rule today--at 54% of the vote. They were chased off by Republicans in 2012 by double digits which secured a 2nd term for Barack Obama.

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNNPolitics.com
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

We have Hillary Clinton who is going to be the 1st WOMAN Presidential Nominee in this nations history.

In effect--any one of these:

will insure the next POTUS will be:

or you can choose the most qualified candidate

to defeat Hillary Clinton

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you were watching Bill O'Reilly earlier, Trump openly admitted he voted for both parties. By George, my grandmother does the same thing! It's called being an independent!

Also, Trump admitted he donated $100,000 to the Clinton foundation... without knowing it was being used for things other than the stated purpose. When asked if he'd ask for his money back, he plainly stated "yes, I would certainly want my money back."

When the transcript of his interview with Trump is released, I'll post them here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And while we're discussing the woman issue, oreo, people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (sp?), the chair of the DNC, responded to the GOP response to the SOTU by saying "they chose Nikki Haley because they have diversity problems." That is quite demeaning to Nikki Haley. She didn't consider the idea that the Republicans chose her for reasons other than being a woman.

On a different note, another woman, Sarah Palin, endorsed Donald Trump just today. Democrats over the past decade have been guilty of making sexist remarks about (conservative) women, and I'd wager you're willing to let Democrats get away with it, but you're focused on Trump's misgivings among a random sample of women in a poll. I know because I watched the Israeli election last year and the pollsters were dead wrong, it was flat out embarrassing for them.

 

[Zander]

The polls taken before a nominee is solidified are notoriously inaccurate.

Example- In 2008- all of the national polls showed that McCain would easily beat Obama or hiLIARy in the general. Once he became the nominee, he dropped like a fucking stone.

Not true.

McCain almost always trailed Obama. He surged into the convention, as often happens, which was the only time he ever led Obama. He then fell back to where he was prior to the convention. He was polling higher right before the election than he was a year prior.

View attachment 60368

2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics

He may have trailed Obama but he was beating hiLIARy. McCain vaulted to the top of the GOP polls when a number of match-up polls, starting in Dec 07, started to show him beating hiLIARy. She was the presumptive nominee and Obama was the long shot. Here is the data on McCain V Cankles .

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Clinton

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is that Republicans, especially the right wing of the party NEVER pay attention to the Demographics of the electorate. They don't do election history or math either. Republicans are the minority party at 41 million, Democrats are stronger at 46 million, and Independents are the largest party today making up for 40% of the entire electorate.

1. Independents nor women will vote for far right candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, (Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry) or any candidate that does not give exceptions on abortion for the life of the mother, rape or incest.

2. Women rule today--at 54% of the vote. They were chased off by Republicans in 2012 by double digits which secured a 2nd term for Barack Obama.

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNNPolitics.com
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

We have Hillary Clinton who is going to be the 1st WOMAN Presidential Nominee in this nations history.

In effect--any one of these:

will insure the next POTUS will be:

or you can choose the most qualified candidate

to defeat Hillary Clinton

The independents are tracking with the Republicans, knucklehead. Your belief that they are going to vote Democrat has no visible means of support.