Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No republicans for president in 2016.... we really don't want to go back to a backwards country again...in my opinion... a club for the rich and for the corporations. Just my opinion and view on the matter. I think I read that republicans in the house passed a bill to cut funding to Social Security retirement benefits for the elderly, who paid into that all their lives......we cannot have Republicans in office in 2016...... in my opinion.
I know you have given your opinion, but I have a feeling your opinion is based on faulty information. Democrats are now the party of the rich. There are more millionaire democrats in Congress than Republicans. Well known democrats are wealthy Corporate leaders, like Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett. Most of the Hollywood elite support democrats and hold HUGE fundraisers for democrats.
And it is pretty obvious that the democrat party is now the party of the wealthy and not about the working family.
Demcrats charged $40K a plate for dinner with Obama...no different than fundraising costs for GOP fundraisers.
As far as what you "think you read" about republicans passing laws to cut funding to social security...you realize that it was Democrat President Johnson who started including all transactions to the the Social Security Trust Fund as part of the "unified budget" meaning that the funds in the SS Trust Fund are not "in a lock box", but are used like any other revenue for funding purposes.
The only thing the GOP is doing, is seeking a solution to KEEP meeting the promise of SSI from a bankrupt "Trust Fund." No bill ever promoted by the GOP has involved cutting existing benefits to the elderly - the goal has always been to make sure that those who are on or soon to be on SSI are protected, while finding a way to protect the younger population from having to pay into what is basically a Ponzi scheme that is only going to result in bankrupting the country and its mere existence leads people to rely upon this faulty concept for retirement instead of using the money that is confiscated by the government, to fund their own retirement plans over which they have control and the right to bequeath to their heirs upon death.
Cruz and other Republican aspirants must be measured against Pennsylvania. It is one of 18 states that have voted Democratic in six consecutive elections and that, with the District of Columbia, total 242 electoral votes.
Any candidacy premised on conceding those 18 states involves a risky path to not much more than 270 electoral votes. Writing in Politico, Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik notes that in the six elections since 1992, a majority of states have not been competitive. Thirty-one plus the District of Columbia (these have 344 electoral votes) have voted for the same party in those elections. Another eight (71 electoral votes) have voted for the same party in five of the six. This is why, Sosnik says, “almost two-thirds of the $896 million spent on television” by the two candidates in 2012 was spent in five states that have been competitive since 1992 — Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia.
The Republican nominee must crack the ice that has frozen the electoral map. Cruz cannot do that by getting more votes from traditional constituencies.
Here is our little clue as to where George Will stands - with the Republican Establishment as always. That wasn't hard to assess.
"When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan, is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland."
That's one of many opinion pieces that will be published about Cruz, and most likely Paul as well, in an attempt to discredit them prior to the primaries. And you can bet the heat will increase exponentially now that it appears major donors consider Cruz a viable candidate.
Right. And Fox News will gladly jump on board with Karl Rove's covert PACS to take out any conservative.
I have to admit, I was happily shocked by this news. Nearly $31Million since announcing. That is quite a bit of funding that is NOT coming from the GOP elitists.
You just have to love it.
They have three super PACS - Keep The Promise I, Keep The Promise II and Keep The Promise III - Keep the Promise of America for future generations. Sounds like a plan!
Better than Leftist Warren and Corrupt Clinton (with not rel record to boot)
What makes the Dem's in General have concern of their plight is the 6 Years of Obama.
Cruz may not even win the Texas primary. Heck, he may drop out before then. But if he's still hanging in there in March of next year, he has my primary vote. I'd LOVE to see him get the GOP nod.
Last edited by Old Gringo; 04-08-2015 at 12:48 PM..
Cruz may not even win the Texas primary. Heck, he may drop out before then. But if he's still hanging in there in March of next year, he has my primary vote. I'd LOVE to see him get the GOP nod.
Yeah how he is handled on the national scene will be a sight to see. Fox News will be the least of his problems when it comes to the media. JUST SAYIN'
Cruz may not even win the Texas primary. Heck, he may drop out before then. But if he's still hanging in there in March of next year, he has my primary vote. I'd LOVE to see him get the GOP nod.
In Texas... In the Primaries we get asked if we are voting Republican, or Democrat.
You personally would give up all your democrat primary contenders in local elections and state elections your voice, just to vote for Ted in the Republican primary? I seriously doubt that.
Now a democrat can vote in the Republican primary and visa-versa, but we cannot vote in both.
Yeah how he is handled on the national scene will be a sight to see. Fox News will be the least of his problems when it comes to the media. JUST SAYIN'
This isn't really true. Fox News walks a fine line, but breaks for the GOP Establishment.
In Texas... In the Primaries we get asked if we are voting Republican, or Democrat.
You personally would give up all your democrat primary contenders in local elections and state elections your voice, just to vote for Ted in the Republican primary?
Yup! chances are the Dem primary won't be nearly as entertaining.
Quote:
I seriously doubt that.
Doesn't change a thing, does it?
Quote:
Now a democrat can vote in the Republican primary and visa-versa, but we cannot vote in both.
Cruz’s haul is eye-popping, one that instantly raises the stakes in the Republican fundraising contest
Quote:
Still, even some Cruz supporters, and many others who have been skeptical that his candidacy could draw significant financial support, are certain to be stunned by this initial round of contributions.
One of the baseline tests for any presidential candidate is the ability to manage a campaign. If you can't manage your campaign, how are you going to manage a nation? Ted Cruz appears to be very well organized, and passing this baseline test with flying colors. I have already sent him one check, with many more to come
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
