Obama Is Outsmarting The Republicans Again Part II

With the events this last week, Obama has served up dinner for the conservatives. The conservatives are eating Jim Crow. I predict when Obama leaves office the facts will show he was the the greatest POTUS this country ever had. Millions of hard working Americans benefited by the Supreme Court decisions. When are the conservatives, specifically the Republicans, going to understand that the United States is a a nation of people, not about destroying the middle class and creating a feudal system.

No votes yet

I will link you to the article quoting Bastrop County Republican Chair, Albert Ellison, stating that many residents in his county believe that Obama was, "...raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists." Ellison goes on to say that these people, "...are not nuts and wackos. They are concerned citizens and they are patriots."
Here's the article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-texans-fear-obama-led-military-inv...

So, just when you thought it was, "safe to go back in the water," the Obama monster-shark is coming to conquer Texas and confiscate all guns from good, innocent, patriotic American citizens there. Is this what you mean, ZC, by stating that, "Obama is outsmarting the Republicans again, part II?" Very tricky, he is!
This was all triggered by the fact that the U.S. military is going to carry out a large training exercise in various Southern states. Most Northern-state political leaders resent the fact that these types of maneuvers are carried out more often in the South, giving those economies a boost that the Northern states would like to have. I wonder why there is such an emotional, some might say irrational, reaction when this maneuver is being done under this particular POTUS? Hmmm...

BTW -- I'm still waiting for a phone call either from my NRA-member son-in-law, or his gun-toting father, decrying the fact that their legal guns have been confiscated by Obama's extremists in the federal ATF.
Still waiting...
Still waiting...

I do not and cannot guarantee very many things in life. I CAN guarantee that the United States government under this POTUS will NEVER invade Texas and will NEVER confiscate all guns there! GUARANTEED!!

If Texas wins the battle will they reinstate slavery?

The so-called "noble" revolution of freedom-loving Texans was really a smoke-screen. Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829, giving Texas an extra year, until 1830, to free its slaves. The Texas Revolution started in 1835. By 1836, The Republic of Texas was born.

No one should dispute the bravery of the individual fighters who defeated the Mexican army which had many more soldiers than did the army of Texas. However, it is a mistake to perceive this revolution as some type of noble cause; a blow for freedom. What the citizens of Texas wanted, more than anything else, was the freedom to own other people in perpetuity. It took almost no time at all for Texas to make slavery legal again in the new republic. By 1840, The Republic of Texas reported having 11,323 slaves living there.

Might Texas, if independent again, reinstate slavery of those of African background? It's hard to believe that this could happen in our times, but Jews in Germany in the last century never thought that the Germans -- the most highly educated and advanced of all the European people, and where the German Jews felt themselves to be the most integrated into society of any European nation -- would send them to death camps by the millions, either. Who knows?

Let Texas succeed from the Union. They must want to be invaded by the Russians.

Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican?" Well, someone should inform the most intelligent man in the world, according to him, himself, The Donald. I will provide a link to an article where The Donald not only questions Rick Perry's intelligence because, according to the "All-Knowing One," Gov. Perry misused the word "demogoguery" in an attack against The Donald, but also, in The Donald's mind, as governor of Texas, Rick Perry did not control the thousand-mile long Mexican border. But The Donald did not stop there. Oh, no, no! He also questions the intelligence of war hero and prisoner of war Sen. John McCain for having the temerity to disagree with the Almighty One, that is, The Donald. The Donald actually tweeted the word "dummy," when describing Sen. McCain!
Here's the link: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-thinks-rick-perry-iq-test-presid...
Is The Donald merely being brutally honest? IMHO -- No! His ego is SO BIG, that he has an incalculable superiority complex. And as Thomas Jefferson said about 200 years ago, "I have not observed men's honesty to increase with their riches." Yet, some people really believe that the wealthier one is, the smarter that person is. As it says in the song "If I Were a Rich Man:" "And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong. When you're rich, they think you really know."

I guess, The Donald is in the wrong party. The elephant symbol does not do him justice. He is, in fact, a pompous donkey!

The Donald leads all Republicans! (But it's close.)
Here's the link to the article:

His lead won't last, but what's scary is that there are many people who shares his sick views.

But, he DID force obama to produce his birth certificate, after two weeks of pressure!

birth certificate is a fake! Obama was really born in Kenya. He was raised by Muslim communists. He should not even be POTUS! And he's STILL going to have the ATF or the FBI, or the CIA, or the military, confiscate all of our guns! Just wait and see!!

It was almost like he grabbed the pres. by the ankles, held him upside down and shook him until the certificate dropped to the floor, wasn't it?


I bristled at the attacks made for George W. Bush against John McCain when they were rivals for the Republican nomination for POTUS. Some here took offense at that, claiming that W's campaign made no attacks; the attacks were from those infamous "independent" groups supporting W, and that W never endorsed that strategy. Then W supporters attacked the war record of John Kerry. This is a very consistent theme in recent Republican politics, whether the opponent is a Democrat of a fellow Republican.

Now, we have The Donald. Remember, war heroes were attacked for W TWICE, and W won election as POTUS TWICE! So, should we really be surprised that The Donald is using this tactic? W at least served. He didn't go into combat, but he wore the uniform. It is my understanding that The Donald never served.
In addition, McCain had the temerity to criticize The Donald, and point out, in a way similar to my own, that The Donald was bringing out "the crazies" to vote for him. Don't cross The Donald! Even if you're a genuine war hero AND a Republican!
For those who don't know, let me point out why John McCain is a genuine hero. Sometime after McCain was captured, the North Vietnamese found out that his father was an admiral. Because of his father's high standing in the American military, the North Vietnamese offered to release McCain as a kind gesture to America. John McCain asked if his entire unit could be released. He was told that only he, himself, would be released. McCain refused to be released unless and until all of the men who served with him were released as well. He remained a prisoner, and suffered further torture because of this heroic decision. The Donald has no right to criticize a man like John McCain in the fashion in which he did. John McCain has more courage in his little finger than The Donald has in his entire body. Shame on The Donald!! But, we all know The Donald by now. His attitude is, "I'm extremely rich, so I will say anything I want about anyone I want. And if you don't like it, you can stuff it, while I laugh all the way to the bank!"

Here's a link to an article, the headline of which sums up The Donald's attitude to anyone who confronts him! http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/i-will-say-what-i-want-to-say-tr...

Back in the day, while John McCain was flying dangerous missions over Hanoi, The Donald claimed that his bill collecting assignments placed him "in danger" because people might attack him when he knocked on a door. After all, in The Donald's own words, "These were tenants who'd throw their garbage out the window, because it was easier than putting it in the incinerator." I guess being "in danger" is in the eye of the beholder. The Donald did have a tough life back then, compared to the luxury McCain had recovering from his broken bones and beatings in the plush "Hanoi Hilton."
Here's a link to the article comparing their two lives back in the 1960s:

You can attack a person's conduct not their service.

Both Kerry and Bush had their military records attacked. So it's not solely a Republican issue as you state. In fact, you've continued the attacks on Bush right here years after the election. I personally have no issue of the questions on Kerry for his comments made after he was out of the service because it has to do with conduct but I consider his service to be unquestionably honorable.

Trump made a huge mistake. He attacked McCain's service and not his conduct.

The facts are McCain's conduct was above reproach. He put himself in the way of harm during the fire aboard the USS Forrestal, and as you noted could have given up secrets or gotten himself out of harms way but didn't.

Now if Trump had said being a prisoner of war does not make one a hero and I would agree. Prime examples are SSgt Joseph Subic and PFC Bobby Garwood.

Trump doubling down on his comments will kill his campaign. I expect his poll numbers to drop this week.


George H.W. Bush was a true war hero. HW did NOT duck his responsibilities. He was shot down while in combat and thought to be dead. W avoided service in Vietnam, while Kerry volunteered to go! That's a difference of "conduct."
In the 2004 campaign, Republicans made organized attacks against Kerry's service. They questioned his being in battles. Unlike in the case of newsman Brian Williams, no one has ever presented hard evidence that Kerry was not in battles. That, like the attacks by The Donald on McCain, is reprehensible.

I hope that you are correct about The Donald dropping in coming polls. The latest polls have him in a clear lead. Here's the link:

I was discussing George W Bush's military service. Which was honorable and attacked by Dems.


the service is unaccounted for.
W never served in Vietnam. W saw about as much combat as did The Donald! Both were from privileged families, and both avoided combat. W did keep Texas safe from attack, though.
Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. THAT'S the difference!

See right there! He volunteered for military service. His time is fully accounted for.

There is no unaccounted for time. He asked to not keep his flight hours because he was going out of state to work on a friend's campaign. Since he was at the end of his service he didn't need to keep up his flight hours. It's pretty common. In fact we have a similar programs called the voluntary separation program and the voluntary early release program.

You are no different than Trump. You are attacking someone's military service and you never served.

George W Bush served honorably. That is a fact.


I respect those who did and do serve, however.
W was in the military during an actual war. While in the military he was allowed to work on a political campaign. Would the military, in a time of war, give you, Mikey, time off to work on a political campaign? I don't think so, unless you have ties to higher-ups like W did.

You may be fine with W working on a political campaign, and not logging his hours flying, even to keep Texas safe from a North Vietnamese invasion. I may be wrong, but it seems fishy to me. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. Kerry saved a colleague under fire from the enemy.
I had a friend who served in Vietnam and wrote for "Stars and Stripes." He was stationed in Saigon. He was "safe." Except for the day he left a restaurant commonly frequented by American soldiers, and grenades were thrown into the restaurant several seconds after he left. He was not injured, but he was close enough to feel the concussions from the blasts. Being in a combat zone, is very different than flying around the U.S. South! W's treatment in the military is typical of the treatment of those of privilege.

For the record, I was exempt from military service because of asthma triggered by severe allergies and/or physical exertion. Not only do I still have asthma today, I also have COPD and take medication daily. I don't go anywhere without my rescue inhaler. That's a lot different than The Donald's situation. Even so, I work out 3 or 4 days a week, and play senior softball two days a week each summer. I refuse to allow myself the luxury of wasting away.
My older brother, who has no such health issues, did serve, even though he was an MD. During the Vietnam War, he was stationed in Korea for 13 months, luckily for him. Believe me, our father, who was, himself, a WW II vet, had no special ties or influence with anyone in a high position in government or the military.

died serving our nation in WW II. Yes, I have a deep appreciation for those who serve without special ties and/or privilege.
But, I especially appreciate those like George H.W. Bush, who did have special ties and/or privilege, but did not use those ties to "defend" Texas or Connecticut from the Japanese or the Germans. (And, that was a much more real threat in WW II than was an attack by North Vietnam during that war.)
And, I appreciate people like you, Mikey, who have served in danger zones.

We are not talking time off. He was allowed to forego his flight quals. He still had to check in while out-of-state which counts for reserve drill status.

As for a time of war.... Well the Marines allowed me to go away for college during a time of war. They started the voluntary separation during a time of war. They started the voluntary early release in a time of war.

Face it, you don't understand military service. George W Bush served honorably. And you did the same as Trump and tried to disparage the service of someone who volunteered to keep this country safe. Why? For political differences.


Look, Mikey. You did NOT live during the Vietnam era. I did! I was ready to serve, but I could not. Children of privilege had choices to make. In WW II, GHW Bush chose to serve in combat. He was a child of privilege. He could have avoided combat. He did not! Trump was a child of privilege. He avoided service altogether. W was a child of privilege. He served in a very safe assignment, and was given time off to work on a political campaign. You, Mikey, were given time off to attend college. Are you really equating these uses of time?
Having lived during that time, I can tell you that innumerable people were trying to NOT go to Vietnam. John Kerry was not one of them. Are you really equating W's service with his, or McCain's? Are you so naive that you really believe that Trump's avoidance of service and W's avoidance of combat are coincidences? Are you stating that either man volunteered to serve in combat, but was turned down? Kerry volunteered for combat and could have easily died. Get real, Mikey!!
Yes, I admire Kerry for his service. Yes, I admire GHWB for his service. Yes, I admire McCain for his service. No, I do not admire Trump for draft dodging. No, I do not admire W for his avoiding combat duty. If this is a political statement, then I guess that makes me a Republicrat !

You still don't get it.

GWB did not avoid combat nor did he get time off for a political campaign. He was a guardsman and was allowed to forego his flight hours. He sti had to do his required check-in just like everyone else. He could have been selected for combat flight like everyone else.

In the military no one cares who your parents are. I have met Lt MCain (Johns son) and if anything he has it harder because there is a higher expectation.

You clearly have not been around the military because there is no privilege.


from two different sources, the per cent of those who were in Vietnam from the "lower middle/working class" was 76%. The per cent who had fathers who were from "professional, managerial, or technical occupations" was 23%. They did not have statistics regarding how many who served in Vietnam had fathers who were "rich" by 1960s standards. You just have to take my word for it that people like The Donald, who came from privilege, often did not serve at all, or, like W, got coveted positions in a National Guard unit, especially the Air National Guard, and never served "In Country." That's just the way it was, whether you believe it or not. Here are links to my 2 sources: http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm
BTW -- From one these same sources, 97% of those who served during the Vietnam era received an honorable discharge. One had to do something quite heinous to receive less than an honorable discharge.
To me, the more horrifying statistics, were those regarding how young were those who served. 61% who died there were 21 or younger! 61%!! The average age of those very young Americans who were killed, was 23.1 years!!!

As a society, we allow old, relatively wealthy people in Congress and in a Presidential Administration, to send very young people, most often from modest-income families, to fight, kill, and die in wars which are -- too often -- questionable at best, and unnecessary at worst. That's reality!

Please don't state your utter respect for those in the military when you continually lie about one of our members service. That is exactly what you are doing. Lying.


According to MikeyA, When you have your own facts, it's a lie.

What the hell are you talking about. His opinion is not based in fact. He keeps saying he got time off, he didn't. He keeps saying he avoided combat, he didn't. He keeps saying he received special treatment, he didn't. He can't provide any evidence of any of it.


treatment. Mikey -- I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs on this issue. IMHO...You're just naive and wrong. I suppose when the North Vietnamese offered John McCain the "privilege" of leaving captivity, and this was approved by the U.S. military, there was no "privilege" involved.
Mikey -- You may know the military. Maybe it helps you to serve, truly believing that privilege does not matter. It does.
This does not mean that I hold those who serve in less regard. If anything, I hold those who serve, especially those who serve in combat areas, in even higher regard, knowing that they are in consistently greater danger! I do know people of privilege who used that privilege to either not serve, or not serve in combat. If The Donald has the right to criticize someone for being captured in a combat situation, I certainly have the right to differentiate between types of service.
Look...my father was a WW II veteran. He served on the Island of Guam. He was stationed there after it had been taken back from the Japanese by the U.S. Marines. He was part of the ground crew who prepared planes for combat flights and fixed typewriters and teletypes. But, do I consider his service in the same light as those marines who stormed the beaches of Guam, risking their very lives, to make the island safe for soldiers like my father? Nor do I consider his service in the same light as his friend, for whom I am named, who was shot down flying a combat mission. When my father was alive, he stated this very same opinion to me!
On the other hand, do I consider W's service the same as John McCain's? NO!! W could have volunteered to fly combat in Vietnam. He chose not to do so. Neither you nor I know for sure whether or not W was not sent into combat because he was a child of privilege. All I can say is," If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what?"

Since we are talking about ducks, let me reiterate MikeyA's behavior. Anything he says is fact. If he disagrees with what someone else says or what they share with us doesn't fit his agenda, he claims they are not credible or they are a liar. Remember this MikeyA is always right. I give him credit. His Republican ideals are classic.

You're wrong. I've been wrong before on here and I've admitted it when I am. The last case was with Progress22, you can feel free to ask him or track back in the comments.

I don't have an agenda other than to discuss topics honestly. That's why I cite what I say. That's why I provide links. I'm not trying to hide anything... that's what someone with an agenda does.... someone like you.

BTW, My ideals don't always align with the Republican Party.


Yes I do have evidence. George W. Bush was given an honorable discharge. That means he received no special treatment, followed orders, and served honorably. McCain and Kerry also have honorable discharges and thus I have evidence they didn't get special treatment as well.

GWB volunteered to serve his country. It doesn't matter if he volunteered to serve in combat or not. It doesn't matter if he was told to serve in combat or not. What matters is when it was time to serve his country he did and he did it honorably.

You are STILL trying to discredit his service and you can produce no evidence.

"Neither you nor I know for sure whether or not W was not sent into combat because he was a child of privilege." Yes we do see my first paragraph. Now you admit that what you said was bullshit and suddenly you're not sure... well you seemed real sure before I called you on your bullshit.

You should just stop talking about the military since you're allowing your political opinion get in the way.


someone who was with McCain at the fabulous Hanoi Hilton, while The Donald was partying at Studio 54 and at other venues for the rich and famous.

The entire video is worth watching, Captain Charlie Plumb, not only was a POW with John McCain, he worked on McCain's campaign with The Donald! Watch and learn.

Trump and all the other Republicans are just alike. The one difference is Trump thinks out loud.

is willing to say out loud what most Republicans believe to be true, and say to each other in hushed tones.

If that were the case he'd have more than 30% but he barely breaks 20% in the best of polls.


weaponry. I do not believe that you are an expert on political polls, however.
In a field of 16 or more, getting over 20% and having a lead of more than 10% on your nearest rival is the equivalent of a runaway! Like you, I do expect The Donald to drop in later polls, but, The Donald does say out loud what many, if not a majority, of Republicans whisper to each other about many issues including, but not limited to, growing Hispanic communities, particularly in the South and Southwest. But, somehow, Republicans cannot seem to understand why they are losing more and more support from Hispanic voters.

20% is not enough. Does it show momentum? Of course. I am confident Trump won't win the nomination is he has a ceiling on approval. There is a majority of Republicans who say they won't vote for him. The 20% is good enough to win NH and some other states but eventually it will be a two man race. You can't win a two man race with over half the electorate unwilling to vote for you. Until his unfavorable numbers move he won't get the mom. His poll numbers will collapse this week and you see it in the internal #s since he made his comments.


serve in our nation's military. Therefore, I hope that you are correct in your analysis of The Donald's chances.
Simply put, while he has been successful in the real estate business, he has been a playboy his whole life. I have known people like The Donald. Generally, they have disdain for those who served in combat and couldn't find a way out of serving. The Donald and those like him view military service as something for others to do who are beneath them socially, sort of like the rich, plantation-owning southerns who paid for poorer people to take their places in the military during the Civil War.

But, The Donald knows the media. The Donald knows how to appeal to the masses. He is not one to be underestimated.

Romney proved this in the 2012 elections.

One by one the members of the Republican Party will reveal they are a Fascist Organization.

To ZC and Dale,

Facts are facts. They are facts not because I say so but because they cannot be disputed.

On GWB, he did not miss any time. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-alabama_x... While in Alabama he was still in a drilling status and did his mandatory drill check-in aka his duty.

As for combat. Bush was in the ANG. The opportunities for them to serve in combat is very low as compared to active duty forces. Dale says he didn't volunteer for combat, we don't know that because it's not kept as part of military record. It's possible he did volunteer but was selected for a number of reasons. I volunteered twice to go to Iraq and was denied each time, I ended up eventually going to Afghanistan but it took me 8 years in military service - Bush served 6 years(see a fact, because it's undisputed).


History is written by the victors.Facts in many instances, are manufactured by those who are ignorant or have an agenda. Remember, MikeyA, the world is flat.

So your argument to me that facts are things that can't be disputed is something that was disputed?


It is NOT true that his receiving an honorable discharge means W did NOT get special treatment.
It is true that a disproportionate number of poor young men were drafted into the military and served in Vietnam.
It is true that children of privilege found ways to avoid combat IF THEY WANTED TO AVOID COMBAT. GHW did NOT. McCain did NOT. W DID!!

If you believe that my not liking the manner in which W used his privileged position to NOT go to Vietnam constitutes some type of disdain for military service in general, I feel sorry for you. If I had a political motive, what, pray tell, would that be? W can never run again to be POTUS. W has not indicated any desire to run for any other political office.
I can't dislike W? Oops! YES I CAN!!

Remember, this entire argument started because John McCain's service was questioned by The Donald, and I defended, quite vigorously I might add, John McCain, whom I consider to be a true war hero; just as I consider GHW Bush to be a true war hero.

Dale it doesn't matter you are the same as Trump. You are trying to question someone's service with out any proof of wrong doing and ignoring the facts that counter your argument.

If you truly believe that about W and you have facts that support it then post the facts and your reasoning. Everything you've stater already I have shown to be incorrect thus far.

If you can't provide facts then you need to come to the realization that you've made an opinion based upon solely political differences.


W never objected to the spurious charges leveled for him against John McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

You are stating limited "facts." Nothing you state is "proof" that W did NOT have special treatment. It is all supposition on your part. You were not alive then. You have no idea about all of those of privilege who received "special" treatment in the military!

Mikey -- Revel in your naivety!
Personally, I think that you are purposely misleading yourself and others here for your own "political purposes."

Dale, I applaud you for telling us all what MikeyA is doing. MikeyA consistently throws out opinions and call it facts. To add insult to injury he calls anyone who disputes what he is saying as liars or the source of the information is not credible. MikeyA, the world is flat!

Dale you keep making this claim but you have nothing to back it up.

Everything you have stated that indirectly backed it up I have provided evidence that refuted it.

It is you who is naive. You have limited knowledge of the military yet on this one specific issue suddenly you have knowledge not common to all? Just face the fact that you bought into and believe a rampant political smear campaign that has no basis in fact.

I didn't endorse any of the of the attacks on Kerry and McCain's service. You can look up my comments here and at Toledo Talk . They both served honorably. However, both have engaged in political activities that have hurt servicemembers and veterans. With Kerry it was statements he made to Congress after his service. With McCain it's his lack of action on veterans programs and preventing investigations into Vietnam POWs. Those are both political stances with legitimate political concerns, yet they are not an attack on their military service.


You are naive on this issue.
Here are some facts for you! I do know that Gerry (Gerald) Budbill was NOT a child of privilege. I do know that his name is on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
More facts -- I DO know that W was a child of privilege. I DO know that W was a trained pilot who never volunteered the go to Vietnam. I DO know that W worked on a political campaign while still in the military. Those are all facts. W admits them. You admit them, Mikey.

If it looks like a duck...

I hear quacking again.

here's the latest on The Donald.
It is realistically possible that The Donald could choose to run as a third party candidate. And, just like Ross Perot in 1992, and just like Ralph Nader in 2000, Trump cold spoil the chances for someone for whom he has little or no respect, to win the 2016 POTUS election.

Here's the link to just one article on this issue: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-third-party-run-2015-7?r=UK&...

Doubtful, doing so is very expensive. Just getting on the ballot in every state is tough without party backing. He'd be better off getting support of a third party. But even Trump knows he'll lose if he does this.


who spurned you???
Money is NOT an issue with The Donald. It's ALL about ego!
Remember, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader!!

Money is an issue when you're self funded, even when you have as much money as Trump.

For him to run an independent campaign he will need his rich friends to help his bankroll just to get on the ballot. It requires signatures, low level organization/leadership, and money. Why do you think Ross Perot organized his own party?


The latest New Hampshire poll shows Trump far ahead of all other Republican candidates among likely Republican voters. Here's a link:

What's interesting is he is drawing support from the lower ends of the ticket. From people like Christie, Carson, and Cruz.

We need to see if he can hold the momentum through the debates. Where Trump excels is getting into media wars with individuals. The issue with that is the media gets a say when the other fights back. In the debate they will get to fight back directly.

One person who I think will shine in the debate is Chris Christie. Like Trump he is not afraid to give "straight talk" and he does it to people's faces. Now at this moment I don't think Christie will stop Trump rise but he could siphon off enough support in NH to affect the race.


Could happen, but I doubt it.
Remember, whatever you think about The Donald, he knows how to use the mass media, and is extremely comfortable on TV and in confrontational situations. Going against The Donald in a debate is like sending an army into a modern battle with muskets. Good luck!

All this controversy within the Republican Party is inspiring us sane people to make sure we get out and vote to make sure that none of this clowns becomes POTUS.

of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2016. Most of my remarks about how early it was in this 2016 election cycle were directed at the Republican poll numbers, but I also pointed out the comparative positions of Hillary and Obama in 2007, as an example of how early all of the speculation was.
Hillary is certainly beloved by activist female Democrats, and many politically active female independents as well. Other Democrats and independents are more reluctant to jump on the Hillary bandwagon. And few have as many negative factors as does Hillary, many of which are because of the "Billstone" hanging around her neck. The "Billstone" factor may be unfair to Hillary, and smacks of hypocrisy in our modern society, but it is a genuine concern.
And, who is hanging quietly in the wings, allowing Big Bad Bernie to take all of the heat for attacking this poor woman -- again making a woman a victim? Good ol' Joe, that's who!
It's still early, but for whatever it's worth, here's the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-looming-threat-republican-091500...

Remember, I never stated that Dr. Ben would win the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2016. I only stated that he would be a factor in the process, and may well end up as the VPOTUS nominee. If he continues to stay up in the polls...

Here's a link to the article about the latest poll: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC-SM%20Post%20De...

I watched the debates. Afterwards I confirmed that insanity is alive and well in the Republican Party.

answered the direct question. FYI -- The direct question is: should a woman have the right to get an abortion if her life is in danger? And Dr. Ben claims that he isn't a politician! His avoidance of giving a direct answer to this difficult conundrum is proof positive that Dr. Ben is a very savvy politician, indeed.
He's a player, Mikey. Never underestimate raw intelligence.
Here's a link to the article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carson-responds-to-hillary-clinton-on-ab...

You've posted a lot yet I stand by my assessment.

I don't believe Carson will be in the top 3 for the nomination nor will he be asked to be a VP.

He just doesn't have a path to the nomination from what I can tell. Same with VP, he doesn't put any states into play. OH, FL, VA, CO, and NV are the swing states right now. Of them the only one Carson could affect is VA in my opinion. A hispanic or politician from any of those states is a much stronger case.

You have to see EVERYTHING a poll is telling you. Here's an article by Nate Silver that displays it even though it's centered on Trump. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and...

Also, I don't think the Black vote will be as important in the general election as everyone thinks. I don't see black people voting en masse for Hilary and Sanders as they did for Obama. You saw it this weekend with Sander's and Black Lives Matter.


Maybe African Americans may vote for a candidate because they feel they are voting for the best candidate.Not all African Americans vote for the same candidate.

Black voting patterns show you're incorrect.

Blacks vote Dem on average about 83% in most modern elections. For President Obama they went 93-96%. I challenge you to show any other ethnic group that can match that.

I notice you can't point to anything to show me I'm wrong.


African Americans vote Dem because the Dem's have the best candidates. That's why you are wrong.

The facts do not support this.


There are no facts disputing what I have presented. For instance, Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination some years ago. Most African Americans didn't vote for him. Most African Americans will not and do not vote for a candidate just because the candidate is African American. They will vote for a candidate who represents their best interest. White politicians get elected in predominately African American areas all the time.

Chisholm ran in Democratic primaries in 1972. I had the pleasure of hearing Shirley Chisholm speak a couple years later at a meeting of the Black Elected Democrats of Ohio held in Toledo that year. I also had a chance to meet her. She was an extremely intelligent person.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to eat lunch with Jesse Jackson. I had met him back in 1986 at a previous convention of the American Federation of Teachers held in Chicago that year.
ZC is accurate in his statement above. In fact, I still remember then Mayor of Detroit Coleman Young endorsing another Democrat over Jesse Jackson, and claiming that the reason he was doing so was because, "The only thing Jesse Jackson has ever run is his mouth."

And remember, the first woman who had her name placed in nomination for POTUS by any major political party was Margaret Chase Smith at the 1964 Republican Convention. She served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1940-1949. She then served in the U.S. Senate from 1949-1973. Until 2011, she still held the record as the longest serving woman in the history of the U.S.Senate. And, at this time, she still holds the record for being the longest serving Republican woman in the history of the U.S. Senate.
Oh yeah. Sen. Smith did NOT receive 100% support from Republican women. People are not sheeple, except, maybe, for the dittoheads.

You are full of shit. I already posted facts. The facts are Blacks routinely vote for Dem with a floor of approx 83%. More of the candidate is black.

Your example is also bullshit. Jesse won 18% of the vote. And where did he win that 18%? In the states of Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, and DC. All places with high populations of Black populations.

So yes the facts support me and the facts actually counter what you presented.


thing? Whenever your arguments get weaker, or, as in this case, off target, you resort to profanity. Do you really think that the use of profanity enhances the strength of your argument? I find the use of profanity to be, mostly, a sign of either a weak argument, a weak vocabulary, or both.

The issue was NOT about voting Democratic. It was about African-Americans voting for other African-Americans, and NOT voting for non-minorities. The very simple answer as to why most African-Americans vote for Democratic candidates is transparent, and you know it, too. The Democratic Party has, with all of its flaws, favored public positions which are more closely aligned with the needs of most minorities in this country, including African-Americans. Let me give an example that is seldom used in this context -- the issue of abortion.
Part 1 -- Personally, I oppose most abortions. I believe that life begins at conception. However, I understand that many people disagree with me about his, and that I am not a woman. So, I've never had to face the issue of whether I, myself, should allow a baby to grow inside of me for a full term and give birth. To me, it is an individual woman's choice.
Part 2 -- Abortions have ALWAYS been done. Before Rowe v Wade, relatively safe abortions were done for rich Americans only. They could either pay off a good doc here to do a "necessary" procedure in which the fetus "tragically" was terminated, or they could afford to travel to a country where abortion was legal. A poor woman had dubious choices if she wanted to end a pregnancy. Among them were a do-it-yourself type of procedure, either all alone or with a friend. Another was to have someone with some type of medical experience to do the procedure, most often in very unsanitary conditions. Either of these options were fraught with great danger for the pregnant woman, even leading to permanent sterility or the death of the pregnant woman.
Part 3 -- Which ethnic or racial group has a disproportionately high number of abortions?
Part 4 -- Which political party is willing to spend the greater amount of money for those who are disadvantaged in this country? Once the baby is born, which is willing to help the poorest among us to feed that child, give that child proper medical care, provide that child a reasonable, free public education? And when that child is grown and applies for a job, which political party passes laws against discrimination in hiring, firing, and advancement?
And you expect African-Americans to abandon Democratic candidates for the Republican Party which, among other things, will not even support a legal abortion for a woman who is raped or whose life is endangered by the pregnancy? And, I LOVE this new commercial that the national Republican Party is currently running which, among other things, has a woman say that the Republican Party is a political party which gives HER CHOICES!? Really? Not when it comes to what happens in her bedroom it doesn't!
And, consistently, Democrats get 70% or more of the LGBT vote every election cycle. Why is that, Mikey? I guess this has nothing to do with the fact that only in strongly Republican states is there a problem with the compliance with the SCOTUS ruling legalizing gay marriage.
And, Mikey, do you really want to discuss for which party Hispanic voters are most likely to vote? From the "voluntary deportation" proposed by Willard in 2012, to the solid wall The Donald would have us build, why wouldn't Hispanics want to support Republican candidates in droves?

Mikey -- you vote your best interests. Why should African-Americans, the LGBT community, and Hispanics not do the same?
[No expletives deleted.]

MikeyA is not going to beleive any of this truthful information. Remember MikeyA believes the world is flat and Rocky Balboa won the heavy weight boxing title in the 1970's.

Sure sure. Still no facts disputing mine. Instead you attempt to attack me. Everyone sees through your b.s.


Dale, distract distract distract.

I provided facts that go counter to his argument. You think I'm wrong. Then by all means provide facts that support me being wrong. He provides no facts, he makes baseless claims. If I chose to use profanity I will. I make no apologies. If you have a problem with it, then flag my comment and we will let Chris decide if I broke site rules. If so, I will comply to his "punishment".

Now BACK TO THE ISSUE. IF as he says Blacks vote for the best candidate then reason tells us they would not be a party-line vote. Whereas if they're voting solely on partisianship then there WOULD be a party-line vote. I have provided facts that Blacks vote party-line to the tune of about 83% (with about 50% turnout) for the Dems on average. When there is a Black candidate that party-line spikes to 90% (with 60-65% turnout).

Now, because of that. Unless the Dems find a Black candidate I do not see the support and turnout to return to that of when there was a Black President. And hence, I do not think the Black issues will be as major of a factor in the general election and thus the addition of Carson to be less likely. However, I do see the hispanic population turnout and support to both be up for grabs. Thus I think a hispanic candiate or running mate is much more likely.

So there. Facts + reason = opinion. If you disagree keep the subject on that.


African-Americans vote for the best candidates FOR THE INTERESTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS! Mikey -- When was the last time YOU voted for a Democrat? Don't you consider it in your best interests to vote for the best candidates who represent your views? And aren't virtually ALL the candidates for whom you vote Republican? It's the same thing!

BTW -- I have NEVER found it in my own best interest to vote for a Republican candidate for POTUS. Does that mean I'm an African-American? Why don't African-Americans have the same rights you and I have, Mikey?

And you want statistics, so, OK, I'll give you statistics. When Eisenhower ran for POTUS, he received about 54% of the Catholic vote in 1952 and about 55% of the Catholic vote in 1956. When JFK, a Catholic, headed the ticket for the Democrats in 1960, he received about 82% of the Catholic vote! That's a MUCH bigger differential of about 38%! more for a Catholic candidate, than when Obama garnered about 10%-13% more of the African-American vote than do most Democrats. Simply put, while Catholics at one time were considered to be almost all Democrats, in the last 60 years or so, they are, in fact swing voters. But, place a Catholic at the top of a ticket, and you can get a bigger swing toward your candidate than can an African-American from that voting block. And, Catholics make up about double the percentage of voters that African-Americans do.

Bottom line, Mikey...most people vote their own interests. You and I do. African-Americans do. Catholics do.

Ok, if that were true show me one piece of legislation that could support Black voters that has been passed in recent times.

Let me help. Since the Civil Rights Act (Passed with heavy GOP support when the GOP was the preferred party of Black Americans), there has only been one. The establishment of hate crimes. That was over 20 years ago. In that time do you feel race relations have improved? I think they've gotten worse than the 1980's. I think most would agree. Black business ownership peaked under GWB.

I am Catholic. Since Vatican II we've been encouraged to vote our consciousness, that wasn't always the case.

Yet despite all these facts I've provided you haven't provided one reason why the black vote has been consistently 83% for the Dems with very little in terms of advancement of black issues. In fact, I can show you where Black support of Dems was detrimental such as the spike in Black poverty in Los Angeles as Dem politicians gained more control and gave Black union jobs to Hispanic immigrants. Yet still, the Black vote was a rubber stamp despite it against black interests.


Also your post proves my point.

Catholics vote their interested as you've shown. yet they're swing voters. In 1960 they voted heavily for Kennedy. In 2000 they went to Gore 50-47. In 2012 they went to Romney 50-48. That is a swing demographic and a candidate that pushes their interests are much likely to win a majority of their vote. It's up for grabs. However this is not true of Black Americans.

The last time the Black vote went to the GOP in a significant percentage was 1976 when Ford got 17%. Since then it's been a rubber stamp vote for Dems regardless of the issues.


Modern Republicans, after Eisenhower, have proven to be people who want a feudal system and have the majority of the time sponsored and/or supported laws and policies that jeopardize the freedom and rights of anyone is not just like them. Such a position by the Republicans is not in the best interest of any minority group or females. It amazes me how many majority Americans can be buffaloed by the empty promises and B.S. the Republicans pedal.

Still nothing to prove me wrong. Just your personal opinion devoid of facts.


You haven't shown the video that shows 82% of the African American voters going to the polls voting for Dems. Please provide the names of each voter, number of voters and latest census data so we may verify your claims. You can do this, MikeyA.

Here is an article on Black voting patterns. It shows how they voted and what percentage their share of the vote total. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/19/stephen-a-smith...

And that's why I am believable. I can prove when questioned. Care to post the Toledo Blade article?


the Republicans which clearly helps minorities in the last 15 years. Republicans have publicly espoused ending the Voting Rights Act, passing voter ID laws which are only targeted at keeping down the minority vote, cutting aid to traditional public education on both the national and state levels, cutting, or even ending, Medicare, cutting, or even ending, Social Security, forcing productive people to leave this country, ending legal abortions and cutting aid to poor families with the subsequent unwanted children concurrently. And, remember, rich women will ALWAYS be able to get abortions. And tell me, how did slashing the taxes on capital gains help minorities, except for very rich minorities? Do I really have to go on?

As Catholics have become more prosperous, and as discrimination against Catholics has lessened, more and more Catholic voters have seen it in their best interests, like you, Mikey, to vote Republican. As you have pointed out, race relations are still a major problem in this nation. As long as mostly Republican politicians use race-baiting to get support for election campaigns, African-Americans will do the same as you do, Mikey. They will vote in their best self-interests. When was the last time you supported a Democrat for POTUS, Mikey? Probably the same time I supported a Republican -- NEVER! If you and I can vote in a partisan way, why can't African-Americans? You can't just say to African-Americans, "You should vote for more Republicans." The Republican Party has to give them reasons to do so!

Still nothing that effectively counters anything I wrote. Voter ID laws do not target minorities because they do not prevent anyone from voting. Only portions of the Voting Rights Act have been ruled against by courts not politicians and none of those portions were thrown out just the Dems preferred method of counting was determined to be illegal and since it was thrown out Dems have offered no new proposals.

You mention Social Security but it's going broke and the Dem solution of raising eligibility age would deny Blacks, primarily men, of their benefits. De shave raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and you support selling Black baby body parts and aborting Black babies. Rich women don't get abortions so I don't even know what your getting to there.

Show me one GOP campaign ad that uses race baiting. I think your getting D's confused with R's.

So nothing you present now holds water either.


to above? I think you got things wrong about what you claim is the "Democratic" solution to the Social Security funding problem.

AND, I emphasize, AND Social Security is NOT in danger of running out of money any time soon. We DO NOT have a Social Security "crisis." We do have a LONG-TERM Social Security funding problem. This problem would be exacerbated greatly if the leading Republicans have their way and we would deport millions of those who are currently paying INTO the Social Security system.
As the article points out, the actual crisis is probably 20 years or so into the future. As it states, relatively minor adjustments now can secure Social Security FAR into the future.
IMHO, to THIS Democrat, the best solution to the long-term health of Social Security is taxing ALL INCOME, not just wages, and not just up to the first $118, 300.00.
This last link also shows that minorities receive a higher percentage of their retirement benefits from the program MOST Republican leaders would like to destroy. But, hey, more minorities should vote Republican anyway...right, Mikey? Just, because!

Bernie only talks about the problem not solution in your link. The only proposed solution by Dems is to raise the eligibility age and payroll taxes.

Yes, SS is running out of money. By 2033 if nothing is done. In 2012 it was supposed to run out in 2037. Short answer, as long as baby boomers keep retiring it will run out of money. It's not a sustainable model. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/08/28/how-accurate-is-the-concern...


It's a true "flat tax."
It would replace a REGRESSIVE tax.

Your "solution" is not a flat tax. It is a multiple tax. The same dollar would be taxed 3-4times over.


THAT'S a true "Flat tax!"

The same rate as what.

You should start a new thread as this is totally off topic.


see below



lican. I, and most African-Americans, can vote our own self-interest, and vote Democratic. Republicans have given African-Americans ZERO reasons to vote for them. I'm surprised the African-American vote isn't 98%!!

But still, they're not going to come out in this election in Obama-like numbers for any of the declared Dems. I look for them to return to their pre-Obama percentage. Now THAT'S how they vote their self interest, they don't show. The link I provided to ZC shows that.


See above.

Democrats running for POTUS, especially Obama? This may prove to be as big, or even a bigger problem, for the Republican POTUS candidate in 2016 than the problems attracting minorities. Wonder why Obama attracted so many more of those women? Couldn't have had anything to do with the Republican positions on women's issues, of course, could it? The Donald is doing a GREAT job shoring up women's support, of course! Here's a link to the statistics you claim to like so much:

Take a look at recent polls. The gender gap is decreasing especially among married women. It only opened because the Dems talked of the "War on Women" which has since been proven to be false.

BTW your post above does not answer my question on Black voting.


Rich women ALWAYS were able to get abortions and always will be!
Even Dr. Ben, who is against ALL abortions, used fetal tissues in his practice.

BTW -- Where is the Republican and/or conservative plan to help when all those unwanted babies are birthed by poor mothers? Oh, wait! Here it is................................................

nomination for POTUS. I ONLY stated that he would be a player. Up to this point, he remains a player.

The concern the Democrats should have, is not losing a large percentage of the minority vote to the Republicans, it is, as usual, getting out the vote. The statistics are clear. When the vote percentage is high, Democratic candidates do better. It's good politics on the part of the Republicans and conservatives to suppress the vote. Part of this is done by passing voter ID legislation. Part is done by trying to reverse the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And part of this is done by demonizing ALL politicians, to turn voters off of the process altogether.

I totally disagree with the benefits Dr. Ben would bring to a Republican ticket. Dr. Ben would siphon away a significant number of votes in EVERY state with a significant minority population. He would do especially well in areas where large numbers of African-Americans belong to churches, especially evangelical churches, which are extremely conservative on such issues as abortion and gay rights. Now, if you ask me if the Republican Party is ready for an African-American VPOTUS candidate, I would give you a very different answer.
However, Mikey, never underestimate the power of raw intelligence. Dr. Ben has that!

in the process. On this, Nate Silver and I agree.
Where we disagree, is his implied assumption that nearly ALL of the 75% of Republicans who do not now support The Donald would support someone other than The Donald should their favored candidate drop out along the long. long road to the nomination. The Donald WILL GET SOME of those voters, maybe even most of those voters. Who knows?

Do not underestimate The Donald. He is an expert at using the media. He is exciting. He is controversial, and people LOVE that. It's a lot like the fascination with Howard Stern. Roughly half of those who follow Howard love him. They follow him because they never know what he's going to say or do next. Roughly half of those who follow Howard HATE him. They follow him because they never know what is going to say or do next. Both The Donald and Howard get great ratings, though. How were those ratings for the recent Republican debate compared to ANY of the Republican debates in 2012?
I rest my case.

If The Donald is selected as the Republican candidate for POTUS he will experience the same fate as Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. The avalanche will be so great, however, the Republican Party will never recover.

Ben are clearly #1 and #2 in Iowa! It is still VERY early, but trends are beginning to take hold. For one thing, it doesn't look as though The Donald is going anywhere, but up...at least for now. Secondly, at least in Iowa, it appears that Dr. Ben's conservatism means a LOT more to prospective Republican primary voters than does his race. I keep saying that Dr. Ben is one of the Tea Party-types' most favored candidates, so he doesn't need a strong organization of his own in every state. He gets rank and file Tea Party support in every state.
And, who are the biggest losers in support so far? John [that's Jeb's real name] and Scott Walker. As The Donald and Dr. Ben rise, John and Scott fall.
Here's a link to the article describing the results from this latest poll: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-surged-biggest-205900662...

Ben #2. Interesting analysis as well. A good read.

MikeyA must grab the bull by the tail and face the situation. Awaken, MikeyA, you are wasting your your life burning calories chasing mis-information.

The only one passing misinformation is you.


by his arrogance. While he wants us to compare his IQ against other POTUS candidates, he does NOT want to discuss his real academic record. The Donald is one of those people I label as "an educated idiot." It is true that he has a degree in Economics from the very prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Of course, what is left out of this is: one, he often stated that he finished first in his graduating class, although there is no record of his graduating with ANY honors at all. And, he conveniently leaves out the fact that he got into Penn via an interview with a very close family friend. Remember, The Donald had a VERY successful and wealthy father. So, much like W, The Donald owes his academic credentials to family ties, NOT to academic excellence.
The Donald's ignorance about the 14th Amendment and all of its ramifications for minorities in this country, is once again proof of why it will be so difficult for any Republican candidate to get serious support from minority groups in this country. Keep in mind, The Donald's view on the 14th Amendment is shared by many other Republican candidates for POTUS in 2016. No Democrats have favored this position, so far. And Mikey wonders why Republicans cannot gain more minority support? REALLY?

Here's a link to the article, which explains at least part of the problem with The Donald's ignorance about this issue. It will be followed by a link to the full text of the 14th Amendment. I urge you to read ALL of the 14th Amendment, especially ALL of Section 1. You may then discern why this amendment is so important to ALL minorities, and to women as well.
Link #1: http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-slams-birthright-citizenship-why-does...
Link #2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The Donald declares that the 14th Amendment "is Unconstitutional." And states that, in the General Election, "I'll win the Hispanic vote." Is this guy in Egypt, or what?
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4430952928001

I really don't think he will win the nomination. We see this type of polling early on. Last time we had Bachmann ahead at this point. She was followed by Cain and Gingrich. He is polling less than Sanders in the other primary. He only benefits from a diluted crowd.

I think we'll see a big name drop out. Right now I think the most likely are Paul and Christie. Who they endorse can change momentum.


The Donald and Dr. Ben. And The Donald and his personal billions are not going anywhere! He is appealing to the fears in people. That is a VERY powerful attraction! It doesn't matter if he's accurate. It doesn't matter if he's a male chauvinist pig. His "favorable" ratings among Republicans just keep going up!
Remember, NOBODY in the field knows the media and how to get attention better than The Donald. His true genius is his genius at self-promotion.
Remember, Mikey. Don't shoot the messenger.

from wage-earned dollar number one!
That's a "Flat Tax!" Mikey, I thought you conservatives LOVED a "Flat Tax!"

The fact that the collections are only from wages, and that those wage levels have a ceiling, make the current collection a very regressive tax. The working poor, including innumerable illegals by the way, pay a higher percentage of their total income into the Social Security trust fund than do Willard or The Donald. As a matter of fact, since much of the money earned by the true "Golden Class" is in the form of interest, dividends, and capital gains, upon which Willard and The Donald pay NOTHING into Social Security, an outrageously higher percentage of the income of the working poor is deducted from their gross incomes than is paid by the likes of Willard or The Donald.

Willard and The Donald can well afford the additional payments, and, if you truly want the Social Security Trust Fund to be solvent beyond 30 years out, this solution would be the least disruptive to the overall health of our economy. Of course, if your goal is to keep making the super-rich even richer...

pertinent. Republicans keep mouthing the words that they want to attract a broader range of voters, especially minorities. I am merely pointing out the many reasons why common folks get little or nothing from Republican positions on major economic issues.

IMHO -- The only way Republicans get as many votes from common folks as they do is by appealing to emotional issues: war, crime, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, abortion...all issues which take focus away from the important, everyday issues affecting our pocketbooks. When it comes down to the economy, the Republican Party operates: of the super-rich, by the super-rich, and for the super-rich.


hanger on. Adds nothing to the conversation as usual.


Not surprised with your comment. Your comment clearly illustrates that you disagree with anything that is logical and truthful. Behold, my brother, free your mind and let the truth sink in.

Still adding nothing to the conversation. Hanging onto Dale's points without bringing forward anything new. YAWN.


Currently, the GOP nominees for President represent a more diverse crowd of people in terms of ages, ethnicities, and geographic areas than the Dems.


Mikey, there is bound to be some diversity. How about GOP members of Congress? How about GOP elected officials?

BTW -- The latest poll in South Carolina has The Donald a clear first, and Dr. Ben a clear second. Hmmm...
Here's the link: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/25/trump-carson-south-carolina-re...

My analysis still stands. See prior postings.


It's not a flat tax because of the nature of investments.

For instance, if I sell a home and I make 20,000 and put that into a new home I've been taxed on not the 20,000 but the 120,000 I sold my home for, under the way you present this. So when I buy my next home for 120K and sell it 10 years later for 150k I wouldn't be again taxed on my 30k of profit but instead all 150k. That means I'm getting taxed multiple times on the same dollar if you tax all "income" as wages and not as a gain.

Now, a home is the most common way for someone to build wealth. So under your plan you're taxing the lower and middle class even higher. It's not a flat tax.

Note: I have no problem with our progressive tax system other than I believe our tax code should be simplified and tax rates should be set through a constitutional amendment to percentages tied to percentages of our wealth i.e. top 1% pay 30% rate, top 5% pay 25%, top 10 percent pay 20%, top 30% pay 17%, etc.


I said NOTHING about home ownership. And, if you knew basic economics, you'd know that capital gains are only charged upon PROFITS, NOT the entire sales price!
In addition, I was referring directly to the super-rich, who make most of their income via capital gains, interest, and dividends! Sheesh! You REALLY went off of the "deep end" on this one, Mikey!
I'll write my own tax policy proposals, thank you very much!

I put no words into your mouth.

"MHO, to THIS Democrat, the best solution to the long-term health of Social Security is taxing ALL INCOME, not just wages, and not just up to the first $118, 300.00."

So using this example you gave as it applies to home ownership. If I sell a home for 120k with a 20k profit then ALL OF IT is taxed as ALL OF IT is income. You did not distinguish between profit (gains) and income.

I did not go off a deep end. I'm merely showing you the fallacy in your thinking. I'm sure you mean if I have 100k in stocks that I sell you don't intend to tax just my gains but everything I have as it's all income. Yet I'm flipping it around to show you that by doing so you have the unintended consequence of hurting the historically largest creator of wealth to lower and middle income families.

Now I'm sure you have no problem with a loophole. But when you create a loophole you're creating something that will be exploited. Hence why I'm against loopholes and instead simplifying the tax code. Sure some may benefit more but at least the rules for playing are fair.


ANYTHING about the tax code. Total sales does NOT determine income. Profit determines income -- DUH! I cannot discuss the tax code with you since you do not understand it.

It is not smart to present MikeyA with facts. He is incapable of understanding the facts or the truth.

Do you just post to read yourself?


That question could be asked of you as well, Mikey.

When I respond to comments I am generally asking for clarification, adding something to it, or just advancing the conversation. ZC rarely does any of these. He posts annecdotes. Refuses to cite his claims. And rarely moves the conversation forward. There is a clear difference between us two.


There is a distinct difference. ZC is intelligent, MikeyA is not.

I'm not talking about the current tax code. I'm talking about YOUR proposed tax code.

If you talk solely profits being taxed then that is no change from what we currently have. If you feel it's different then clarify.

The way I read your plan is if I sell my 100k home for 120k and decide to travel the US then I would be taxed on all of my income since you said ALL INCOME and not just wages. Show me how it's different.


I was dealing with Social Security ONLY! You then went off in a totally different direction with misinformation which shows how little you know about the financial world outside of the military and government.

Look, Mikey...I was in business for 15 years with my father before I started teaching. Both Social Security contributions AND taxable income are based upon net profits in a small business. If you do not understand the difference between net profits and gross income, we have no basis upon which to discuss this issue.
You need some education about his topic. And, I cannot teach a course in basic microeconomic analysis on this thread.

Actually you did. Do I need to quote you again?

You said to save SS we need to tax all of income. I merely began showing how problematic your thinking is. That you cannot explain what you mean now just highlights the lack of depth to your idea. Again, I'm using YOUR OWN WORDS. So if anyone cannot understand the difference it is you. I've given you two examples and asked you to show how your idea would work with those examples. You still have yet to address them.

Maybe you shouldn't be mad at me and just be mad at yourself for posting bad ideas.


We must remember that any idea that MikeyA doesn't present is a bad idea.

Completely untrue and wrong. Note from this I give Dale plenty of questions to describe what he's proposing I even give him examples where he can describe it. That he's chose not to answer the questions nor describe it I am left with only the option that he cannot answer the question nor can he describe it as it pertains to the example I provided.

Now if it is a good idea anyone should be able to describe it. I will now ask that of you ZC. Since you feel Dale's plan is so good explain to me how it fits in the two examples I have provided.


And creating a loophole creates a bubble and we know how well those work.

If you separate home gains from that of other investments what you are doing is getting the wealthy to de-invest from stocks, futures, and bonds and reinvest into real estate. This forces middle income earners to compete with people with significantly more resources. You're now going to inflate housing costs and drive current home owners into renters where they have less power and significantly less wealth creation.


Security contributions are collected at the same rate from wage-earned dollar one! That's a 'Flat Tax!'"

Apparently, Mikey, you assumed that since I used the term "Flat Tax," I was referring to the federal income tax. I was NOT. Nothing there refers to the federal income tax. You went off on federal income taxes. While I generally agree with your position on federal income taxes, I WAS DISCUSSING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM, AND A FAIR SOLUTION TO IT!

Keep in mind, Social Security funding is NOT in crisis. There is a genuine long-term funding shortfall about 20 years from now. The balance in the Social Security "Reserves" totaled $2.7292 TRILLION [that's trillion, with a "t"] at the end of 2014. That's hardly a crisis situation! The sooner we make relatively small adjustments, the less will be the impact upon common folks, and our overall economy That's my focus! By your statements, you seem to be more concerned with the impact upon the super-rich, Mikey!

I assumed you were talking about the federal income tax because you stated "tax all income". And income.... Is taxed via the federal income tax. So if your not talking about the federal income tax army stem then you are deliberately confusing which is not surprising as you still have yet to give any species nor answer any questions directly.

And yes SS is in crisis. As I noted with EVERY revision the treasury makes to the SS account it SIGNIFICANTLY reduces. That shows us their revisions and management are not taking into account the number of retirees nor the length of their lives. This is unsustainable.

Have a problem with it? Prove me wrong.


Read what I write, and it's very clear. Read into what I write what you believe, and you assume things which are not true.

MikeyA might be looking for that check for millions of dollars that the super rich will give him if he keeps supporting them. Behold,, MikeyA, the check will not be in your mailbox.

I have never asked anything of anybody. I am in no mans debt. Everything I have or that's owed to me were earned.

This just shows that you are totally unhinged from reality. There is no magical entity out there that gives away money... Outside of government social programs.


I started paying into Social Security in 1965. I now receive Social Security Benefits. I paid the maximum amount of Social Security Taxes for many, many years .According to your philosophy, the money I receive in Social Security Benefits is a government giveaway. My parents paid into Social Security but never collected a single dime of Social Security Benefits I don't agree with your philosophy.

I actually never specified which government social programs. It'd behoove you not to put words into my mouth. There are also other government social programs which also are not government give-a-ways but I also didn't say which of those. I just merely said that social programs are a category where there is a trend to give benefits without them being earned.

BTW, According to the Dept of Treasury your SS is going to go down if you live another 15 years. So... THAT'S a program that is taking away what you earned.


I actually never specified which government social programs. It'd behoove you not to put words into my mouth. There are also other government social programs which also are not government give-a-ways but I also didn't say which of those. I just merely said that social programs are a category where there is a trend to give benefits without them being earned.

BTW, According to the Dept of Treasury your SS is going to go down if you live another 15 years. So... THAT'S a program that is taking away what you earned.


If the conservatives stop stealing the money from Social Security maybe it can be saved.

How did the GOP steal money from SS?

The problem with SS is it's backed in US T-bills which struggle to gain 2% interest. That means it doesn't keep up with traditional inflation. It used to be backed by gold. If that were the case then it would have gained money in the last 15 years not lost it. The change from a gold backing to a t-bill backing happened in a Congressional amendment in 1983... who ran Congress in 1983? Hint: It wasn't Republicans.


Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate from 1981-1987. The House was ostensibly under Democratic control; however, that was still a time when many Democratic House members were very conservative and were officially "Democrats for Reagan." As an example, one of the leaders of the "Democrats for Reagan" in the House of Representatives was Phil Gramm, who went on to switch to the Republican Party, and win election as a Republican Senator from Texas. Here's a link to an article delineating Phil Gramm's party change and his serving in elective office as both a Democrat and as a Republican. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000365

In addition, the price of gold can fluctuate wildly. As a matter of fact, the price of gold was nearly $500.00 per ounce in 1983. It went mostly down from there for over TWENTY YEARS! It wasn't until 2005 that the price of gold got back to about $444.00 per ounce. Starting in 2005, gold went up, but it peaked in 2011, peaking at $1770.00 per ounce. Since then, the price of gold has trended downward. The spot price of gold now is a little over $1100.00 per ounce. Here's a link to the facts: http://www.goldprices.com/historical-gold-prices.htm
Now, you also fail to take inflation into account. Since 1983, prices have risen about 240%. That means that $500.00 in 1983 would have the same purchasing power as $1200.00 today. Here's a link to more facts: http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=10000&year=1983 In other words, if the U.S. had tied the Social Security trust fund to gold, it would have barely lost value compared to inflation. AND in 1983, 30 year U.S. Treasury notes had a rate of about 11%, NOT 2%! Even the current rate is about 3%! Here's another link to more nasty facts: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GS30.txt

I'm so sorry to introduce facts into this discussion, Mikey. I know how much ideologues HATE facts. Gut feelings, and "things I've heard" make so much better fodder for hysterical arguments than do facts, after all!

Reread the thread and tell me who is not sticking to the truth. I said a Dem run Congress meaning House. The bill was a compromise between Dems and Repubs. Also as part of the bill was raising the retirement age to 67 and making government employees pay into the program. Now... take a guess who championed what in the proposal. The move from the gold standard was a Dem initiative. ZC said it's the GOP who has been robbing Social Security. Your data proves my point exactly. If SS was backed by gold today rather than Tbills it would be worth more today, not routine readjustments downward as has been the trend.

If you were so worried about facts you'd be correcting ZC on his claim that the GOP is robbing SS. You're not concerned about the facts but rather attempting (and failing) to prove me wrong.



kill the messenger.

It's The Donald #1 and Dr. Ben #2. Here's the link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/iowa-poll-finds-trump-and-carson-...

Remember, Mikey, as long as Dr.Ben is a darling of the Tea Party folks, he has an organizational presence in EVERY state. As I keep stating, he's a player in this process, and could wind up as the Republican candidate for VPOTUS.

My previous analysis still applies.




Feel free to look at any of the links and figure out what they have in common with every poll you've cited.


the process. Your citations only confirm my statements to that effect. It is most interesting, however, that your first 2 citations show that in 2011, Willard was one of the two leading candidates in Iowa for 2012, and he ended up as the Republican candidate for POTUS in 2012. Are you trying to predict that The Donald will be the Republican candidate for POTUS in 2016?

Remember, all I've ever said is that Dr. Ben will be a player. And that he remains. If anything, he is surging in the polls right now. And, if we compare the intelligence of Dr. Ben with either Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, there is no contest. At least Dr. Ben is extremely intelligent. Don't knock the doc, Mikey.

And, (sorry Mikey), here's an even newer poll showing The Donald and Dr. Ben tied, far ahead of the rest of the field. http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/322...
And, as has been consistent, Dr. Ben has a "favorable" rating of 81% while having an "unfavorable" rating of just 8%. Such a low "unfavorable" score is exactly what is desired for a VPOTUS candidate. Hmmm...
Remember...I'm just the messenger. I'm a registered Democrat, and I have never voted for a Republican nominee for POTUS since I could first vote in 1968. (I was born in 1947. I'm so old, the minimum voting age was 21 when I was young.)

Dale, I commend you for trying to rationalize with MikeyA, I wish you luck.

If you feel I am unfair or irrational all you have to do is point out where and provide a citation showing I'm wrong.


Again my analysis holds. Romney had a path to the nomination.

My citations are a comparison of polls, not of intelligence. Smarter people have lost the nomination.

If you believe it's so early in the process you'd stop posting polls and tagging me.


We need to reclaim our government for the one percent so they can continue their feudal aspirations.

Dale says I'm not smart enough to understand the income tax system even though I've only quoted him. I've asked him for specifics on these "minor tweaks" to save social security and I've never gotten an answer. I HAVE gotten polls as proof of what "will" happen in January and the polls are in August even though I've proven that August polls are highly inaccurate and generally a barometer of how voters feel at this very moment not an indicator of vote total.


I HAVE offered a real-life, fair change to the way we collect Social Security contributions from working Americans that would keep Social Security solvent for an extra 50 years or so, in addition to the 20 years it will be solvent if nothing is done. All we would have to do is to remove the income cap upon which Social Security contributions are collected. Why should a CEO making millions per year pay a smaller percentage into Social Security than his or her secretary does? DUH!

what you posted, that you do not have a good understanding of the federal income tax. I am an economics minor. I did help my father run a small business for 15 years. I was also the treasurer of a statewide union for 6 years. In addition, I do my own taxes every year. I have been audited 3 times, twice getting small refunds, and once having to pay a small additional amount. While I am not all-knowing or perfect in any way, I do know a little more than the average person about the federal income tax system.

You, Mikey, have expertise in military matters and weaponry. That does NOT make you an expert on everything. However, you are far from stupid.

Ok, let's pretend I don't understand it.

So explain how you will tax ALL INCOME and it's affect on any of the examples I provided. I have asked this question before and I am still waiting.



This discussion is centered upon SOCIAL SECURITY. I want the cap removed from Social Security contributions. Currently, no one who earns more than $118,500 per year pays one additional penny on that additional income over $118,500 into the Social Security Trust Fund. Let me make it as simple as I can. If someone earns $237,000 in 2015, that person will have to contribute into Social Security ONLY ON THE FIRST $118,500. In other words, that person's contribution RATE will be at ONE-HALF the rate paid on his or her TOTAL INCOME compared to the rate paid by someone earning $118,500 or less in 2015.
And, if someone is making $1,185,000 per year, because they only pay into Social Security on the first $118,500, they are paying at ONE-TENTH the rate ON THEIR TOTAL INCOME compared to the rate paid by working poor, up to those making $118,500. Not one penny of 90% of the income earned by someone making over $1 million per year goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.
By lifting the cap, we take care of the funding problem for nearly a century into the future.

Actually that's not what you were saying before. I'll highlight some things. IMHO, to THIS Democrat, the best solution to the long-term health of Social Security is taxing ALL INCOME, not just wages, and not just up to the first $118, 300.00. So your implication from this statement was not just lifting the cap but a fundamental changing of how we tax income because as you said it's not just a contribution but a tax and income that isn't just wages. So I stand by my assertion that you were talking about changing the tax code.

Let's say you misspoke and only meant lifing the cap. Now, your "solution" is anything but a solution. If you get individual to contribute more money from their income that individual should reasonably expect to take more from social security. If not you're talking a redistribution of wealth but only for retirees who manage to live longer than the retirement age. That's not fair for something that everyone pays into.


contribute more into Social Security? Is it fair that CEOs pay a small fraction into Social Security compared to the percentage paid by their secretaries? Fair? Get real, Mikey!

The Social Security contributions are often seen as a tax, even though they are not technically a tax. If that misled you, I apologize for misusing the term. This discussion is ONLY about Social Security. I will try to only use the term "contributions" exclusively when referring to Social Security from now on.

Yes it's fair because they are also capped at what they take out. Just because someone can afford to pay more into it doesn't mean they should. That money is better used being put back into the economy either through expendable income or business investment.


Sounds like MikeyA has also been brainwashed with the theory of trickel-down economics. If MikeyA lives until he is 567 years old he might get one of those trickels.

It's not trickle down economics.

If they pay more into a social program that's supposed to give them a entitled benefit then they will expect to get more.

Since they capable of making over 118k then it's reasonable to assume they are capable of doing other retirement planning.


campaign issue. Keep protecting the richest in our society, Mikey.

I gave you a fix. You just don't like it!

For all the Dems "protect social security" rhetoric they are the ones who've done the most damage. Then you have uninformed people like ZC who says the GOP is robbing it yet can't point to one single thing the GOP has done to hurt it.

Your solution is not passable and doesn't "save" it. It's a SS tax. That's a fundamental change.


you just don't like it. And the solution is only "not passable" because the GOP runs both the House and the Senate!

You are right in one way, that the "fix" does not appear to be permanent. IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR ABOUT 70 YEARS!

No it doesn't fix it.

What it does is just redistribute wealth there in fact lowering the income of half paying into it without giving them any increased benefit.

Again, you said previously that "your plan" had nothing to do with the federal income tax. Clearly it does as it converts SS to a tax itself.

Adding to the fact that your plan is unrealistic just makes it further not a plan at all but another liberal hope to shove down the throats of a country who won't want it. Your plan is Obamacare 2.0.


And, like most Republicans, you are a sellout to the super-rich!

Keep living in your world of delusions. I will stick to reality.

Must be my entitlement that ZC says I have.


Just think, MikeyA, when you retire from the military some very rich person is going to bestow upon you millions of dollars because you protected their money so well. Bah, Hah, Hah! Bah Ha, Ha!

We all know that MikeyA is a soothsayer.

We all know that MikeyA is a soothsayer.

so well in Republican circles. He had little opportunity to express himself during the first debate; however, his most articulate answer about racial issues is spot on. And, as is pointed out in this article, he definitely is a darling of the right-wing zealots. This gives him support in ALL states, including those which are considered "swing" states.
Never underestimate the power of sheer intelligence! Don't knock the doc!

Here's the link to the article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ben-carson-has-surged-into-second...

Please don't shoot the messenger.
And...don't knock the doc!

Here's the link: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/playing-now-the-ben-carson-show-128746591...

Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/like-trump-ben-carson-has-surged-...

There truly is something to be said for sheer intelligence.
Don't knock the doc!

My analysis still holds.

Trump is now at aggregate 30%. There's now plenty of reasons to assume he will be the nominee. Carson is still unlikely to be his running mate.


Don't knock the doc!

All I keep stating is that Dr. Ben is a real player in the process. His statistics keep improving. Here's the latest poll numbers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-carson-top-gop-race-cl...

Remember, don't shoot the messenger.

Your analysis is flawed.

What's flawed about it?

Can't wait for this non-answer.


has support throughout the United States. There are droves of right-wing zealots who will work tirelessly for Dr. Ben. They will make up the bulk of his organization in each state. And, they are now experienced, having worked for other right-wing candidates in other POTUS elections!
Mike -- You are grossly underestimating the importance of these activists.

Here's a link to the latest poll: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-closes-in-on-donald-trump-new-...

Don't knock the doc!

You didn't answer my question. Not shocked.


Jeb Bush would be the hardest GOP candidate for the Democrats to beat for POTUS in 2016. However, "The main problem he would face is obtaining the Republican nomination. Too many Republican 'true believers' would rather lose with a 'true believer' heading the ticket, than win with someone who does not equate compromise with surrender."
This prediction seems to be working out at this point in time. As I continue to point out, it's still very early in the process, however.
If you want to look this up, it's on page 8 under "YOU READ IT HERE FIRST." In that same thread, I reiterated over and over again, despite false claims by others, that Jeb's biggest problem would be getting the Republican nomination.

here's a link to the latest POTUS poll. Fiorina has surged just ahead of Dr. Ben and Rubio has pulled into a close fourth. While The Donald still leads, he has dropped significantly. Jeb is still hanging around, but most of the others are in low single digits at this time.
It is interesting that, even though Dr. Ben is third just 1% behind Fiorina, Dr. Ben leads in categories like trustworthiness, and as the second choice of likely Republican primary voters.

Here's the link: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/rel10a.pdf

Looking at all the candidates, Obama would win the election for POTUS if he could run for a third term.

numbers: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-2016-gop-race-n433991

Please note that Dr. Ben is now in a virtual tie with The Donald for first place. Rubio and Fiorina are tied for third/fourth. The rest trail badly.

It is most interesting that three of the four leading Republican candidates for POTUS have never held elective office. At this point, activist Republicans don't seem to care if a candidate for POTUS has any governmental experience before heading the entire nation! Hmmm...

And, just to emphasize one thing about which Mikey and I agree, it is still very early in the process. Here's a link to an article from October of 2007 analyzing a Gallup poll about the races for the nominations for POTUS in 2008. In the article, they are claiming that Hillary is gaining strength over Obama and appears to be drawing away from him as her nearest rival. Here it is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx

Most sane people will at least run for school board or dog catcher to start their political career.

Once again my analysis still holds true. I don't know why you keep wasting both of our times with these posts.


in free-fall, you'd LOVE them. As I've stated before, you only appreciate statistical evidence which supports your personal beliefs. I just find it all fascinating.

I would merely remind you, Mikey, that first of all, I have only stated that Dr. Ben would be a player in the process of the Republican nomination for POTUS. I don't really care which candidate the Republicans choose. Since none of them are progressive in the least, I will not vote for any of those who are currently running.
Mikey, I would also remind you that Dr. Ben is extremely intelligent, and I would caution you not to underestimate the power of extreme intelligence.
Don't knock the doc.

According to this article, Dr. Ben has LOTS of money. Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-carson-raises-20m-16-bid-past-3-224850...
This means that, his campaign will be well funded at least for several months, and throughout the first wave of caucuses and primaries, including those in The South. This blows up your "analysis" that Dr. Ben's support would be limited, and his staying power would be limited also. I stated that Dr. Ben is a darling of the religious right. Apparently, that no only gives Dr. Ben "foot soldiers" in every state, but also gives him lots and lots of people willing to donate to his campaign as well.
Remember, Mikey...don't shoot the messenger.
AND...don't knock the doc!

No it doesn't negate my analysis. He holds no leads in any states. His support has actually plateaued due to Fiorina's rise. But I don't think Fiorina has a path yet either.

So yes, my analysis holds.


We'll see!

Like everything else you say, your analysis will fall apart.

seems to want to run for POTUS, and NONE want to run for Speaker of the House, third in line to the Presidency, and the most powerful legislative position in the United States government? Am I also the only one who remembers the Republican Congressional leadership right after the 2014 election proclaiming that they would bombard Obama's desk with bill after bill that Obama would be forced to veto? Instead, what we have had this year is a vacuum in the legislative branch of the federal government. Basically, nothing gets done at all. Now, when new leadership is needed, no Republican wants to step into the leader's seat. Hmmm...
Here's an interesting article about the Republican disarray in Congress, which the headline describes as being in "an 'historic state of chaos:'" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/republican-party-now-entered-historic-2216...

FYI -- As of mid-July, 2015, Obama had only issued 4 vetoes in 6.5 years as POTUS! As a comparison, W issued 12. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/you_will_never_guess_how_man...

And...Dr. Ben beats Hillary in a head-to-head contest, while The Donald loses! Dr. Ben has not yet been marginalized. AND since Dr. Ben has raised so much money, he is not going anywhere soon.
BTW -- I went through all of the data, and this poll did not break down married women from unmarried women.

WARNING -- It's still very early in the 2016 election cycle. The November election is still over a year away!

Here's a link to the article: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-wins-debate-but-128150577...
AND the other article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-just-hit-high-214016432.html

Here is the data on your poll. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/10/18/democrats.pdf
Women on Clinton: 49-47. Obama won women 56-44 mind you. Wonder where the 5pt drop came? Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-hi...

Now I doubt a Dem male candidate will get better numbers than a female one once voters get into the booth. Do you disagree? What do you think these numbers will do if Fiorina is on the ticket?

BTW, I still don't know why you keep posting national polls for the nomination. Nominees are not settled nationally. The nomination is about momentum. Right now Trump wins the first two states handidly. Carson comes in 2nd and 3rd respectfully. That means Trump will have the momentum if polling stands as is. The national mood will follow the states as it generally does during the nomination processes. Now if Carson gets over 30% nationally, then he has a chance to overcome the momentum while still losing but thus far he looks to have a ceiling in the low 20s.

Edit: Waiting for ZC to come in here and state a) CNN is lying b) I'm not smart enough to understand this all c) I think someone is going to pay me or something. d) All of the above


married women! That's what I stated! READ!!

As far as Dr. Ben is concerned, I keep stating that he's a real player in this nomination process. You take the extreme view that Dr. Ben has no chance. And do you believe that The Donald will be the Republican POTUS nominee? If not, Dr. Ben is running ahead of every other Republican candidate at this -- admittedly -- early time! Dr. Ben is second in Iowa; second in South Carolina; second in Pennsylvania; second in Michigan; second in California; third in New Hampshire...He is a true national candidate.

Careful MikeyA...don't knock the doc! If not the Republican nominee for POTUS, he may well be the Republican nominee for VPOTUS! And, if either is true, YOU WILL VOTE FOR HIM, MIKEY!!!

So where do you think the drop in support to HRC comes? I personally don't think it's among single women. Do you?

As polling stands right now Trump will win the nomination. He'd win Iowa then NH and he leads in SC and FL. Those four wins will be enough to get enough momentum to win outright. Impressive being he hasn't really spent any money thus far. Carson and Jeb are spending a lot. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/these-presidential-candidate...

Now the question comes: Are Carson or Trump peaking too early? Recent history says yes.


POTUS: The Donald...VPOTUS: Dr. Ben. And you'd vote for them with a smile on your face, Mikey!

It would be difficult looking at Carson wearing a Swatiska on his lapel.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.