Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Donald Trump in 2012? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#45 : April 18, 2011, 08:17:17 PM

There is actually talk of a Democratic primary - so maybe Charlie is an option ....

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#46 : April 20, 2011, 06:43:09 AM

President Barack Obama leads Donald Trump by 15 percentage points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports.

The national survey finds that 49 percent of likely voters support the President, while Trump obtained 34 percent. Twelve percent said they would pick another candidate and 5 percent were undecided.

About 65 percent of Republicans  would vote for Trump over Obama. Voters unaffiliated with any party refer Obama by 48 percent, over 25 percent for Trump, and another 20 percent would choose another candidate.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted between April 15-16, 2011. The margin for error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/136082/20110419/obama-trump-2012-election-rasmussen-report.htm#ixzz1K3i3PJp6

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27803
Offline
#47 : April 20, 2011, 07:09:37 AM

Quote
Donald Trump's dalliance with presidential politics now has both sides of the political aisle laughing.

The fiscally-conservative Club for Growth took The Donald to task Monday, slamming him as a "tax-hiking liberal," who can't be taken seriously.

"You've got to be joking," said group president Chris Chocola, a former Indiana congressman.

"Donald Trump has advocated for massive tax increases that display a stunning lack of knowledge of how to create jobs," he added.

Chocola used Trump's own words as proof - citing numerous passages from the real estate ty**CENSORED**'s policy platform when he dabbled with a run for president in 2000.

Pointing to Trump's demand for "universal health care," and a "one-time 14.25% tax" on people worth more than $10 million, Chocola says Trump offers little for anti-tax, small-government conservatives.

He also noted several comments Trump has recently made, threatening to impose high tariffs on Chinese imports and a desire to start "a trade war" with the country, as flying in the face of what free-trade advocates want.

"His love for a socialist-style universal health care system and his alarming obsession with protectionist policies are automatic disqualifiers among free-market conservatives," Chocola said.

The attack on Trump's business credentials is the first to come from a major conservative group.

Trump has already been scoffed at by Democrats, including the White House, which called him a "sideshow."

But he has managed to gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans in recent polls, after loudly trumpeting discredited conspiracy theories about President Obama's birthplace.

The Club for Growth's attack cuts to the core of Trump's insistence that his strongest asset is his business acumen.

Trump dismissed it as an off-base smear, saying Chocola's group is "very close to a certain candidate that is running who is not polling well."

He declined to name the candidate, but challenged each of the group's criticisms.

"I'm totally against Obamacare," he said. "I am totally against tax increases."

"I believe in open markets and free trade but only if it is also fair trade," he added.

As for accusations that he had brazenly flip-flopped from when he was considering running on Ross Perot's Reform Party ticket in 2000, Trump offered no denial.

"That was many years ago and times have changed," he said. At the time those [proposals] would have been very appropriate things, but now they won't work."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/18/2011-04-18_donald_trump_slammed_by_fiscal_conservative_club_for_growth_as_taxhiking_liberal.html

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#48 : April 20, 2011, 08:26:50 AM

Both Trump and Romney will have a lot of explaining to do re: their support for universal health care in the USA.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#49 : April 20, 2011, 09:56:32 PM

I suspect Trump will not be explaining anything as he won't run.  Romney will be ready to explain his past support - he surely knows the issue will be raised repeatedly. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#50 : April 21, 2011, 05:06:40 PM

Both Trump and Romney will have a lot of explaining to do re: their support for universal health care in the USA.


Once again, you need to get your facts straight. Romney NEVER advocated "Universal Health Care". Just the opposite, he advocated a decentralized non-universal State-by-State health care mandate. He wanted a national plan where revenue sharing block grants would be given to each State that established and managed their own system. He even stated in a debate "My problem with any Universal Health Care system is that if it doesn't work it takes down the whole country, I'd much rather each State try their own ideas and those that work others can share, and those that fail can be avoided..."


He also said

Quote
That was the whole idea of our federal democracy, wed have people be able to try different ideas state to state but what we did not do was say that the federal government can make its choice and impose it on all of the states. That is one of the reasons why this bill is unconstitutional, Romney said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/02/mitt-romney-no-apology-for-individual-health-care-mandate.html



CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#51 : April 22, 2011, 12:33:16 AM

Both Trump and Romney will have a lot of explaining to do re: their support for universal health care in the USA.


Once again, you need to get your facts straight. Romney NEVER advocated "Universal Health Care". Just the opposite, he advocated a decentralized non-universal State-by-State health care mandate. He wanted a national plan where revenue sharing block grants would be given to each State that established and managed their own system. He even stated in a debate "My problem with any Universal Health Care system is that if it doesn't work it takes down the whole country, I'd much rather each State try their own ideas and those that work others can share, and those that fail can be avoided..."


He also said

Quote
That was the whole idea of our federal democracy, wed have people be able to try different ideas state to state but what we did not do was say that the federal government can make its choice and impose it on all of the states. That is one of the reasons why this bill is unconstitutional, Romney said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/02/mitt-romney-no-apology-for-individual-health-care-mandate.html

Except it's the exact same plan that Romney supported in Mass., and it's not unconstitutional.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
#52 : April 22, 2011, 10:01:17 AM


Except it's the exact same plan that Romney supported in Mass., and it's not unconstitutional.

Even IF that was so, it is perfectly feasible for it to be imposed at the State level and be constitutional, yet if the Feds did it, it would not be. For example, States write the laws who can vote, the Feds can't.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#53 : April 22, 2011, 12:11:23 PM


Except it's the exact same plan that Romney supported in Mass., and it's not unconstitutional.

Even IF that was so, it is perfectly feasible for it to be imposed at the State level and be constitutional, yet if the Feds did it, it would not be. For example, States write the laws who can vote, the Feds can't.

The constitutionality of the law is being attacked on three premises, that it exceeds Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce, that it forces states to administer and support expansions, and that the mandate regulates inactivity rather than activity. In other words, it forces us to take an action rather than regulating an action we have already taken. From a legal standpoint, all three arguments are shaky at best.

The "exceeds authority" argument has precedent after precedent of the Supreme Court striking down such claims on the basis of how this particular piece of legislation is imposed.

The "forces states to administer and support expansions" argument is perhaps the weakest, because there are a number of federal mandates that force states to use it's own resources to comply. Medicaid is one example, the "war on drugs" is another. For instance, states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana must still comply with federal restrictions on controlled substances, and must use their law enforcement dollars to do so.

The "forces people to buy insurance" argument is also not likely to succeed either. The way in which the law is implemented is that people without health insurance through their employer that are above the poverty line must either purchase a minimal level of coverage (one that costs no more than 8% of their monthly income), or pay a tax of between 1% to 2.5% of their yearly income. Now some view this as forced participation, however, you are not forced by any legal ramifications to purchase insurance. You are simply taxed if you don't, and Congress certainly has the power to impose taxes.

Nearly every prominent legal expert has expressed that the challenges to the law do not hold up to serious scrutiny. The rulings of a few activist judges aren't going to change that.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
#54 : April 22, 2011, 02:49:38 PM


Except it's the exact same plan that Romney supported in Mass., and it's not unconstitutional.

Even IF that was so, it is perfectly feasible for it to be imposed at the State level and be constitutional, yet if the Feds did it, it would not be. For example, States write the laws who can vote, the Feds can't.

The constitutionality of the law is being attacked on three premises, that it exceeds Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce, that it forces states to administer and support expansions, and that the mandate regulates inactivity rather than activity. In other words, it forces us to take an action rather than regulating an action we have already taken. From a legal standpoint, all three arguments are shaky at best.

The "exceeds authority" argument has precedent after precedent of the Supreme Court striking down such claims on the basis of how this particular piece of legislation is imposed.

The "forces states to administer and support expansions" argument is perhaps the weakest, because there are a number of federal mandates that force states to use it's own resources to comply. Medicaid is one example, the "war on drugs" is another. For instance, states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana must still comply with federal restrictions on controlled substances, and must use their law enforcement dollars to do so.

The "forces people to buy insurance" argument is also not likely to succeed either. The way in which the law is implemented is that people without health insurance through their employer that are above the poverty line must either purchase a minimal level of coverage (one that costs no more than 8% of their monthly income), or pay a tax of between 1% to 2.5% of their yearly income. Now some view this as forced participation, however, you are not forced by any legal ramifications to purchase insurance. You are simply taxed if you don't, and Congress certainly has the power to impose taxes.

Nearly every prominent legal expert has expressed that the challenges to the law do not hold up to serious scrutiny. The rulings of a few activist judges aren't going to change that.

If you google "obamacare legality" you will find that there are a few more people than a few "activist judges" that don' agree with you. You believe what you do because it supports your argument, others disagree. But, that is an argument for another day.

The point is that due to the 10th Amendment, the States can do something and it be constitutional, but if the Feds did exactly the same thing, it might not.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#55 : April 22, 2011, 08:10:20 PM


Except it's the exact same plan that Romney supported in Mass., and it's not unconstitutional.

Even IF that was so, it is perfectly feasible for it to be imposed at the State level and be constitutional, yet if the Feds did it, it would not be. For example, States write the laws who can vote, the Feds can't.

The constitutionality of the law is being attacked on three premises, that it exceeds Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce, that it forces states to administer and support expansions, and that the mandate regulates inactivity rather than activity. In other words, it forces us to take an action rather than regulating an action we have already taken. From a legal standpoint, all three arguments are shaky at best.

The "exceeds authority" argument has precedent after precedent of the Supreme Court striking down such claims on the basis of how this particular piece of legislation is imposed.

The "forces states to administer and support expansions" argument is perhaps the weakest, because there are a number of federal mandates that force states to use it's own resources to comply. Medicaid is one example, the "war on drugs" is another. For instance, states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana must still comply with federal restrictions on controlled substances, and must use their law enforcement dollars to do so.

The "forces people to buy insurance" argument is also not likely to succeed either. The way in which the law is implemented is that people without health insurance through their employer that are above the poverty line must either purchase a minimal level of coverage (one that costs no more than 8% of their monthly income), or pay a tax of between 1% to 2.5% of their yearly income. Now some view this as forced participation, however, you are not forced by any legal ramifications to purchase insurance. You are simply taxed if you don't, and Congress certainly has the power to impose taxes.

Nearly every prominent legal expert has expressed that the challenges to the law do not hold up to serious scrutiny. The rulings of a few activist judges aren't going to change that.

If you google "obamacare legality" you will find that there are a few more people than a few "activist judges" that don' agree with you. You believe what you do because it supports your argument, others disagree. But, that is an argument for another day.

The point is that due to the 10th Amendment, the States can do something and it be constitutional, but if the Feds did exactly the same thing, it might not.

Maybe that's because you are googling "Obamacare." Maybe if you googled it by it's actual name, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you would find some non-partisan analysis.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#56 : April 23, 2011, 08:11:23 PM

You can call it whatever you wish - finding non-partisan evaluations is pretty tough.  Might have been less partisan if folks didn't believe the folks who voted for it and signed it didn't intentionally hide the costs... and the Unconstitutional ruling hasn't helped much. 
: April 23, 2011, 08:13:45 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Donald Trump in 2012? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools