All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ




Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
Republican
Win - Cruz
Place - Trump
Show - Rubio

I think it might be different in NH. With a Trump win there.

Democrat
Win - Clinton
Place - Sanders
Show - that other guy


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:48 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Veteran
Phinfever Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:55 am
Posts: 619
AQNOR wrote:
Republican
Win - Cruz
Place - Trump
Show - Rubio

I think it might be different in NH. With a Trump win there.

Democrat
Win - Clinton
Place - Sanders
Show - that other guy



I'm hoping for Rubio , but I'm afraid its going to Be Trump/Cruz /Rubio.

Added note: Rubio is a die heart Dolphins fan and married to a Ex dolphins cheerleader!!


Democrats: Hillary/Sanders/that other guy

BUT if Sanders gets a miracle in Iowa then watch the Dems go into meltdown mode and throw Biden in at the last moment.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Cruz may have won Iowa, but Rubio won the night with his very strong showing.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:04 am 
Offline
Phinfever Draft Guru
Phinfever Draft Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 10135
Location: MA
Rich wrote:
Cruz may have won Iowa, but Rubio won the night with his very strong showing.


Agreed. By letting Trump and Cruz slug it out in a media war Rubio came away stronger than before.

Once Bush, Kasich, Carson, etc. begin dropping out you'll see that support shift to Rubio and dramatically shift the polling numbers.

I'd hate to be in the Hillary Clinton camp this morning. She still gets the nomination but man oh man does she look like a weak candidate. If Trump served any purpose it was taking away her best weapon - Bill.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:08 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Veteran
Phinfever Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:55 am
Posts: 619
I agree with all of the above!

Some interesting breaking news. ....apparently Sanders is claiming he has proof that the Hillary supporters miss counted intentionally. I would love to see the Dems go at each other.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:16 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Draft Guru
Phinfever Draft Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 10135
Location: MA
This is why Bloomberg is gearing up for a run. He smells blood in the water. She is an incredibly weak candidate and I'm not sure Bernie will resonate with the mainstream.

Joe Biden has got to be kicking himself right now. He'd be running away with the nomination.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
I don't think Carson numbers will go to Rubio more likely Cruz and Trump with the strong anti establishment vote imo. I would think Rand Paul supporters would be more likely to fall in line behind Cruz. The others numbers are smaller by comparison even added all up. I could see Trump snagging some of them just because he is something different.

The Iowa caucus is a bit different with a strong team on the ground that can really make a difference.

Good news overall imo for the Republicans When you add up Cruz, Rubio and Carson you have a solid majority for a conservative candidate.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
I wonder if the Clintons don't have something to hold over Joe's head so that he did not run.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Rubio came in a strong third without even trying. Cruz made a monumental effort and poured a ton of resources to win a caucus that means little in the long run. And Trump has had the advantage of free media coverage and still came in 2nd.

Rubio is the big winner in Iowa. If he comes in second in NH, he is the candidate best positioned to win the primary states.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Image

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:38 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Veteran
Phinfever Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:55 am
Posts: 619
jammer wrote:
This is why Bloomberg is gearing up for a run. He smells blood in the water. She is an incredibly weak candidate and I'm not sure Bernie will resonate with the mainstream.

Joe Biden has got to be kicking himself right now. He'd be running away with the nomination.



No way Bloomberg enters. Too little way to late. Dems completely over estimated Hillary and thats why you had such a small amount of candidates. I wish Webb stayed in the race. He might of made a great crossover for both parties. The only one that can come in late and be effective is Biden. And personally I believe he stayed out on purpose to give Hillary a runaway train to continue with Obamas 3rd term. Now that she is falling off the rails he just might make breaking news in the next few weeks that hes in No way they let crazy Bernie take the nomination. Might as well just give it to us then.

Rubio did something magic in the last 3 days. OR he just stayed the path kept focused while Trump missed the debate and called Kelly a bunch of names. Like it or not , The Media runs the show. Trump has to realize that he can't run the media. He can manipulate it better then most , but he needs to be there to do that. That missed debate co$t him dearly. Cruz is a holy roller so he won the Farm state. . I see it as a Rubio /Trump race from here on in. And Rubio doesnt have to fight the media and the GOP establishment like Trump so I'm thinking Rubio / Biden race next November. I know its a longshot but I think having a Miami Dolphins fan in the White House would be epic!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:44 am 
Offline
Phinfever Draft Guru
Phinfever Draft Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 10135
Location: MA
MiamiMenace wrote:
No way Bloomberg enters. Too little way to late.


That is the logic you, me and others here probably use, but we are not egomaniac billionaires who think throwing money around will get the job done. Bloomberg, Trump, the Clintons...they live and think differently than us.

A Bloomberg run is more likely if Trump or Cruz win the nomination and the logic is there for him. Cruz is not well liked, will be an easy target on social issues to make some independents squishy on voting. He's smart and well spoken, but there is something artificial about him.

Trump, not much to say. He has a cult of personality following him and I bet there are a lot of people who want to vote for him but will never admit it publicly. However, the arsenal of soundbites and political flip flopping on his part will be on full display from whoever runs against him.

With either of these two Bloomberg can present himself as a more "moderate" option who doesn't have the shady past of Hillary nor the socialist ideals of Sanders. In fact, he'd probably think he can get most Hillary votes and most Rubio/Bush/Kasich/etc votes.

Not saying it will happen, but in his mind this is probably how it is playing out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Isn't Bloomberg a former Republican?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
Phinfever Draft Guru
Phinfever Draft Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 10135
Location: MA
Rich wrote:
Isn't Bloomberg a former Republican?


"Former" being the key word. He's a big government guy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
jammer wrote:
Rich wrote:
Isn't Bloomberg a former Republican?


"Former" being the key word. He's a big government guy.


Yeah, he's a Rockerfeller Republican.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:22 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Veteran
Phinfever Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:55 am
Posts: 619
All great points Jammer. Especially your description of Cruz. There is something really "Artificial" about him. Everytime he makes a comment it sounds like a church sermon. I really dont like the guy or trust him, but I will certainly back him if he is the nominee.

Bloomberg is a wealthy guy who will throw money at a problem if he wants it to end. He personally invested $50 million to fight the NRA and concentrated on states with liberal gun laws. I believe he invested heavily in the opponent of Sheriff Joe Clark trying to get him out of office by buying up local TV time there. Thankfully if didn't work. People in those states like their guns. :yay:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/us/bloomb ... index.html

Hes given Clinton a ton of Ca$h after her campaign almost went bankrupt. I'd love to see her go under, but as a nominee I believe she is so much more beatable then say........Joe Biden. I'd like to see her publically ridiculed because otherwise she will never be held accountable for her crimes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
I won't back Cruz if he is the nominee. He's the Republican version of Obama. My way or the highway...

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
I will back Cruz if he is nominated. If it can't be Carson then Cruz then Rubio.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:03 pm 
Offline
Admin | Forum Design
Admin | Forum Design

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:37 am
Posts: 4212
Location: Sweet Home ALABAMA!
How do y'all think the "tea party" is feeling right about now? Being as their boy Cruz won Iowa...

I used to like Cruz back in the day before everyone knew who he was. He's not the same man now.

I'll be over here "wasting" my vote on Gary J.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:31 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Draft Guru
Phinfever Draft Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 10135
Location: MA
Great observation I heard (and may have already shared here) is that when Rubio speaks it sounds like he is talking to you, and when Cruz speaks it sounds like he is talking at you.

I think both Clinton and Sanders are in that Cruz group aka they are lecturing you. Joe Biden on the other hand would have presented himself in a much more down to earth way.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Cruz would govern from the right like Obama governed from the left. His way or the highway.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
I disagree about Cruz and his governing style. I think he would actually uphold and enforce the laws of the land instead of ignore them. Certainly he is on the right but imo I think he has a respect for the constitution and would take his oath of office seriously.

If he is elected as President then I would expect him to be who he said he was in campaigning. Even in Iowa I think he took a principled stand on the Ethanol subsidy. I agree with his stand on that and like some of his plans for a smaller Federal government. Imo many Republicans are just Democrat lights. They want to keep on giving away things and increasing the debt but just on a smaller scale. It will take someone committed to their principles to stop this trend and if possible reverse it to some degree.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
I disagree about Cruz and his governing style. I think he would actually uphold and enforce the laws of the land instead of ignore them. Certainly he is on the right but imo I think he has a respect for the constitution and would take his oath of office seriously.

If he is elected as President then I would expect him to be who he said he was in campaigning. Even in Iowa I think he took a principled stand on the Ethanol subsidy. I agree with his stand on that and like some of his plans for a smaller Federal government. Imo many Republicans are just Democrat lights. They want to keep on giving away things and increasing the debt but just on a smaller scale. It will take someone committed to their principles to stop this trend and if possible reverse it to some degree.


When Cruz speaks in front of Texans, he is going to fight gay marriage. But then they have video of him in New York saying he isn't going to waste his time on that.

Principled my a$$.

Also, my point is he is just as rigid on the right as Obama is on the left. He doesn't strike me as a guy that is going to be willing to compromise to get things done.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
Imo Republicans have been compromising so much that President Obama has gotten what he wants. I would like to see some compromising in the other direction so that the current trend of the country can be reversed.

More compromise toward the left is going to take the country down the same spiraling out of control spending but just at a slightly slower rate.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:08 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Rookie
Phinfever Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:13 am
Posts: 71
AQNOR wrote:
Imo Republicans have been compromising so much that President Obama has gotten what he wants. I would like to see some compromising in the other direction so that the current trend of the country can be reversed.

More compromise toward the left is going to take the country down the same spiraling out of control spending but just at a slightly slower rate.


Man, I must be seriously uninformed. I mean, the big wigs on the Republican side have outright refused to compromise with Obama on anything. They have even publicly stated they will fight Obama at every chance they can, create gridlock.

I'm really not trying to start anything but that's what they have publicly stated. I don't think that leads to compromising on much.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
Imo Republicans have been compromising so much that President Obama has gotten what he wants. I would like to see some compromising in the other direction so that the current trend of the country can be reversed.

More compromise toward the left is going to take the country down the same spiraling out of control spending but just at a slightly slower rate.


What have the Republicans compromised on?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
Just about any spending bill that the President wanted. Instead of using the power of the purse to keep spending in check they just agree to up the debt limit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
Just about any spending bill that the President wanted. Instead of using the power of the purse to keep spending in check they just agree to up the debt limit.


So what would be your alternative? To not up the debt limit and allow the country to default?

I'm wondering if you'd consider that a wise choice when hyperinflation hits and you can no longer afford bread or toilet paper.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
Not upping the debt limit does not mean that you default on the national debt. It does mean you have to live more within your means.

Your points about hyper inflation are not on point imo.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
Not upping the debt limit does not mean that you default on the national debt.


That is EXACTLY what it means. If we do not up the debt limit, the government cannot pay for financial obligations it has ALREADY made.

Quote:
Your points about hyper inflation are not on point imo.


That was an insightful response. Please expand on how my points are not on point?

Credit works the same way whether it is an individual or a government. If the borrower cannot pay their obligations, it impacts their credit rating and their ability to borrow at low interest rates ceases to exist.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
Quote:
When you open your monthly bill from Visa V -1.37% or Mastercard, have you ever thought of telling the credit card company you cannot possibly pay even the minimum balance due, and you are going to have to default on the debt, unless the company immediately increases your credit limit? What do you think your creditor would tell you if you did? Would you expect to get the increase in your credit limit that way?

That is the same silly, illogical argument that your President Barack Obama is peddling to the entire country, to considerable success, given the fundamental breakdown in this generation’s ability to handle self-government. Not raising the debt limit does not mean defaulting on the national debt, any more than not increasing your credit limit means you can’t pay your monthly credit card bill, and must default on that.

As the outstanding federal debt becomes due, it can simply be paid by newly issued debt, without violating the debt limit, as the total outstanding debt would not change. President Obama’s own budget estimates total net interest on the national debt for this year currently totals $223 billion. But his budget also estimates total federal income taxes for this year at $1.7 trillion, or $1,700 billion. So just as you use a small portion of your monthly earnings to pay your credit card bill, current federal tax revenues are more than enough to pay the current interest due on the national debt. So not increasing the national debt does not mean defaulting on the national debt. QED.

But President Obama says without increasing the debt limit, he cannot cover all of the federal government’s spending for the year, and he cannot decide what to prioritize to spend the continuing federal income on first. But this is why with no executive experience, or any other experience except rabble rousing, he had no business running for President in the first place.

...

But President Obama says Congress must raise the debt limit just to pay the bills we already owe. But if you gain a credit limit increase on your credit card, and you charge still more, is that paying the bills you already owe? Or is that racking up still more bills?

Similarly, raising the debt limit so the federal government, with nearly $17 trillion in national debt (more than our entire economy), can borrow still more does not involve paying the bills we already owe. It means racking up new bills to be paid in the future, by our kids. At best, if the increased borrowing is used to pay current federal bills owed, that involves deferring payment of current obligations, not paying what we already owe.

But President Obama is doing a good job of just confusing and manipulating the American people on this issue, as too many voters do not understand federal finances ...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... 6129ac338e

The debt limit increase is for the future not for the past.

You make up your family budget and you commit to spend so much you have a house mortgage you have a car payment you have a bill for direct tv, you have debt on your credit card you have a gym membership fee.

Now you realize you can not pay them all. After paying your credit card debt payment you realize that for the rest of the year, or month whatever I cant pay all the other things so I must make decisions. I cancel my gym membership, I sell my car and buy a less expensive one. I might have to sell my house and downsize that. I may have to cancel or downsize my direct tv bill. You have to make decisions.

Why should not the federal government have to live withing its means. Make do with what you have.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
The debt limit increase is for the future not for the past.


Incorrect. It is for spending that has already been proposed.

Quote:
What is the U.S. federal debt limit?


The government must be able to issue new debt as long as it continues to run a budget deficit. The debt limit, or "ceiling," sets the maximum amount of outstanding federal debt the U.S. government can incur by law. As of May 2013, this number stands at $16.699 trillion. Increasing the debt limit does not enlarge the nation's financial commitments, but allows the government to fund obligations already legislated by Congress.


http://www.cfr.org/budget-debt-and-defi ... ces/p24751

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
Incidentally, Peter Ferrara has a poor track record when it comes to understanding financial topics. The guy actually argued that CDSs are not the reason for the last financial meltdown.

He clearly does not understand credit risk.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2017 VIP Donor!
2017 VIP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 6097
If the congress has agreed to spend more money than it has it can also then agree to spend less money.

Yes proposed. If they cant meet it with taxes they need to go back and propose less.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game
Phinfever Blog Writer - Post Game

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 26223
Location: Miami, FL
AQNOR wrote:
If the congress has agreed to spend more money than it has it can also then agree to spend less money.


These are two separate issues. By the time you're up against the debt limit, the money has already been appropriated.

Your entire premise has absolutely no basis in reality. You're essentially proposing that Congress cut military spending while we have soldiers in harms way, that Social Security spending get reduced while we have people collecting their checks based on what they paid into the system for decades and for Medicare services to be drastically reduced for those currently using the system, and to do this in a matter of weeks because Congress previously appropriated this money but now we're up against a debt ceiling. I focus on these three programs because they are the biggest spending (and therefore deficit) drivers.

In order to avoid raising the debt ceiling, the first thing that needs to happen is to balance the budget. Even with a balanced budget, you still need to increase the debt ceiling because there is accruing interest on our debt. So you have to balance the budget and then some... enough that it offsets the accruing interest. So now you're stuck at $19 trillion and it isn't going up or down. You have to cut it further to start reducing the national debt.

This all sounds great on paper, but unfortunately the fact is this cannot be done at a flip of a switch. It has to be gradual and over time in order to avoid crippling our society into chaos.

Frankly, just relying on cutting spending to balance the budget is pipedream. It is not realistic or even remotely achievable. Some of these budget cuts would impact revenue as well, creating a double whammy.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ] 

All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited | Chopped and modified by Coots | Original design by Prosk8r