2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#3,152
#3,152
lawgator1 said:
I don't know anything about his opponent, but Ryan seems pretty popular. Does he have any real problem back in his district?
Click to expand...

Nope.

2015 poll ratings:

Ryan is hugely popular with Republican voters in Wisconsin (87% view him favorably, 6% unfavorably). He does pretty well with independents (44% favorable, 36% unfavorable). And even some Democrats like him: 21% view him favorably, 58% unfavorably.
Click to expand...

2016 poll rating:

Ryan was viewed favorably by 76 percent of GOP voters in Wisconsin and unfavorably by 14 percent in Marquette’s most recent statewide poll, taken March 24-28. “There is no evidence in the polling at this point that Ryan faces serious unhappiness within his party, whether that’s southeast Wisconsin where his voters would be, or the rest of the state,” says Marquette pollster Charles Franklin. “I think you do see a group of intensely anti-establishment Republicans who are critical of him and are calling for his defeat … but we’re not seeing that element of the party represent a substantial fraction of voters at this point.”
Click to expand...

Ryan’s standing outside his base. Here are Ryan’s numbers with moderates, averaging three Wisconsin polls during his speakership (last November, January and March): 45 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable.

Here are his numbers with independents: 46 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable.

In both cases, they are the best ratings Ryan has gotten with those groups in 16 different surveys by Marquette over the past four years. In almost all of those earlier polls, Ryan had a negative rating with moderates.

Ryan’s policy views are quite conservative on most issues. But Franklin says a variety of factors may be leading moderates in Wisconsin to view Ryan “in contrast” to the most conservative voices in his party: in taking the speakership, he was cast as a more mainstream Republican, not the champion of the party’s right wing (the Freedom Caucus); he has drawn periodic fire from the right; and his rhetoric in frequent speeches and interviews has emphasized “civility” and “substance” over political conflict.

Ryan’s occasional but highly publicized criticisms of Trump may be another factor, since the GOP front-runner is deeply unpopular in Wisconsin with independents, moderates, Democrats and liberals.

Ryan’s numbers have improved with all four groups in recent months.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,153
#3,153
Vol8188 said:
According to him, everyone in the industry is breaking the law, but he's only upset when the Mexicans do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly! We should nothing about the illegal, law breaking employers, just spend $867 trillion dollars at the border instead.
 
#3,154
#3,154
AirVol said:
Says the person that emails classified material with an illegal server. She's such a *****.
Click to expand...



Illegal server?

See, this is why the far right shriek machine invariably loses any credibility. They take fact they can reasonably use, i.e. that she used very poor judgment to use a server less secure than a standard government one, and then shriek that it's "illegal," which it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3,155
#3,155
Danl said:
Exactly! We should nothing about the illegal, law breaking employers, just spend $867 trillion dollars at the border instead.
Click to expand...

marcusluvsvols said:
Only the big names or management ever pay taxes in a legitimate way.
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about this statement. He freely admits that people in his industry aren't paying income tax. We can even assume that at one point in time, he wasn't either. Yet, he seems to only have an issue with the illegals for not paying income tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,156
#3,156
lawgator1 said:
Illegal server?

See, this is why the far right shriek machine invariably loses any credibility. They take fact they can reasonably use, i.e. that she used very poor judgment to use a server less secure than a standard government one, and then shriek that it's "illegal," which it isn't.
Click to expand...

The server wasn't illegal. But it's illegal to put classified information on any kind on and unsecure device. And when I say unsecure I mean any device that has not been deemed secure by the U.S. Government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,157
#3,157
carlos86 said:
The server wasn't illegal. But it's illegal to put classified information on any kind on and unsecure device. And when I say unsecure I mean any device that has not been deemed secure by the U.S. Government.
Click to expand...


I guess then put her in a cell with half the Bush administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,161
#3,161
T-TownVol said:
I respect that you do not find her attractive......please explain why she, a former supermodel who was in SI swimsuit issue, has her own jewelry company and is worth millions before she married Trump, a "gold digger"?

Is it because he has billions instead of her own millions? Not my definition of a "gold digger".......jmo
Click to expand...

I don't think she married him for his gentlemanlike personality. I don't know what brought them together to be honest...but mo money mo money mo money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,163
#3,163
carlos86 said:
I don't remember anyone from the Bush administration putting classified info on an unsecure server, phone, laptop or computer they used at home.
Click to expand...


LOL, first it was an "illegal server." Then it was "putting classified material on an unsecure server." Now it's "putting classified material on an unsecure server AT HOME."

The target shifted three times in less than an hour. It's hard to imagine why this issue is as tired as Benghazi, etc., etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,164
#3,164
lawgator1 said:
LOL, first it was an "illegal server." Then it was "putting classified material on an unsecure server." Now it's "putting classified material on an unsecure server AT HOME."

The target shifted three times in less than an hour. It's hard to imagine why this issue is as tired as Benghazi, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

My targets never shifted. Did she not have classified material on her server at her home??? David Petraeus got popped for having "confidential" classified material, which is the lowest classification in a locked drawer in his home that was guarded by the CIA. Hillary had Secret and Top Secret (Your Eyes only) material on an unsecure server in a storage closet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,165
#3,165
carlos86 said:
My targets never shifted. Did she not have classified material on her server at her home??? David Petraeus got popped for having "confidential" classified material, which is the lowest classification in a locked drawer in his home that was guarded by the CIA. Hillary had Secret and Top Secret (Your Eyes only) material on an unsecure server in a storage closet.
Click to expand...

:dance: LG loves defending Hillary & will take a bullet for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,167
#3,167
Danl said:
Yeah, those guys. They seem to be deporting illegals by the hundreds of thousands per year.

U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 | Pew Research Center

If illegal immigration is a problem, then the easiest, cheapest, most definite way of curing the problem is to severely punish those who illegally hire illegal immigrants. If companies know that they will be severely punished for illegal hiring they won't do it. But most sheeple won't even think about it from that angle because its not what their favorite talking head has got them all stirred up about. I see this all the time in my neighborhood. "Ed" has two illegals doing his yard work on Saturday morning. Saturday afternoon, at the neighborhood BBQ, "Ed" is on his soapbox about how those ficking illegals are ruining the country.
Click to expand...

I agree. but that is simply one step. The illegal migration will continue until we take several positive steps. Cut off jobs, cut off any benefits, stop giving citizenship to babies born to anyone here illegally, stop any federal funds to sanctuary cities, and start punishing businesses and charitable/religious groups that support illegals. Actually stopping people at the border and turning them back is only one step; ending the perception of the US as a haven is essential.

A year or so ago TV cameras were taping a flood of illegals crossing the border. They did not look dirty, tired, or malnourished from a long trek across a desert. They had help, and I'd bet Catholic charities are up to their necks in it.

Eds are a problem, but with welfare programs, minimum wage, nanny tax and so on Ed doesn't really have much access to low cost labor. So government aids and abets the need as much as it actually fails to apply existing law that acts as a deterrent.

With respect to the deportation numbers - if even true. If x equals inflow and y equals outflow and y is even approximately related to the total accumulation, it has to increase because x is certainly greater than y and (x-y) times years of accumulation is a significantly large and ever increasing number. And those numbers don't even touch on the anchor baby issue - pop a kid here and you can "legally" import a family.
 
#3,174
#3,174
lawgator1 said:
Illegal server?

See, this is why the far right shriek machine invariably loses any credibility. They take fact they can reasonably use, i.e. that she used very poor judgment to use a server less secure than a standard government one, and then shriek that it's "illegal," which it isn't.
Click to expand...

Was is authorized by the federal gov't? No!!!!

Did she do it anyway? Yes

So yeah jackass, I'd say it was illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top