Magox

Yes, the Nationalist parties are doing sooo well in Europe and is destined to do well in a country likes ours where whites will become the minority in just 20 short years.

Lame. In regards to knowing people who are illegal immigrants, yeah, I have quite a few friends that are. Not a single one of them are taking any sort of assistance, they all work here in South Beach as bartenders, waiters and waitresses. And, since you are too dense to understand what I and other people have been trying to say, it's a matter of what the direction the alternative to the Democratic party is going. Will there be a party that continues to be mainstream and is able to propose serious policy positions or will it go the direction you want, which could turn out looking like what has happened in Europe, where the opposing political parties of the left, essentially became nationalistic parties who are seen as fringe, therefore becoming groups commonly referred to as "far right" who are irrelevant to the political process.

I read an interesting article according to insiders of how things played out between Trump and Ailes. Let's see, who is gonna be around longer? Kelly as a successful TV anchor or Trump as a successful politician? I know where my money would be.

3rd are you having a hard time understanding what I said? That link backs up what I stated, which is that gov. Overreach, debt and the economy no longer are the main drivers of motivation for the Tea Party. It says it right there, illegal immigration is the number one issue by a wide margin and that gov. Out reach "comes in a distant second". Just like I said, the Tea party doesn't solely focus on Debt, gov overreach and the economy. Taxed Enough Already. Yet another example of his non conservatism. But hey, he wants to deport all the illegals, full of bluster of non substantive bluster on China and he isn't PC. That's all his supporters care about, screw economic conservatism.

If there is any consolation to all this is that at least Trump's rhetoric and policy proposals aren't affecting everyone else. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-hispanic-favorability-121690.html?hp=l5_4 Donald Trump’s bromides on undocumented immigrants appear to have deeply damaged whatever appeal he might have once had among Hispanic voters. A new Gallup poll released Monday evening found that 65 percent of Hispanic voters say they have an unfavorable view of Trump, compared with 14 percent who view him favorably— yielding him a net favorable score of -51, well below any other presidential candidate. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, racked up the highest favorability rating among GOP candidates with a +11 net favorable score, followed by Marco Rubio with +5 and Carly Fiorina with +3. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has a net favorable rating of +40, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders with a +5 favorability score.

I'm not talking about what they claim on their charters. I'm talking about the composition of the tea party. What I said was 100% correct, not 90% not 75% not 50%, but 100%. Which is that the Tea party no longer is a group of people that solely care about government overreach, debt and economic issues. The group now has taken on immigration and social issues as one of their main causes. That is not the left telling me anything 3rd, I don't get influenced by what people say, I look at the data. The data is first and foremost what influences my decisions, followed by my observations. Taxed Enough Already. That's what it use to be about, but if you were to conduct a poll of what Tea Partiers care about most, according to the links that I provided, the #1 issue is Immigration. You obviously do support Trump. You repeatedly come to his defense, you have claimed that Americans support mass deportation more so than what actually is the case. You claim or inferred that not courting the Latino votes wouldn't affect the outcome in states like Florida and Colorado. You keep claiming that somehow even though Trump is the most disliked politician that he could garner enough support. So your words of you saying that you don't support Trump, doesn't match up with the rest of your words. Bottom line, you are a Trump supporter/sympathizer.

People are always sick of the status quo. That's not new.

How many times is this clown gonna continue to Flip Flop? But his supporters don't care, as we've already seen him flop on taking money from big money donors and a whole host of other policy positions, they simply don't care. They like Trump, because he makes them feel good.

You haven't? Really? take a look here , here and here The evidence is clear, back when the Tea Party was just getting started economic issues is what mattered most. That is no longer the case, according to polling. And when I say hijacked, I mean that the group is no longer about mainly economics, gov. overreach and debt, the group now represent a whole myriad of causes. Social issues and immigration being the dominant ones. Which is why their favorability has dropped off significantly. I always have said, when Repubs stick to Gov. overreach, debt and economics, they win. When they deviate, they lose.

You are even beginning to sound like him.

LA, you want to see what I'm talking about? I went to THEHILL and looked for the very first article I saw with Jeb Bush in it. As I knew that would attract these hate mongers. Here you go: These were just some of the first few comments and to be honest, this is relatively tame compared to the comments I typically read. It's bad. Sometimes, I literally see thousands of these sort of comments, back to back to back. I remember one time when Rubio was crafting this legislation, I read it with complete dismay, there literally was over 500 straight comments, every single one of them was filled with this sort of garbage. When someone makes reference to African Americans eating Watermelons as a way to deride them, that is seen as pretty racist, right? The comments up above is exactly the same thing. Like I said, it's nothing new, par for the course. There is a good 5% of the population that are filled with xenophobes, and they are hate-filled. This is more than just anecdotal when you read thousands and thousands of these sort of comments over the last couple years. Plus, the very fact that when Trump initially said that the illegals that come here from Mexico, that most of them are rapists and murders and that he "supposes" some are good, and that ended up being what really kick started things off for him, speaks volumes. These people, I'm not aligned with them.

No, man. I don't know how many articles everyone else reads regarding politics, but I do a **** load. And there is no group more hate-filled and vitriolic then these folks. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of vitriol out there, but these guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to this. I read the comments every day. I really began to notice the hate within these people during the immigration debate. The group that you are referring to are anarchists, I don't consider those anyone part of any political group, and they certainly aren't ones that are posting comments in the political comments section. Don't confuse uncouth miscreants with law-abiding people who harbor hate. And I didn't say the "tea party", I inferred the portion of the tea party that is obsessed with the immigration issues. I don't consider these folks true tea party people, what was the motivating force of the Tea party, LA? Remember??? Taxed Enough Already The Tea Party was most relevant and viewed with higher favorability when they stuck to the economic issues. Unfortunately for the tea party, it was hijacked by other groups, like the anti immigration and social issues voters. That was not what the Tea party was about, we spoke about that here on this board.

I think it's important to note, that these groups were center right in the political spectrum and transformed themselves into these fringe groups that are essentially irrelevant in the political process. That's why in Europe, the groups that dominate are center left to socialistic forms of governments. In other words, just different shades of the left.

There should be more than two political parties...I don't identify with these people. AT ALL! You are right. They have many autocratic beliefs, but they are referred to as "far right".

There are two bases that derive from the tea party, one is the one that has a focus on government overreach and the debt and the other that has an incessant obsession over immigration policies. I've truly begun seeing this over the years, someone like a Rubio who has top notch conservative bonafides, has a nearly perfect score by the Conservative groups who keep score on these things, which means that he is viewed as a solid conservative by any reasonable standard, when he began attempting to fix the immigration system. Holy ****! You should have read the comments section about him. I remember reading all these comments from these people calling him a spik, anchor baby, telling him to go home, that he's a traitor, a sellout, a liberal you name it. From being a solid conservative on every issue, to this. And this wasn't just a few of them, this was literally thousands of people posting this in just about every article that Rubio was in. I'm telling you right now, there is no more vitriolic bunch of people that are involved in the politics than this group. They are absolutely the worst. You don't have to take it from me, even Glenn Beck, Harsanyi, Ben Domenech, Matt Walsh, Krauthammer and others will tell you, that the comments coming from the Trump supporters, who are the exact people that I'm referring to are a mean, angry bunch. The point is that these are no longer people who care about Conservatism nearly as much as they care about immigration. And Trump is proof positive of that. A fighting chance to become a far right group like we see in Europe?

What you call leadership, others call caving into the demands of some bad characters. It won't be forgotten and although it may not be the determining factor, it will be a factor none the less. In regards to what is happening around the world, there is more interest for Geo Politics and foreign policy than at any other time since the 2004 elections. I do see this election having a strong foreign policy foot print, and Iran will be front and center.

For Democrats, that voted for this deal, there will be consequences.

Best of me? No dude, I see through his bull ****, you don't. Wake the !@#$ up! If you truly are a conservative, you should be worried about the direction this is going as well. Trump is no conservative, that has been established through his body of work and the proposals he is throwing out, which aren't conservative either. Not withstanding the talk radio right wingers, just about every conservative respected thinker is able to see right through the snakeoil salesman Trump. The problem is that people maybe even you have such a visceral view of illegal immigrants that they honestly don't care what positions Trump holds or how many times he flops. Unfortunately, this nativist sentiment that runs rampant within the certain segments of the GOP is their # 1 issue. This issue is more important than anything else for these folks, which is why they are willing to compromise their previous beliefs for someone who is so outspoken as Trump. By the way, remember when Trump was saying how if a donor wants to give a million.dollars to a campaign, that they will always want something in return? Which I don't believe is the case for many donors, but none the less he said that. And that he wouldn't take any money from large donors. He flopped on that position. But I'm sure you and Ozy don't care about that or will attempt to spin and explain his most recent flop.

Actually, oil spills isn't my area of better understanding, I just know what I read. Climate change, yeah it appears there is pretty strong evidence that it exists, I'm just a bit skeptical that it is caused by man as much as some would like you to believe. We have gone through many periods of climate change for a whole host of reasons and I don't see how this is much difference but I certainly could be wrong. I've mentioned this before, if policy makers hadn't of introduced additional forms of taxation, the demonization of fossil fuels and wealth distribution schemes as the thrust of their policy prescriptions as the panacea to help combat Climate Change I am positive that this wouldn't have become such a partisan issue. Conservatives, rightfully became suspicious of these policies as ways that liberals could advance their positions, However, with the visceral rejection of Climate change as a reactionary mechanism to oppose liberals, I think as a party they have boxed themselves into a corner appearing to fit neatly as the caricature of the anti science party. In a non polarized setting, if politicians were serious about combatting climate change, rather than punishing coal producers, adding taxes, anti drilling measures and wealth distribution schemes which are all punitive. They'd encourage investment, clean energy initiatives,research etc, They could try to deviate production of one sort of energy into another via incentives rather than punitive measures. What the Obama administration has done is unilaterally decided to become judge jury and executioner by literally decimating coal towns because of their beliefs. That is wrong. Yeah, the energy companies are wanting to rebrand themselves, they know they are in an industry that carries a stigma and that they know they are an easy target for criticism. How easy can it get? People are reminded every day that oil companies are charging the, what many feel is too high of a price every single time they fill up their tank. People, naturally believe like other products are arbitrarily determined, but their not. Companies will move to clean energies once it becomes financially viable and then will flood in that direction once its lucrative . Until then, rather than subsidizing projects that aren't viable without government assistance, they should spend their time and resources in R&D. Advances in technology will make clean energy more viable.

I've always decried PC, it has gone off the rails. But what we are seeing now is a product of this faux outrage that is occurring in our society. Just like anything, it's a pendulum and as a direct result of this, now people are wanting to take this too far to the other side. Now for some politicians, it's becoming a contest of who can say the most offensive comment and if charged with going too far, they want to protect themselves under the guise of "Thats PC bull ****". I will say what I want. That act may make some of its supporters feel good, but it will wear thin. There is a balance, from too much PC to being overly bombastic, there is a medium to be found.

Yeah, I posted the David Boaz article earlier. That alone should send alarm bells to Conservatives who are considering this guy as president. The fact that he is in favor of evicting private citizens off of property for the "greater good" is a nonstarter. What's even worse is that it wasn't even for the greater good it was so that he could build a parking lot for limousines to enrich himself, and he only offered 1/4 of the price that was offered on that same property a year older. I know there is a reactive nature among many people that any time that some of these folks can be considered nativists or xenophobes that this is some sort of race baiting issue that is propagated by liberals or mainstream media. But if you look at the preponderance of evidence there is reasonable justification to say that what is motivating these folks to follow Trump are two things, his nationalistic view that we should protect American interests via punishing the Chinese, Mexicans, Koreans and whoever through protectionist policies and his harsh rhetoric and policy proposals on illegal immigrants. I would argue that his supporters really aren't so much true blue conservatives but more so are singular issued voters, which is nativistic in nature. As Domenech noted, there seems to be a strain within the GOP that endangers the future relevance of the party. It is true, you can draw some parallels of what has happened to Europe and what could be happening to here, in that there use to be more European center right governments and with the rise of anti immigrant sentiment, came a more nationalistic sentiment with a segment of its voters. The end result is it transformed the center right parties into an unrecognizable political apparatus. They essentially are those groups that you here referred to as the "far right" parties. They hardly ever win, have virtually no clout and are seen as anethma in their society. Younger people tend to like people that are inclusive, that bares true in all the polling. I do as well, you can find the right balance of enforcing the rule of law while being inclusive. It's not a zero sum game that Trump or Obama make it out to be.

Two points, first to Gator's: If you were to draw up a way in how a plant could come in to the party and tear it apart, I couldn't have dreamt or concocted a better way than what is happening right now with Trump. For the record, I don't believe he is a plant, I just think he is an egomaniacal authoritarian that is doing this to conquer one last thing he'd like to achieve in his life, which is the ultimate goal for some once they become this wealthy, power. There is nothing more powerful than being president of the U.S. If you think Obama was bad with executive orders, that would be nothing compared to the power grabs Trump would do. Here you have an insurgent candidate, a populist who is turning his supporters into devoted cultists. Slowly but surely, his supporters are abandoning their conservative principles into this nationalistic, protectionist form. Free market capitalists? No, if Trump believes that the government should confiscate your land, he will he has stated as such , for the " greater good". If he believes that in order to balance trade with other countries, or they won't build his wall or whatever he deems unfair, he will simply impose tariffs. Of course actions like this would begin trade wars and the consequences would be disastrous as any economist would tell you. He believes in crony capitalism, he has fooled his gullible supporters withe ridiculous line that since he doesn't need money from Donors that the rest of the other candidates can be bought off. Sounds nice and appealing, except we know that he has been one of these corrupt people who has actually bought off politicians and at times has attempted to leverage his wealth against private citizens. So he wants us to believe, that he will be the agent of change when he was a serial habitual offender himself. Ha The best candidates are those that can meld the base of the party with the more moderate establishment types, who can draw some appeal to people who are not aligned with either party. His supporters will claim that is Trump. No, it is not Trump and the numbers consistently bare that. He is one of the most unlikable politicians. He has more negative favor ability ratings than any one in the GOP, even more so than Hillary. When the question is polled, would you vote for Trump or someone else (meaning a hypothetical two person race), he consistently loses by a wide margin. also, if you were to tell me that you can get a candidate who could simultaneously have a candidate who could deeply offend the Latino community with nativist, white only identity politics and be taken seriously, I would have never believed it. Well, congratulations Trump has pulled it off in spectacular fashion.. We have to look no further than our resident self-admitted xenophobe in Ozy to see that he is a product/reflection of this sentiment. In other words, he has managed to split the GOP, someone like me and I know that there would be many others would never pull the lever for this toxic candidate. He has managed to turn off the vast majority of Latinos. And there are tons of moderate tempered folks that would never vote for him and that is reflected in the polls. Right now, for the most part the media is taking it easy on him, sure there are plenty of mainstream detractors, but they are relishing in the higher TV ratings and want to see the Trump train blast on through. If he were to be nominated, which he won't but if he were, the coverage would turn so decisively against him once it became a two person race. Just imagine all the things he has said and did in his life that would be blasted on the airwaves. He says he likes to whine when he doesn't get his way, not only would he whine, he'd squeal like a stuck pig. To the second point of Joe Minor's: Yep, wouldn't affect the prices one iota. What does the CEO of Exxon make? $40 million? Exxon produced nearly 2 billion barrels of oil last year. At nearly $90 a barrel, that is $180 billion dollars in revenues. Anyone want to venture a guess what 40 million represents out of that total? Minuscule. Same goes with subsidies. Bottom line, the prices are determined by an actual market of buyers and sellers. Most of it is driven by commercial producers who hedge their costs along with speculators. And before anyone wants to delve into the issue of speculation and how it drives up the price. Don't, because you will lose that argument.

Nothing is free, right? So when we speak about "free" education, basically we mean government paid education. Lets put aside the tremendous cost of taking on such an endeavor and focus on what I believe is the root problem, which is inflation in tuition rates. Having the government pay for the tuition of students in private Universities will not solve this issue if anything it would exacerbate the inflationary rates of tuitions as there tends to be more waste from government spending. Unless of course they propose something similar as what they do for Healthcare in Medicare or on exchange ACA policies where they lower the medical reimbursement rates to the medical providers as opposed to Providers who accept the off exchange plans. I'm noticing now, which was expected and I remember saying this years ago when they were trying to pass the law. That we are now beginning to see a two tier medical system. Those who receive the subsidies that get good benefits and often get their plans extremely cheap, BUT the providers specially in the HMO, EPO, POS accepted policies rely on VOLUME. Since they don't charge that much from the insurer because of the lower medical reimbursement rates, the quality of care is lessened. Takes in many cases months before you can see your primary care physician. The allotted time that you have with your physician is less. In many cases, more so in the less populated areas, you may not even be able to see certain sort of specialists in the network. In other words, if you are willing to pay more and get a PPO or go off exchange you can get higher quality of care. My point is, would the government in order to lower costs try to adopt a similar tact? pay out less to Universities that decide to participate? Of course if they did, same issue, the quality of education most likely would suffer because you'd most likely see more administrative cuts, larger class sizes etc. I also fear that if government is paying the tab, they would have more say in the curriculum. Geez, it's extremely liberal as it is, too much so. Imagine how further out to the left it would go once they are paying the tab. Of course this would present a quandary for liberal politicians as the teachers/professors are a voting constituency and Democrats more often than not use identity politics to form their coalition. How would educators react if the cutting of administrative costs meant the lowering or the growth of their wages were to slow? I don't think they'd be happy with that. In any case, I don't see how this is a workable proposal in regards to slowing the inflation in tuitions

Yeah,I read that. I like Yuval Levin, another good mind.