Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I can't see Cruz winning a general election. Seems to me Kasich would do much better. Cruz comes across as humorless and utterly inflexible. I don't think that plays well outside of a narrow ideological group that is largely confined to the South. Though I don't seem to reflect the sensibilities of most Americans these days, so maybe I am wrong. Cruz won't win a delegate count vs Clinton. He'll do no better than Mitt state by state and likely worse. Can he win Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia? Negative. Can he bring into play any of the other Dem-leaning potential swing states of Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Negative. He's the wrong choice to beat Clinton for sure. Kasich would probably beat her but he won't win the nomination. Edited March 10, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Cruz sees he can beat Trump one-on-one, which is why he'd like Rubio out, but if Rubio somehow wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio, Trump is in trouble...which, as I read it, is the GOP establishment's hope. Then Rubio and Kasich drop out, and Cruz runs the tables with all the closed primaries coming. Anyone paying attention knows Trump in closed primaries is a dead dog, especially one-on-one. Then again, I'm just regurgitating what I'm reading from some optimists. I'm starting to resolve myself to a Hillary presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Cruz won't win a delegate count vs Clinton. He'll do no better than Mitt state by state and likely worse. Can he win Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia? Negative. Can he bring into play any of the other Dem-leaning potential swing states of Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Negative. He's the wrong choice to beat Clinton for sure. Kasich would probably beat her but he won't win the nomination. But a Cruz/Kasich tiicket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 But a Cruz/Kasich tiicket? VP doesn't win elections, despite all the pre-jizz that happens around the choice. It can only lose them. "My name is John McCain and I endorse that last sentence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It can only lose them. "My name is John McCain and I endorse that last sentence." That's a joke. McCain lost because of McCain. Period. He could have named the reincarnated Abe Lincoln to his VP slot and he would have lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 VP doesn't win elections, despite all the pre-jizz that happens around the choice. It can only lose them. "My name is John McCain and I endorse that last sentence." Yeah. Okay. Swing and a miss. But a funny swing nonetheless. You made me laugh. So that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 That's a joke. McCain lost because of McCain. Period. He could have named the reincarnated Abe Lincoln to his VP slot and he would have lost. That might be true but when he picked Palin, it was the decision that turned a loss into a blowout. She gave a great first press conference when nobody knew who she was (I even called my wife in to watch the replay). And from that point on, she was the conductor on the crazy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Did Cruz say abolish the IRS? Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Did Cruz say abolish the IRS? Yikes Yes. Yes he did. He's for a flat tax which could basically do just that. While I'm for a Fair Tax, both would/could pretty much eliminate the need for the IRS. In either scenario the IRS could be reduced to a very minor federal agency. Isn't that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yes. Yes he did. He's for a flat tax which could basically do just that. While I'm for a Fair Tax, both would/could pretty much eliminate the need for the IRS. In either scenario the IRS could be reduced to a very minor federal agency. Isn't that a good thing? Yup, and I'm sure the taxes will just collect themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yup, and I'm sure the taxes will just collect themselves Yes because we know the IRS's only job is collecting taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 That might be true but when he picked Palin, it was the decision that turned a loss into a blowout. She gave a great first press conference when nobody knew who she was (I even called my wife in to watch the replay). And from that point on, she was the conductor on the crazy train. Seriously. How is it you post here as often as you do with such little grasp of what you're talking about. Saying Palin was the conductor of McCain's crazy train is like saying Mitt lost because he put a dog on his roof. This is not a defense of Palin. She had no business being picked as a VP, and she would still be relatively unknown to the rest of the world had the GOP not nominated the political equivalent of Dorf on Golf. He never had a chance against Obama BEFORE he chose Palin, and by the time he was in favor of bailing out everyone in a bad mortgage, he was done with anyone interested in voting against Obama. But yeah...you keep thinking how Palin was the problem. It would explain why you think Trump has a chance against Hillary. You're likely sitting around today talking about how substantive Trump was at the debate last night, happy to get the endorsement today of a guy Trump once called a child molester. Yup, and I'm sure the taxes will just collect themselves Sometimes it's better if you just think twice before you post every little moth that enters your noggin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Sometimes it's better if you just think twice before you post every little moth that enters your noggin. Thinking once would be a step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Thinking once would be a step up. Jerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yes. Yes he did. He's for a flat tax which could basically do just that. While I'm for a Fair Tax, both would/could pretty much eliminate the need for the IRS. In either scenario the IRS could be reduced to a very minor federal agency. Isn't that a good thing? Cruz tells everyone in his phony snake oil salesman delivery that Trump’s “Gettin’ ready to stick it to the people!”. Yet his flat tax plan is nothing but a huge giveaway to the rich while screwing the middle and lower income people who end up paying more. Unless you happen to be rich, that’s not a good thing. Even if you were rich, it’d be kind of crappy to support a regessive tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Cruz tells everyone in his phony snake oil salesman delivery that Trumps Gettin ready to stick it to the people!. Yet his flat tax plan is nothing but a huge giveaway to the rich while screwing the middle and lower income people who end up paying more. Unless you happen to be rich, thats not a good thing. Even if you were rich, itd be kind of crappy to support a regessive tax. Don't worry, the benefits will trickle down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Don't worry, the benefits will trickle down! A nice golden shower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Don't worry, the benefits will trickle down! I fail to see how forcing the rich to pay taxes on ALL their income is a bad thing. Isn't that what you people want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yup, and I'm sure the taxes will just collect themselves The IRS can be downsized, renamed or replaced with a tax compliance agency or the remaining functions can be moved to another government agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Cruz tells everyone in his phony snake oil salesman delivery that Trump’s “Gettin’ ready to stick it to the people!”. Yet his flat tax plan is nothing but a huge giveaway to the rich while screwing the middle and lower income people who end up paying more. Unless you happen to be rich, that’s not a good thing. Even if you were rich, it’d be kind of crappy to support a regessive tax. A "flat tax" is not a regressive tax, it's a progressive tax. With a flat tax of, say, 20% someone earning $50,000 would pay $10,000, while someone earning $1,000,000 would pay $200,000. A fixed fee tax, where everyone was assessed the same amount, say $10,000 regardless of earnings would actually be a flat tax. A regressive tax is a tax where individuals earning less would pay a higher dollar figure in taxes than someone earning more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts