Ted Cruz: 2020 election is a 'coin flip' for Trump

[sneakypete]

They're going to need all of them, @sneakypete

The 'Blue Dems' crossing-over to celebrate their jobs and increasing opportunities will save the Day.

@DCPatriot

I am going to GUESS that the 15 dollar an hour minimum wage promise by the Dims will scare away more than a few blue-collar and union workers,too. Most of them will realize that will either put them out of work,or earning only a little more than minimum wage.

Just how dumb do you have to be to NOT be able to understand that will kill entry-level jobs,jobs for seniors who need the extra income,and will raise the prices of everything so high that nobody retired will be able to buy anything.

It is nothing less than a financial atomic bomb attack on America.

[roamer_1]

@DCPatriot

I am going to GUESS that the 15 dollar an hour minimum wage promise by the Dims will scare away more than a few blue-collar and union workers,too. Most of them will realize that will either put them out of work,or earning only a little more than minimum wage.

Just how dumb do you have to be to NOT be able to understand that will kill entry-level jobs,jobs for seniors who need the extra income,and will raise the prices of everything so high that nobody retired will be able to buy anything.

It is nothing less than a financial atomic bomb attack on America.

No, FWIW, Union scale is tied to the minimum wage. IOW, Unions will get a fat raise out of any minimum wage increase.

[DCPatriot]

No, FWIW, Union scale is tied to the minimum wage. IOW, Unions will get a fat raise out of any minimum wage increase.

That's absolutely true.

They will strike in a 'New York Minute' if they can tie their hourly worth to  the, 'ugh'.....the 'minimum wage'.  How dare you?

[sneakypete]

No, FWIW, Union scale is tied to the minimum wage. IOW, Unions will get a fat raise out of any minimum wage increase.

@roamer_1

That doesn't really mean anything. There is a maximum cost of production level that when reached,dictates that the price of the product be raised if possible,and if not possible or practical,the product will no longer be made. People don't build and operate factories unless there is a profit to be made. Which means they can "raise" themselves right into the unemployment line.

There is also inflation to consider,as well as being put into a higher tax bracket and having to pay more taxes on a salary that already doesn't buy anything.

NOTHING in the financial world happens in a vacuum. It is all inter-related.

In other words,there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

That doesn't really mean anything. There is a maximum cost of production level that when reached,dictates that the price of the product be raised if possible,and if not possible or practical,the product will no longer be made. People don't build and operate factories unless there is a profit to be made. Which means they can "raise" themselves right into the unemployment line.

There is also inflation to consider,as well as being put into a higher tax bracket and having to pay more taxes on a salary that already doesn't buy anything.

NOTHING in the financial world happens in a vacuum. It is all inter-related.

In other words,there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

@sneakypete
All of that means nothing in the face of a Union contract. Believe me, they will get an automatic pay increase commiserate (by percentage) with the increase in minimum wage, as will all government employees.

As always, the realities of industry be damned.

[Applewood]

We either stop the invasion of illegals and the Dims registering them to vote ,or America will cease to exist after the 2020 elections.

@sneakypete

The above is what Trump supporters and Republican voters in general should be DEMANDING of every Republican from Trump on down.  Voters have become sheep -- listening to the same  promises (lies) all the time and expecting that somehow this year, if they elect Mr. X, the problem with illegal immigration will magically disappear.  I have heard these promises since long before Trump ran for office and all these years later, Republicans still haven't followed though.  Don't just go to the polls and vote Republican.  Don't attend campaign rallies and listen to the same old, same old.  Write, call or email the candidates, protest at the rallies,  make your voices heard. 

[GrouchoTex]

I'm one of those people.  Not because I think Trump has turned out to be "not so bad", but because he has delivered on the judiciary (even as he has failed in immigration and further ballooned the debt), and I am concerned that he is *losing*, not *gaining*, independents and others due to his continued puerile immaturity.

There is a fair case to be made that his confrontation with "The Squad" has forced the dems to accept "The Squad" as their face to the public, and that face will repel independents and moderates.  But that doesn't mean those people will be drawn to Trump.  At some point he should consider the wisdom of doing nothing when one's enemy is destroying himself.  But Trump is too much of a narcissist to ever remain quiet.

I'm in this camp as well.
After all the gains in the judiciary, and this is quite significant, and the good economic news, I will vote for Trump, and now take him more seriously as the incumbent than I did as a candidate, no doubt.
The debt still bothers me.
I can hope a few fiscal hawks are still around to change course.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any lately.
Tying the squad to the rest of the democrat party is a good move, but to continue on, it just becomes pedantic, and runs the risk of alienating some.
They may not be swayed vote democrat, but they may not vote at all.

[aligncare]

I'm in this camp as well.
After all the gains in the judiciary, and this is quite significant, and the good economic news, I will vote for Trump, and now take him more seriously as the incumbent than I did as a candidate, no doubt.
The debt still bothers me.
I can hope a few fiscal hawks are still around to change course.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any lately.
Tying the squad to the rest of the democrat party is a good move, but to continue on, it just becomes pedantic, and runs the risk of alienating some.
They may not be swayed vote democrat, but they may not vote at all.

In Trump’s mind he’s got 5 1/2 years (and two more congressional elections) to push for congressional action on runaway spending, while continuing to make further cost reductions in the executive branch under his control. And once he becomes a lame duck, he’ll use social media as a bully pulpit to shame the big spenders in both parties.

I also think he expects further growth in the economy (under his brilliant leadership) to help further shrink existing debt.

He comes from the business world where the bottom line still means something.

[GrouchoTex]

In Trump’s mind he’s got 5 1/2 years (and two more congressional elections) to push for congressional action on runaway spending, while continuing to make further cost reductions in the executive branch under his control. And once he becomes a lame duck, he’ll use social media as a bully pulpit to shame the big spenders in both parties.

I also think he expects further growth in the economy (under his brilliant leadership) to help further shrink existing debt.

He comes from the business world where the bottom line still means something.

I sure hope you are correct, and that this is his mindset,
I do know that he has asked his cabinet secretaries to find reductions.
Whether any of them have or not, I haven't heard the result.
The economic expansion should lead to increased revenue into the treasury, but spending decreases, at the very least, spending freeze should be enacted, our it will all be for naught.
Yes, business background or not, the bottom line still means something, or it should, anyway.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@sneakypete
All of that means nothing in the face of a Union contract. Believe me, they will get an automatic pay increase commiserate (by percentage) with the increase in minimum wage, as will all government employees.

As always, the realities of industry be damned.

That may be true in some industries, but it's very much untrue in others.  What you do sometimes see is wage compression, where the lowest paid workers do see an increase, but it diminishes as a percent as you go up the wage scale. 

One of my major clients is extremely susceptible to foreign competition, and labor cost increases on our end simply cannot be passed on or we will lose business and have to layoff employees.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@sneakypete

The above is what Trump supporters and Republican voters in general should be DEMANDING of every Republican from Trump on down.  Voters have become sheep -- listening to the same  promises (lies) all the time and expecting that somehow this year, if they elect Mr. X, the problem with illegal immigration will magically disappear.  I have heard these promises since long before Trump ran for office and all these years later, Republicans still haven't followed though.  Don't just go to the polls and vote Republican.  Don't attend campaign rallies and listen to the same old, same old.  Write, call or email the candidates, protest at the rallies,  make your voices heard.

The problem has always been that "Republicans" are not monolithic, and just a few RINO's on immigration can sink the power of a GOP majority.  What we have to do is elect enough Republicans that we can afford a few defections.

But that's more difficult to do when some people advocate not voting for Republicans as a way of "sending a message".  All that accomplishes is putting us further away from having enough votes to get through immigration reform.

[aligncare]

I sure hope you are correct, and that this is his mindset,
I do know that he has asked his cabinet secretaries to find reductions.
Whether any of them have or not, I haven't heard the result.
The economic expansion should lead to increased revenue into the treasury, but spending decreases, at the very least, spending freeze should be enacted, our it will all be for naught.
Yes, business background or not, the bottom line still means something, or it should, anyway.

The problem is with congress, where nearly 100 percent of them are career politicians with no real world experience.

Once elected, they’re in “The Club,” where incumbents are routinely re-elected regardless of outcomes. And they control an endless stream of taxpayer money with apparently no repercussions for voting Yea on bloated and unaccountable spending. Every two years they deliver more “free” stuff and soaring campaign speeches to ensure their re-election.

[libertybele]

The problem has always been that "Republicans" are not monolithic, and just a few RINO's on immigration can sink the power of a GOP majority.  What we have to do is elect enough Republicans that we can afford a few defections.

But that's more difficult to do when some people advocate not voting for Republicans as a way of "sending a message".  All that accomplishes is putting us further away from having enough votes to get through immigration reform.

The problem is that there aren't enough conservative Republicans challenging the RINO's in Congress and therefore they get re-elected, as often the choice is between a DEM or a RINO. I believe that's the reason people don't vote.  They don't care to vote for either a DEM or a RINO.  Often GOP leadership puts the money and endorsements behind the incumbents, making it difficult for conservatives to fill seats. Mitch is noted for doing so.  He has thrown more support towards his own party, now that McCain is gone as has Graham.

Why is it that the RINO's often vote along with the DEMS, but it seems that the DEMS always vote along with the DEMS? McCain was a perfect example and a thorn in the GOP's side.

[HoustonSam]

In Trump’s mind he’s got 5 1/2 years (and two more congressional elections) to push for congressional action on runaway spending, while continuing to make further cost reductions in the executive branch under his control.

He comes from the business world where the bottom line still means something.

Since the day Trump rode down the escalator his apologists have been telling us what he really means, what he's actually saying, what is truly in his mind.  Every time he says something stupid his sycophants rush to the mikes and keyboards to translate his latest gaffe and touch up the veneer of strategic genius they have painted on him.  Amazingly, he's a "very stable genius" who seems completely incapable of speaking clearly for himself.  Just as the progressives projected onto Obama what they wanted him to be, so do Trump's acolytes project onto Trump what they want *him* to be.

The veneer is transparent; there is no strategic genius underneath it.  Trump ran as a deal maker but the only deal he's been able to make is the same kind of deal other politicians have been making for generations and that any of the other R candidates could have made had they won the White House - spend more money.  There is simply no reason to believe that Trump has any Grand Strategy to rein in federal spending.  He did not run as a fiscal conservative, he has never articulated fiscal conservatism, and he has not delivered fiscal restraint.

He's earned my 2020 vote on the judiciary, and I'll defend him against false charges of racism.  But he is what he is, and he's not what he's not.  Fiscal hawk and strategic genius are in the latter category.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Since the day Trump rode down the escalator his apologists have been telling us what he really means, what he's actually saying, what is truly in his mind.  Every time he says something stupid his sycophants rush to the mikes and keyboards to translate his latest gaffe and touch up the veneer of strategic genius they have painted on him.  Amazingly, he's a "very stable genius" who seems completely incapable of speaking clearly for himself.  Just as the progressives projected onto Obama what they wanted him to be, so do Trump's acolytes project onto Trump what they want *him* to be.

The veneer is transparent; there is no strategic genius underneath it.  Trump ran as a deal maker but the only deal he's been able to make is the same kind of deal other politicians have been making for generations and that any of the other R candidates could have made had they won the White House - spend more money.  There is simply no reason to believe that Trump has any Grand Strategy to rein in federal spending.  He did not run as a fiscal conservative, he has never articulated fiscal conservatism, and he has not delivered fiscal restraint.

He's earned my 2020 vote on the judiciary, and I'll defend him against false charges of racism.  But he is what he is, and he's not what he's not.  Fiscal hawk and strategic genius are in the latter category.

I support Trump, but that's completely fair.

Maybe he will turn around and suddenly become a fiscal conservative if we wins re-election, but that's just a bald hope, not a reasonable prediction.

[sneakypete]

I support Trump, but that's completely fair.

Maybe he will turn around and suddenly become a fiscal conservative if we wins re-election, but that's just a bald hope, not a reasonable prediction.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Given the current size of the budget,the promises that have been made by Congress,and the FACT that congresscritters rely on the feral budget to buy elections,it's asking a little too much of Trump to ask him to defeat the self-serving system Congress has had in place for decades.

You wan to know who REALLY has the power to do this? It's not Trump or any other President. It is thee and me,the voters.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Given the current size of the budget,the promises that have been made by Congress,and the FACT that congresscritters rely on the feral budget to buy elections,it's asking a little too much of Trump to ask him to defeat the self-serving system Congress has had in place for decades.

You wan to know who REALLY has the power to do this? It's not Trump or any other President. It is thee and me,the voters.

@sneakypete

Well...that sounds like a very fine explanation of why we are right about it not happening.

[HoustonSam]

Maybe he will turn around and suddenly become a fiscal conservative if we wins re-election, but that's just a bald hope, not a reasonable prediction.

I join you in that hope, but I won't be placing any bets on it.

[libertybele]

I support Trump, but that's completely fair.

Maybe he will turn around and suddenly become a fiscal conservative if we wins re-election, but that's just a bald hope, not a reasonable prediction.

IMHO IF Trump wins re-election we will see Trump 'unleashed'; nothing will hold him back and I'm not so sure that is going to be a good thing.

[HoustonSam]

Given the current size of the budget,the promises that have been made by Congress,and the FACT that congresscritters rely on the feral budget to buy elections,it's asking a little too much of Trump to ask him to defeat the self-serving system Congress has had in place for decades.

Sorry, no.  Trump was supposed to be the straight-talking, "not-a-politician", businessman who could change DC; those were his strengths and the distinct reasons given for supporting him.  Now we are told that we should forgive him for not being enough of a politician.  That doesn't fly.

However I will say in Trump's defense that I don't remember *him* ever saying that he was the "not-a-politician".  That was the argument of his most enthusiastic supporters.  Trump's spoken position was to build the wall and call everyone else juvenile names.

You wan to know who REALLY has the power to do this? It's not Trump or any other President. It is thee and me,the voters.

I certainly agree here.  We have the elected government we have because we are the people we are.  The fundamental problem precedes voting, it's cultural and philosophical.

[EdJames]

The problem has always been that "Republicans" are not monolithic, and just a few RINO's on immigration can sink the power of a GOP majority.  What we have to do is elect enough Republicans that we can afford a few defections.

But that's more difficult to do when some people advocate not voting for Republicans as a way of "sending a message".  All that accomplishes is putting us further away from having enough votes to get through immigration reform.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Give that man a Nat Sherman cigar!

It really bugs me to see the constant pretense of the existence of a monolithic GOP.  I don't know if it is borne of ignorance or duplicity, but this constant harping about "should have worked with the GOP Congress" is patently disgusting.  The reality is that there are many members of the "GOP Congress" that are actively working against what we would like to see Trump accomplish on many fronts.  With Ryan as Speaker, the GOP House was never going to support anything useful for the border security and a host of other objectives.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Give that man a Nat Sherman cigar!

It really bugs me to see the constant pretense of the existence of a monolithic GOP.  I don't know if it is borne of ignorance or duplicity, but this constant harping about "should have worked with the GOP Congress" is patently disgusting.  The reality is that there are many members of the "GOP Congress" that are actively working against what we would like to see Trump accomplish on many fronts.  With Ryan as Speaker, the GOP House was never going to support anything useful for the border security and a host of other objectives.

 

@EdJames

It's so comforting for those who fashion themselves cynics or more "aware" than the rest of us to bash the GOP as a whole when it fails to accomplish things, but that's simply unfair.  Hell, it's even apparent on the Democrat side when a few Blue Dogs in 2010 prevented us from going full socialist with a "public option" in 2010, and the Dems had to settle for ObamaCare instead. 

It's both wrong and counter productive to blame the representatives from a party who vote the "right" way for the "wrong" votes of other members of the party.  The most logical reaction to a few GOP defectors sinking needed legislation should be to 1) elect more Republicans so you have enough to survive some defections from the RINO's, and 2) try to nominate more conservative Republicans to replace the ones who defect.  And if you can't primary those RINO's and the choice is between A Dem and a RINO...well, it's still usually better to go with the RINO, because they will vote with you more often than will a Dem.  Case in point -- RINO Susan Collins being the critical GOP Senator to support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

But trying to punish the party as a whole for the votes of a few by withholding all support only makes the situation worse.  It may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't make logical sense.

[sneakypete]

Sorry, no.  Trump was supposed to be the straight-talking, "not-a-politician", businessman who could change DC; those were his strengths and the distinct reasons given for supporting him.

That,and the FACT that he wasn't and isn't a career politician. Which is the part that seems to piss you NT'ers off the most. Although I STRONGLY suspect that if he were from Texas most of the NT's on his board would love him to death.

Now we are told that we should forgive him for not being enough of a politician.  That doesn't fly.

<Personal insults removed>

I certainly agree here.  We have the elected government we have because we are the people we are.  The fundamental problem precedes voting, it's cultural and philosophical.

Yeah,I am not any happier about that than you are,but it remains "THE uncomfortable truth".

Another uncomfortable truth for some is the FACT that we will NEVER change the system of political corruption as long as we continue to support it by voting for the vast majority of the usual suspect career politicians.

Speaking of uncomfortable political truths,we had change IN OUR HANDS when we elected Newt and the others to take over congress. Then people got cocky about others "seeing the truth and changing their ways",and allowed a BUNCH of Dim Congresscritters to switch party labels and start wearing a Big Red R on their chests. They did what Dims do. They formed lobbies,stabbed people in the back,and eventually took over control of Congress and gave Newt the boot over something about as serious as a parking ticket.  AFAICS,there hasn't been an actual Republican in control of anything more important than lunch money since,yet half the retards here and on the other political boards are STILL insisting we vote for anybody with a R behind his or her name. I honestly think those fools would get orgasmic with joy if Bubbette! or the tranny known as Michelle would hold a press conference,announce they had seen the errors of their ways,and are now Republicans. Chances are either would be leading in the polls within 24 hours.

[HoustonSam]

Which is the part that seems to piss you NT'ers off the most.

I have made clear on this board that I will be voting for Trump in 2020.

[EdJames]

@EdJames

It's so comforting for those who fashion themselves cynics or more "aware" than the rest of us to bash the GOP as a whole when it fails to accomplish things, but that's simply unfair.  Hell, it's even apparent on the Democrat side when a few Blue Dogs in 2010 prevented us from going full socialist with a "public option" in 2010, and the Dems had to settle for ObamaCare instead. 

It's both wrong and counter productive to blame the representatives from a party who vote the "right" way for the "wrong" votes of other members of the party.  The most logical reaction to a few GOP defectors sinking needed legislation should be to 1) elect more Republicans so you have enough to survive some defections from the RINO's, and 2) try to nominate more conservative Republicans to replace the ones who defect.  And if you can't primary those RINO's and the choice is between A Dem and a RINO...well, it's still usually better to go with the RINO, because they will vote with you more often than will a Dem.  Case in point -- RINO Susan Collins being the critical GOP Senator to support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

But trying to punish the party as a whole for the votes of a few by withholding all support only makes the situation worse.  It may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't make logical sense.

It is often called cutting off your nose, to spite your face.

Here is another factor that makes the worst "RINO" worth more than a Dem: that RINO will appear in the headcount that determines which party is the majority.  The way that both chambers function, there is no reasonable chance at moving favorable legislation from the minority position.

@Maj. Bill Martin