Changes

:::With someone like Barack Obama winning two terms, with so many candidates running and with Hillary's scandals deepening in their unseemly revelations, it is extremely hard to predict who will be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

:::With someone like Barack Obama winning two terms, with so many candidates running and with Hillary's scandals deepening in their unseemly revelations, it is extremely hard to predict who will be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

::::I'll predict: Scott Walker. He's way ahead in Iowa.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html] The only other plausible candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary -- and we need to be optimistic. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:31, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

::::I'll predict: Scott Walker. He's way ahead in Iowa.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html] The only other plausible candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary -- and we need to be optimistic. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:31, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

::::::I'll throw my hat in the prediction ring! I'd say for the Republican ticket it'll be Bush/Rubio (that would really pull the Hispanic vote, which the Republicans desperately need). The big Dem strategy for the future is flip Texas imho, but I don't see a way to do that this time. So probably Clinton/Webb since he's really no threat to her, and that might help them in Virginia and maybe with the military crowd. I seriously doubt the RNC will let Trump run, and if he runs independent the Republicans are sunk. I think this is actually pretty likely too. So I'm guessing a three party ticket featuring Trump/Whoever (I really thought it would be Fiorina to cement the business platform, and that way they wouldn't be left out of the "diversity race," but they've been having words lately so I don't know...), Bush/Rubio (no questions about Florida this time), and Clinton/Webb (maybe O'Malley if Jimbo gets too feisty at the debates). That almost certainly means another Clinton presidency. I guess everybody gets two turns in America...

::::::I'll throw my hat in the prediction ring! I'd say for the Republican ticket it'll be Bush/Rubio (that would really pull the Hispanic vote, which the Republicans desperately need). The big Dem strategy for the future is flip Texas imho, but I don't see a way to do that this time. So probably Clinton/Webb since he's really no threat to her, and that might help them in Virginia and maybe with the military crowd. I seriously doubt the RNC will let Trump run, and if he runs independent the Republicans are sunk. I think this is actually pretty likely too. So I'm guessing a three party ticket featuring Trump/Whoever (I really thought it would be Fiorina to cement the business platform, and that way they wouldn't be left out of the "diversity race," but they've been having words lately so I don't know...), Bush/Rubio (no questions about Florida this time), and Clinton/Webb (maybe O'Malley if Jimbo gets too feisty at the debates). That almost certainly means another Clinton presidency. I guess everybody gets two turns in America...<small>unsigned edit by [[User:RNozickFan]]</small>

::::::::That's a good point. I wonder if that spread still makes sense if you only take battleground states into account. In any case I think the GOP is chasing the Hispanic vote as more of a long-term investment. The current population spread in this country has a relatively limited shelf-life.  

:::::I wonder how much Trump is willing to spend to advance his campaign. It could be Walker's Koch brothers funding vs. Trump's campaign dollars. Hillary and Jeb Bush can probably raise a lot of money too. Perhaps, to a lessor degree, Cruz and Rubio will be able to generate campaign cash (but they are young and can raise name awareness for next time).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

:::::I wonder how much Trump is willing to spend to advance his campaign. It could be Walker's Koch brothers funding vs. Trump's campaign dollars. Hillary and Jeb Bush can probably raise a lot of money too. Perhaps, to a lessor degree, Cruz and Rubio will be able to generate campaign cash (but they are young and can raise name awareness for next time).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

I just thought. A lot of Trump's money is tied up in commercial real estate and businesses.  So there is the liquidity issue. So Trump could potentially try to raise money for his campaign. I wonder how easy it is for a billionaire to raise money for a presidential campaign? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

I just thought. A lot of Trump's money is tied up in commercial real estate and businesses.  So there is the liquidity issue. So Trump could potentially try to raise money for his campaign. I wonder how easy it is for a billionaire to raise money for a presidential campaign? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

:You could be right. I read that he has 302 million in liquid wealth, and I think he's spent close to 2 million. So he could conceivably go awhile, and he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion (which would obviously mean liquidating some assets). I think he really would too.

:You could be right. I read that he has 302 million in liquid wealth, and I think he's spent close to 2 million. So he could conceivably go awhile, and he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion (which would obviously mean liquidating some assets). I think he really would too.

==Hillary's poll numbers collapse==

==Hillary's poll numbers collapse==

::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

== This site ==

== Is this a satire site? ==

 

No offense meant, at all, but I would like to know before posting. Of course, if it is, a truly skilled satirist would never let on! Just checking in with the community!

No offense meant, at all, but I would like to know before posting. Of course, if it is, a truly skilled satirist would never let on! Just checking in with the community!

:::::::This is a lot of edits without a single substantive one.  How about doing a substantive edit and discussing that, rather than merely debating in the abstract?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

:::::::This is a lot of edits without a single substantive one.  How about doing a substantive edit and discussing that, rather than merely debating in the abstract?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

::::::::A rather strict definition of "substantive." Isn't all pursuit of the truth substantive? Are we not educating each other through discussion? As I said, I'll consider the kinds of contributions you're talking about, and continue to look out for this "marketplace of ideas" so well-regarded here.

::::::::A rather strict definition of "substantive." Isn't all pursuit of the truth substantive? Are we not educating each other through discussion? As I said, I'll consider the kinds of contributions you're talking about, and continue to look out for this "marketplace of ideas" so well-regarded here.