EGO BOOST
HEDGEHOG REPORT SOCIAL NETWORK

Search

Lamb Now Leads by 6% in PA-18

Just getting around to this poll from Monmouth University that was released earlier today showing the Democrat Conor Lamb opening up a 6% lead in his bid to take the open Republican seat in Pennsylvania.

US HOUSE – PENNSYLVANIA – CD18 SPECIAL (Monmouth)
Conor Lamb (D) 51%
Rick Saccone (R) 45%

This poll was done Mach 8-11 among 372 likely voters.

Posted by Dave at 9:00 pm
Filed under: General | Comments (476)

476 Responses to “Lamb Now Leads by 6% in PA-18”

  1. Michael says:

    First!

  2. NYCmike says:

    Michael is sloppy 2nd’s again!

  3. NYCmike says:

    Ouch.

    My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.

  4. Michael says:

    Went to a Delco YR’s meeting tonight. Got two meet two of our candidates for the doomed new PA-05. They are very competent and would likely be excellent candidates in the old PA-07.

    Pearl Kim (worked in PA-AG office) and Carol Pozos (former federal prosecutor)

  5. MichiganGuy says:

    Prediction:
    .
    Conor Lamb (D) 50%
    Rick Saccone (R) 47%

  6. Bitterlaw says:

    I will probably vote for Kim in the primary.

  7. MichiganGuy says:

    3% still undecided on election day. lol

  8. Phil says:

    That would be a flip of four seats from Pennsylvania counting the three we are getting screwed out of in November.

    Pelosi must love Pa.

  9. Bitterlaw says:

    Phil – Don’t hate. PA gave you Trump. The Dem Supreme Court screwed over the GOP controlled legislature.

  10. NYCmike says:

    “The Dem Supreme Court screwed over the GOP controlled legislature.”

    -Was the US Supremes picking up the Republican challenge?

  11. Phil says:

    I was really referring to The Dem Supreme Court, bitter. Didn’t really mean the state per se. The Democratic Court pulled off the perfect political coup. That combined with the Republican congressman from the 8th who couldn’t keep it in his pants and you have four seats down the drain. We have a total of 22 to work with in November but Democrats knew it would be close and so they got three in one swipe. They needed them and they went out and got them- by hook and in this case by crook. Well done Democrats. Well done.

  12. Phil says:

    Unlike our side, Democrats always play to win.

  13. Bitterlaw says:

    Phil – Considering that the Dems have a large registration edge in PA, were lucky to have had an advantage in representation as long as we did. However, the Dems were hampered by having many of its voters in one place – Philadelphia.

  14. jason says:

    Saccone 53
    Lamb 47

  15. jason says:

    It’s not that I don’t believe the polls, but polls are a snapshot in time.

    I have a feeling the R advantage in this district will be hard for Lamb to overcome.

    Unless there are a significant number of Rs that believe Lamb is not a flaming liberal, in which case you can’t account for that kind of stupidity.

    If sanity prevails, Saccone will win fairly easily.

  16. jason says:

    Has there been a ruling on the redistricting appeal yet?

  17. Phil says:

    The Democrats tried to pull his crap in North Carolina and the federal courts put a stop to it. Won’t happen in Pa.

  18. NYCmike says:

    jason joins me on the plus side…….will he stick to it knowing that?

  19. Tina says:

    I will be here tomorrow faulting trump.

    Jebot

  20. MichiganGuy says:

    Jason, this is where we are right now.
    .
    “Republicans have pursued two separate avenues of appeal, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the map while also filing a lawsuit in Harrisburg seeking an injunction to prevent the map from taking effect ahead of May’s primary elections.
    The U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected a similar appeal in February, has not yet ruled on the latest petition.
    Several incumbent Republican congressmen are plaintiffs in the Harrisburg lawsuit, which will be heard by a three-judge panel as per federal law regarding electoral challenges. ”
    .
    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-court-to-weigh-republican-challenge-to-pennsylvania-voter-redistricting-2018-3

  21. Tina says:

    Donald J. Trump
    ?
    @realDonaldTrump
    THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
    5:49 PM – Mar 12, 2018

  22. Tina says:

    No collusion.

    Jebots suicidal.

  23. Hugh says:

    I think this one is gone. Lose by 6. Another chump candidate.

  24. Tina says:

    Conspiracy theorist Schiff for brains also hard hit.

  25. Tina says:

    Nick Short ??
    Nick Short ??
    @PoliticalShort
    ·
    1h
    Robert Mueller invokes ‘conspiracy to defraud government’ charge in Russia probe aka fishing expedition.

  26. Tina says:

    Josh Caplan
    Josh Caplan
    @joshdcaplan
    Bitter Hillary Clinton suggests to audience in Mumbai, India that voters who supported Trump in 2016 did so because they “didn’t like black people getting rights,” or women getting jobs.

    And this was the jebots candidate?

  27. jason says:

    YCmike says:
    March 12, 2018 at 9:57 pm

    jason joins me on the plus side…….will he stick to it knowing that?”

    NYCmike says:
    March 12, 2018 at 9:19 pm

    Ouch.

    My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.”

    LOL

    That is the plus side?

  28. Phil says:

    Right now the Democrats need 22 seats to flip in November to take the House.

    Right now I see Democrats picking up 20 if the election was tomorrow.

    California – 3
    NJ – 2
    NY -2
    Fla – 2
    Pa – 4 {counts tomorrow’s loss)
    Tx – 1
    Mich – 1
    Wa – 1
    Az – 1 (McSally’s seat)
    Ne – 1
    Ia -1
    Ill – 1

    There are only four Dem seats that would even remotely be considered vulnerable and Dems probably favored in all but one.

    Nevada – 1
    NH – 1
    Minn – 2

    other Republican seats not among the 21 I see going that could actually go are

    Colorado – 1 (6th Coffman)
    Va – 1 (10th Comstock)
    Ga) 1 (Handel’s Atlanta suburban seat)

  29. Phil says:

    Glad to see Hillary continues to play the fool.

  30. NYCmike says:

    I said 52Saccone-48Lamb. The poll says the opposite.

  31. Albert Hodges says:

    Saccone for the win by more than 1 vote.

    All that is needed.

  32. NYCmike says:

    Hillary does not “play” the fool.

    Bubba asked what the definition of IS is……Hillary IS the fool!

  33. Michael says:

    Bitter I am deciding between Kim and Clare, I signed Clare’s petition but I could easily vote for Kim as well. Both are qualified.

    Also for my prediction:

    Saccone – 50%
    Lamb – 49%

  34. Michael says:

    Would anyone be interested in having a tournament group?

  35. MichiganGuy says:

    Probably one of the worst political ads I’ve seen. I wonder how much money the NRCC wasted on this ad.
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=FCiW-R5bY2k

  36. BRENT says:

    51-49 saccone

  37. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    We had a past discussion of this idiot being a major cause of the collapse of the Republican Party in California

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/377894-schwarzenegger-targeting-oil-companies-for-knowingly-killing

    I talked to someone who had to work with him as governor, and he referred to Arnold as “the stupidest person he had ever met.”

  38. Tina says:

    Nobody up, this Am?

    No muh russian news?

  39. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    My prediction for PA CD-18:

    Lamb(D)- 46.5%
    Saccone(R)- 52.0%
    Other- 1.5%

    You can take it to the Bank!

    Sheeple Jr.

  40. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    The (almost) President of the USA showing youthful vim and vigor:
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-slips-stairs-india-despite-two-men-holding/

  41. jason says:

    I just left the bank.

    I tried to deposit Sheeple’s prediction but they said they only take cash.

    Morons.

  42. ssq says:

    Dicks won’t ever see me again.

  43. jason says:

    I said 52Saccone-48Lamb. The poll says the opposite.”

    And you want to have it both ways.

    As usual.

  44. Bitterlaw says:

    Wizard – Put up the Brackets!

    The old one still exists but very few still have the link.

  45. jason says:

    I am taking Sheeple’s prediction to the gun shop in Ronks to see if they will trade it for an AR-15, maybe they are smarter than bankers.

  46. jason says:

    Tina, the jebbots won’t kill themselves yet.

    They are waiting for Mueller to come up with obstruction of an investigation on collusion where there is no collusion.

  47. jason says:

    Barring that, according to Maxine Waters, there is Stormy.

    Barring that, there is the fake psychologist’s report.

    Have you noticed that the “mental illness” angle Wobbie was so excited about has flamed out spectacularly?

  48. Messy57 says:

    13. NOW they do. Obama and and Debbie (bad for the Jews) Shultz didn’t. The latter put Hillary first and the rest of the party be damned.

  49. Messy57 says:

    42. Who cares? She lost and won’t run for office again.

  50. dblaikie says:

    The real threat coming from Stormy is that she is such an honest, moral, and upright person. I am sure her only reason that she wants to tell her story is to help society and has nothing to do with making money.

    What do you all think of my Robbie impersonation?

  51. jason says:

    UAW President Cecil Roberts defines Lamb:

    “Let me try to explain to you what kind of folks we are and what kind of Democrat Conor is. He’s a God-fearing, union-supporting, gun-owning, job-protecting, pension-defending, Social Security-believing, health-care-creating and sending-drug-dealers-to-jail Democrat!”

  52. Wobbles says:

    There you go again, casting aspersions on the character of these find upstanding women who have no other intention except to tell the truth and seek justice for all the wrongs they endured.

    The idea a porn star is interested in publicity and money is just shocking, who ever heard of such a thing.

  53. Bitterlaw says:

    I am very disappointed in HHR. There was a noticeable lack of effort in rewighting the polls to give Saccone a win. Step it up, damn it.

  54. Messy57 says:

    53. I’m surprised he lasted this long.

    BTW. The House intel committee said that Pompeo committed perjury by saying the Russians supported Trump in their preliminary report.

  55. MichiganGuy says:

    @54 Jason, thanks for the good laugh.

  56. Messy57 says:

    56. It’s too late to do anything about it now.

  57. dblaikie says:

    Here you go Bitter: Any effort to reweigh an already bogus poll will only reap bogus results. In other words: bogus + bogus = bogus.

    Now watch Lamb win by 6 points. But even if that happens I will claim that Monmouth wasn’t accurate but just plain lucky.

  58. MichiganGuy says:

    Sheeple, Jr. says:
    March 13, 2018 at 8:50 am

    Rex Tillerson has been canned and will be replaced by CIA Director,Mike Pompeo.
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Yep, it is never a good idea to call your boss a moron. 😉

  59. Chicon says:

    Anecdotal reports out of PA-18 of a large number of write-in votes for Smoot. Somewhat fewer for Hawley, who remains miffed at receiving 2nd billing to Smoot.

  60. Chicon says:

    61 – he will forever be a hero to Robbie for the moron comment.

  61. Chicon says:

    Look for Mattis and McMaster to quit today, since it’s been widely reported they have a suicide pact.

  62. Phil says:

    I would have fired the guy fifteen seconds after his moron remark. Good riddence. Never understood the hire in the first place.

  63. jason says:

    10 AM exits look good for Saccone.

  64. jason says:

    “There was a noticeable lack of effort in rewighting the polls”

    I think God-fearing gun owning jail sending liberals are over represented.

    Sue me.

  65. Wobbles says:

    I think its just terrible Trump has had an affair with a low life disgusting despicable whore porn star.

    I believe everything she says.

  66. Chicon says:

    Oh, Wobbles, you’re simply envious.

  67. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    #65- Phil
    Rex was highly recommended for the SOS job by Condi Rice.

  68. Phil says:

    Trying to visualize Condi calling President Bush a moron in a meeting. It would never happen. I love Condi, but that was a poor recommendation by her.

  69. mnw says:

    Stormy Daniels a porn “star”?

    Hell no. Now, Annette Haven? Shanna Evans, aka “Evins”? Now THEY were porn stars!

    Wes will lobby for Jen*a H*ze too. Can’t type her full name because Dave’s programs block it.

  70. mnw says:

    RAS 48

  71. Bitterlaw says:

    Katie Morgan (pre-implants) was better than Stormy.

  72. jason says:

    I love it that Trumps insults just about every one of his cabinet members in public, no problem, but Tillerson is not allowed an off the record comment.

    I am sorry to see Tillerson go, I think he is much better suited for the job than Pompeo, who should have stayed where he was.

  73. jason says:

    The 10:45 exits show a lot of AFL-CIO conservatives voting for Lamb.

    I am revising my prediction to 52-48 Saconne.

  74. NYCmike says:

    If Mattis, Kelly, and/or Sessions are let go, then I will feel very uncomfortable.

    As for Tillerson, I did not know much about him, and when he went soft on the Iran Deal, it definitely made me take notice, in a bad way. The State Department is a tough place to straighten out.

    As for Pompeo, I do NOT like the CIA having a lot of turnover, and I don’t trust a person who ran the CIA to be a person I can trust.

  75. Tim says:

    #61: Actually, he called him a “f**king moron”. Since when is making a realistic assessment a firing offense? LOL

  76. Wobbles says:

    I am just shocked and morally outraged that Trump would have an affair with such a vile, corrupt, disgusting woman like Stormy.

    I will be taking time off from work to watch her interviews on TV.

  77. jason says:

    Hey Tim, welcome back.

    How goes it?

  78. Tim says:

    Doing well, jason. Great to see a lot of the old gang, here!

  79. NYCmike says:

    NYCmike says:
    March 11, 2018 at 11:22 am

    Saccone 52, Lamb 48.

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 10:43 am

    The 10:45 exits show a lot of AFL-CIO conservatives voting for Lamb.

    I am revising my prediction to 52-48 Saconne.

  80. jason says:

    Tim, as a union lover, aren’t you impressed with all the AFL-CIO agenda loving conservatives we have on this board?

    You will feel right at home here with the AFL-CIO conservatives.

  81. NYCmike says:

    Tim with an “LOL” right out of the gate…..will that horses’ _ss tire out before the finish line?

  82. NYCmike says:

    https://www.nysun.com/national/dilbert-scoops-them-all-on-inside-story-of-trump/90212/

    -Let’s see if the “f**king moron” can get a better result than “Genius” Clinton, “moron” Dubya, and “Genius” Obama.

  83. jason says:

    NYC already predicted Lamb will win, but now tries to pretend maybe he didn’t.

    Always at war with himself.

    “My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.”

    Either you believe your prediction, or you don’t.

    “My prediction is tough to happen” is not a prediction.

  84. NYCmike says:

    “NYC already predicted Lamb will win, but now tries to pretend maybe he didn’t.”

    -Please go back and read what I wrote….you clearly did not understand what I was saying.

  85. jason says:

    Don’t feel bad about NYC attacking you right off the bat, Tim, he is a little on edge since his prediction “will be tough to happen”.

  86. NYCmike says:

    I made a prediction, two days before you did, which I stand by.

    The poll above says the opposite, SOOOOOO, “if this poll is to be believed.”, ““My prediction will be a tough one to get right”.

    Back to English class, bucko.

  87. NYCmike says:

    “You will feel right at home here with the AFL-CIO conservatives.”

    -Heh.

    I love it when jason keeps digging. It’s easier for him to bury his mistakes. Nobody likes an A-Holes work to be around for too long…….

  88. jason says:

    Please go back and read what I wrote”

    I posted what you wrote:

    “My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.”

    If the prediction “is tough to get right” then its not a prediction.

    I can see Nate Silverhack now:

    “I predict Hillary will win, but I think its tough that she will”

  89. jason says:

    “You will feel right at home here with the AFL-CIO conservatives.”

    -Heh.

    I love it when jason keeps digging.”

    So NYC, I will ask you the same question I asked all the other AFL-CIO conservatives here.

    When did you start supporting the AFL-CIO’s agenda for the last 30 years, before Trump got elected or after?

    No explanations necessary, just answer the question. Before or after?

  90. Phil says:

    Beto says “ban AR 15s and I don’t give a sh*t what the NRA thinks”

    At least the guy isn’t running as another fake Democratic blue fraud “centrist”. I will give him that. Will serve him well and probably land him a nice gig on MSNBC after the election.

    After November he can take a seat next to Wendy Davis.

  91. ssq says:

    I predict Trump will win by 30 points in 2020.

    I have serious doubts that could happen though.

  92. Chicon says:

    Mike, don’t mind Jason, he’s an absolutist on trade. I guess being a purist is ok for some.

  93. Wobbles says:

    I think Rs will lose 50 seats in the House.

    I think the odds my prediction will be right are about 0.1% however.

  94. NYCmike says:

    NYCmike: ““My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.””

    jason: “If the prediction “is tough to get right” then its not a prediction. ”

    -The word “if” is important, and WHERE it is in the statement is even MORE IMPORTANT.

    Or should I say “La ubicacion de la palabra “IF” es muy importante”?

  95. Wobbles says:

    he’s an absolutist on trade”

    LOL

    Absolutist: believes in free trade, understands tariffs are just another tax hike.

  96. Wobbles says:

    Or should I say “La ubicacion de la palabra “IF” es muy importante”?

    Translation: you are a pendejo.

  97. mnw says:

    In other RAS news today: 1) “sizeable majority” say it is more important to keep jobs in the U.S. than to keep consumer prices low; 2) “sizeable majority” say CA should not be able to pick and choose which federal laws it will follow; & 3) by 47-39, voters oppose sanctuary states and cities.

  98. NYCmike says:

    “When did you start supporting the AFL-CIO’s agenda for the last 30 years, before Trump got elected or after?”

    -Reagan and his administration did some things in the 1980’s, which Mr. Vito reminded us about, which leads me to have a more open mind about what Trump MAY DO, although I have serious reservations.

    Sooooooo, the answer will be “before”, if your feeble brain insists on a one word answer.

  99. Chicon says:

    98 – who says tariffs are NEVER the right call.

  100. NYCmike says:

    “Translation: you are a pendejo.”

    -jason’s real name is Mary Cohen.

  101. Bitterlaw says:

    Do NYC admits that he supports the AFL-CIO’s trade policy. No further questions, Your Honor.

  102. NYCmike says:

    Or maybe “Marty Cohn”?

  103. Phil says:

    100

    They need to poll California secession. I am for it.

  104. Chicon says:

    104 – another purist…..

  105. NYCmike says:

    “Do NYC admits”

    -How about the yutes?

    Do “yutes” admits as well?

  106. Wobbles says:

    My prediction will be a tough one to get right, if this poll is to be believed.”

    The “if” has nothing to do with anything and doesn’t make up for the stupidity of:

    “My prediction will be a tough one to get right”

    You can’t “qualify” that with anything.

    Either you believe your prediction is right or you don’t.

    “I don’t believe my prediction because there is a poll that doesn’t support it” is BS, and that is what you meant.

  107. CG says:

    Lamb wins 50-47 is my prediction. Forgot about the Libertarian.

    Could go either way and the district is gone anyway in November as currently drawn.

  108. NYCmike says:

    “Do NYC admits”

    “Does NYC admit”

    -Is Bitterlaw writing in such a way so that “Marty Cohn” can understand?

  109. jason says:

    Do NYC admits that he supports the AFL-CIO’s trade policy. No further questions, Your Honor.”

    It took awhile, but at least he is honest about it.

  110. mnw says:

    Imo, Trump is just using the threat of tariffs to persuade the PRC to reduce its trade surplus with the U.S. by $100 billion annually (from $375 billion annually). PRC is welcome to achieve that by whatever means they prefer.

    Trump has said this in the past, btw.

    If anyone thinks our trade partner China engages in “free trade”? Be careful crossing the streets, & don’t buy a bridge, either.

  111. Bitterlaw says:

    It’s a typo. You know that. GFY.

  112. NYCmike says:

    ““I don’t believe my prediction because there is a poll that doesn’t support it” is BS, and that is what you meant.”

    -My prediction stands…..right or wrong, despite jason’s, sorry, “Mary Cohen’s”, best attempt to make a mockery of the English language…

  113. jason says:

    “Lamb wins 50-47 is my prediction. Forgot about the Libertarian.”

    LOL

    Another moron.

    “Forget” about him but he gets the 3% that decides the election?

  114. jason says:

    Marty Cohn”

    Mary Cohen”

    NYC has new imaginary friends.

    Cute.

  115. NYCmike says:

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 11:16 am

    Do NYC admits

    -Bitterlaw,

    Your fiduciary responsibility to your student should force you to be more careful!

  116. CG says:

    I had Lamb 52-48 in a two-way.

    Saccone sucks.

  117. NYCmike says:

    ” Forgot about the Libertarian.””

    ““Forget” about him”

    -How did “Forgot”, with an “o”, become “Forget”, with an “e”?

    Do you understand, at all, how small changes AFFECT the meaning?

  118. jason says:

    mnw is already on record as saying he “likes tariffs and trade wars” so he is also honest about supporting the AFL-CIO agenda.

    We are making progress here.

  119. Bitterlaw says:

    Let’s take NYC through what he is saying.

    1. Reagan used tariffs.

    2. It was a mistake for Reagan to use tariffs,

    3. Because Reagan used tariffs, it is acceptable for Trump to use tariffs.

  120. NYCmike says:

    jason as editor:

    “I had Lamb in a two-way.”

    -Please don’t ever mention Trump being a sexual deviant ever again!

  121. jason says:

    Yep, I read that wrong.

    I apologize for calling Corey a moron.

    But there will be other opportunities.

  122. mnw says:

    Drudge reports a SURGE in Pennsylvania!

    (in STDs)

  123. Chicon says:

    113 – you secret AFL-CIO member, you…..

  124. NYCmike says:

    mnw, chicon, etc admitted to being agents of the PRC, if you read it in a certain way……

  125. jason says:

    I have no doubt Trump will have to back down on the tariffs.

    mnw is already preparing the terrain by saying “it was only a threat” and he “said it before”.

    Pure BS.

    If he backs down its because he will get the message it will damage the economy, void the tax cut package, and cost jobs and raise prices.

    But I am sure the AFL-CIO conservatives here will call it a brilliant strategic move.

  126. NYCmike says:

    “Yep, I read that wrong.”

    -Lather, rinse, REPEAT……At least jason knows how to wash his hair……

  127. jason says:

    Sorry, the Chinese Agent thing is already taken.

    I already got all the points.

  128. NYCmike says:

    “mnw is already preparing the terrain by saying “it was only a threat” and he “said it before”.”

    -jason shows that the link I posted about Dilbert/North Korea was NOT looked at, and he continues to KNOW EVERYTHING, except what he doesn’t already know……which he will continue to be ignorant of.

  129. jason says:

    I had Lamb 52-48 in a two-way.”

    Gayest post of the day.

  130. NYCmike says:

    “Sorry, the Chinese Agent thing is already taken.”

    -Whom, and when, awarded those points to you?

    You are an A-Hole, but not that much of an a-hole.

  131. mnw says:

    jason

    A mischaracterization like that of what I said is borderline lying.

    What advice do you have for Nucor? I posted that they are 100% nonunion; their mills are new & state of the art; & many stock analysts consider Nucor to be the most efficient steel company in the world.

    And yet Nucor (NYSE: NUE) can’t compete with China’s state-subsidized steel industry, which sells steel below cost (due to excess capacity) in order to gain market share?

    Wanna talk about Nucor, jason? Or return to your beloved Smoot-Hawley discussion?

    Somehow I bet jason chooses to discuss the events of 80 years ago.

  132. jason says:

    NYC is under the impression I care about any “links” he posts, especially about Dilbert/North Korea when talking about tariffs.

    There is no shrink that can cure a delusion that serious.

  133. CG says:

    There’s nothing “gay” about “52-48.”

    It did not involve a sheep or a llama.

  134. jason says:

    Wanna talk about Nucor, jason? Or return to your beloved Smoot-Hawley discussion?”

    LOL

    Please show any post where I brought up Smoot Hawley.

    That was wes.

    GFY.

  135. CG says:

    What does Marmaduke think about NAFTA?

  136. mnw says:

    let me help you out, jase

    Zzzzz

    That’s what he posts when he has no answer.

  137. jason says:

    There’s nothing “gay” about “52-48.”

    Sorry, I thought 52-48 in a two way were the number of positions.

  138. mnw says:

    GFY? That’s really persuasive, jason!

    But nothing about Chinese dumping? Or state subsidies? Or Nucor’s dilemma?

  139. jason says:

    A mischaracterization like that of what I said is borderline lying.”

    I can find the quote if you really want.

    I said nobody on this board admitted to liking tariffs and you took issue with that.

    You said you liked tariffs because they are sometimes necessary so I think saying you like tariffs is a fair statement.

    GFY again.

  140. mnw says:

    dumping? state subsidies? Nucor?

    waiting… waiting

    Zzzz

  141. jason says:

    But nothing about Chinese dumping? Or state subsidies? Or Nucor’s dilemma?”

    Zzzzzz.. I already answered that long ago with a dozens of quotes from industry leaders explaining how tariffs will do nothing except harm the US economy, raise prices and cost jobs.

    So you can keep bleating mindlessly buh, buh, buy subsidies all you want like a robot, except you have no answer at to why tariffs are in any way likely to have any benefit to the US.

  142. NYCmike says:

    “What does Marmaduke think about NAFTA?”

    -Another guy who can’t admit he is wrong, and refuses to even acknowledge what other’s say on certain topics.

    Livin’ in Eden must be nice…..

  143. jason says:

    “Dumping”

    Translation: the competition has lower costs and lower prices.

    Zzzzzz….

  144. mnw says:

    So the predatory Chinese trade policies should just go unchallenged, then?

  145. CG says:

    Marmaduke was wrong on NAFTA?

  146. Chicon says:

    Mnw, Jason and Bitter have said that tariffs are never the right call. They’re purists, even if the other team is not.

  147. NYCmike says:

    “What advice do you have for Nucor? I posted that they are 100% nonunion;”

    -According to jason, the AFL-CIO must now control “nonunion” workers as well.

  148. CG says:

    Clearly, the answer to the predatory Chinese trade practices is to talk about how much you admire their leader and his new stint as “President for life” and what a great deal it is over there that they execute drug users.

  149. jason says:

    So mnw, what do you think about the comments from the auto industry, the aluminum industry, the retailers associations, the home builders, the construction industry, the business roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, etc, etc. etc.

    Are they all Chinese agents?

    I know… buh, buh, buh.. subsidies.

  150. mnw says:

    Bullzh*t they don’t subsidize!

    Do you really believe that?

    If I’m a shill for the unions, you are an apologist for the predatory Chinese trade practices.

    You have answered NOTHING unless you can address what you suggest we do about China’s grossly unfair trade practices.

    You have no facts at your command, so you just quote a bunch of people condemning tariffs generally— and generally that is true.

    But we’re talking CHINA, jason. Not generalities.

  151. jason says:

    So the predatory Chinese trade policies should just go unchallenged, then?”

    I love it.

    It’s like giving Vitamin C for a brain tumor, and when questioned about how is that going to help, saying:

    “But are you going to leave the brain tumor untreated”?

  152. CG says:

    Trumpist on Trumpist violence is so…..

  153. jason says:

    u have no facts at your command, so you just quote a bunch of people condemning tariffs generally”

    Nah, nah, nah… generally my ass.

    They were condemning THESE TARIFFS.

    That dog won’t hunt.

  154. NYCmike says:

    ” is to talk about”

    -“CG” sees more danger in Trump’s statements than in the inaction/actions of the last 4 Presidents……it is almost as if “CG” believes the world was a wonderful place on Jan 20, 2017, at 12:15 PM, and then it took a dramatic turn for the worse.

  155. CG says:

    Well, NYC, that simply makes no sense.

    What I would ask you is how you would suggest “gettin’ tough” with China over “trade practices” if all the current President does is praise them for their strong arm tactics and human rights violations?

    These tariffs do not seem to have anything to do with China (unlike the targeted ones that GWB attempted that ultimately did not work) but far more about Europe.

    In discussing the Trump tariffs, China seems like nothing more than a diversion.

  156. jason says:

    But we’re talking CHINA, jason. Not generalities.”

    Nice moving the goalposts but in the first place Trump is imposing BLANKET TARIFFS.

    We are talking BLANKET, mnw.

    Not that I approve of tariffs against China either, but I already said if you want to specifically target a violator of trade agreements or GATT regulations there are specific sanctions you can impose and remedies you can take that don’t involve blanket tariffs.

  157. CG says:

    Aluminum, steel, and blankets now too?

    The news keeps getting better for the AFL-CIO with this President.

  158. jason says:

    n discussing the Trump tariffs, China seems like nothing more than a diversion.”

    This is correct.

    If fact, China is one of the least affected by these tariffs, but mnw and the other AFL-CIO conservatives use China as the scapegoat to defend the indefensible.

  159. CG says:

    “to defend the indefensible”.

    Oh, like that’s something unusual on here.

  160. jason says:

    nd blankets now too?”

    Not bad, but I did say blanket.

    It would be much ado about nothing if we were imposing tariffs on one blanket.

  161. NYCmike says:

    “Oh, like that’s something unusual on here.”

    -Well, other than you and Robbie, the rest of us knew that JEB!2016 was, and still is, a TERRIBLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

  162. CG says:

    China is the new JEB!

  163. NYCmike says:

    “China is the new JEB!”

    -Unfortunately, when they spend $150 million, they get a LOT MORE for their bucks!

  164. CG says:

    Yeah, one doesn’t have to worry about being a successful candidate when they are “President for Life.”

  165. jason says:

    “to defend the indefensible”.

    Oh, like that’s something unusual on here.”

    LOL

    This from someone who actually thought Jeb Bush was a viable candidate for President.

    I love this place.

  166. NYCmike says:

    “Yeah, one doesn’t have to worry about being a successful candidate when they are “President for Life.””

    -I guess Trump should have antagonized the tyrant, instead of saying what he said…..you would have applauded him for speaking truth to absolute power?

  167. NYCmike says:

    JEB!2016

    NYCmike says:
    March 13, 2018 at 11:57 am

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    -Is Lancaster in a different time zone or something?

    Catch up, martycohn.

  168. CG says:

    Yes, Trump should use the bully pulpit of his office to call out China on their human rights abuses and totalitarian regime that represses freedom.

    Then, he can also mention what he dislikes about their trade practices too, but that’s not what happens.

    Instead, Trump praises them for their human rights abuses and goes after Europe on trade.

  169. jason says:

    What I would ask you is how you would suggest “gettin’ tough” with China over “trade practices” if all the current President does is praise them for their strong arm tactics and human rights violations?”

    Zzzz… you did better when you were actually on the topic of trade.

    This gratuitous attack on Trump ignores the fact that neither Clinton, GWB or Obama ever did anything about China’s strong arm tactics and human rights violation either.

    You can make a case that Trump is actually more hands-on in challenging China than any of his predecessors.

    For one, he seems aware of China’s military build up and is countering it.

  170. CG says:

    GWB attempted targeted tariffs on China (and frequently spoke out about their human rights abuses) and the tariffs wound up being counterproductive.

  171. jason says:

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    -Is Lancaster in a different time zone or something? ”

    I didn’t say that.

    GFY.

  172. jason says:

    “spoke out about their human rights abuses”

    Wow, really.

    Did the Chinese crap their pants?

  173. CG says:

    All this to prove to mnw that he is not a secret Chinese agent..

  174. jason says:

    This post is why calling NYC a moron is, well, appropriate.

    Even I can’t translate what the hell it means.

    “NYCmike says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    JEB!2016

    NYCmike says:
    March 13, 2018 at 11:57 am

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    -Is Lancaster in a different time zone or something?

    Catch up, martycohn.”

  175. Chicon says:

    Trump ran on an America First platform. He promised to be tougher on those countries treating Americans and American industries unfairly. This struck a nerve, especially in areas with a lot of blue collar workers, enough of whom voted for him to give him WI, MI, and PA.

    Now the trade policy absolutists want Trump to do nothing about countries that engage in unfair trade practices, in effect violating his campaign promise. And who cares about electoral impact. Sounds like a SEND A MESSAGE group. Sounds deadender to me….

    So does anyone interested in finding a way to do what candidate Trump promised have a non-tariff method of doing so?

    Jason and Bitter are on record that Trump should do nothing, which I respect despite having a different pov.

  176. jason says:

    Clinton, GWB and Obama never did anything about human rights abuses in China.

    Nothing, nada, zilch.

    As far a Trump, who hasn’t done much of anything either, I did find this:

    “BEIJING (Reuters) – China on Friday urged the United States not to set itself up as a“human rights judge” and denounced the U.S. Treasury Department for punishing a Chinese public security official for alleged rights abuses.

    Gao Yan was one of the targets of an executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday blocking the property of foreigners involved in human rights abuses. “

  177. CG says:

    Maybe Trump should mention Gao Yan publicly then instead of talking about how cool it is that China gets to execute drug users and wishing the U.S. could do the same.

    The bottom line is that Trump seems to have no interest in “going after China” in terms of trade. He is focused on going after the EU, after now backtracking on going after Canada and Mexico.

    And when a policy will financially hurt the American consumer and American worker, it’s hard to call it “America First”, the ugly historical connotations that slogan completely set-aside.

  178. jason says:

    rump ran on an America First platform. He promised to be tougher on those countries treating Americans and American industries unfairly. This struck a nerve, especially in areas with a lot of blue collar workers, enough of whom voted for him to give him WI, MI, and PA.”

    Yes this is correct, but it doesn’t justify bad policy or bad economics.

    He didn’t run on “hey, elect me and I will raise prices and kill jobs and ruin our trade relationships with important partners”

    The argument that Trump is obligated to institute bad policies because somehow he said he would do that is beyond stupid.

    And nobody ever said “nothing” should be done against violators of trade agreements and GATT regulations and those that steal intellectual property, just that these type of blanket tariffs are going to do more harm than good.

  179. CG says:

    but yes, let it be said, that this is the *one* issue that Donald Trump seems to care most deeply about (beyond his own finances) and the one issue where he has been consistent for decades.

    In the 1980s, Trump had taken out full page ads in newspapers bemoaning how Ronald Reagan had sold America out and how awful trade policies were under him.

    All the more reason why Trump should have never been President and should not be President.

  180. dblaikie says:

    Jason how are the exit polls going? Any news at 12 noon?

  181. jason says:

    “America First” has ugly connotations?

    LOL

  182. CG says:

    Had bunu ever used that term here, pre-Donald Trump, various people here, who now support Trump, would have had much to say.

  183. jason says:

    Waiting for the 12:30.

    But there is plenty of anecdotal information.

    Turn-out is high in some precincts, not as high in others, which could be significant.

  184. jason says:

    Nothing wrong with America First.

    Nada. Zilch.

    Probably Hillary would have used it if they hadn’t come up with beyond stupid “Stronger Together”.

    Also Trump was the fourth President to use it in his campaign, Wilson, Coolidge and Harding used it too.

  185. CG says:

    “Also Trump was the fourth President to use it in his campaign, Wilson, Coolidge and Harding used it too.”

    So, that sounds like a defense for his using tariffs too.

    “America First” definitely has historical connotations associated with isolationism and anti-Semitism. When Pat Buchanan frequently invoked it during his Presidential campaigns, mainstream conservatives, from William F. Buckley down, called him on it.

    It’s the “Make America Great Again” slogan, that the left focuses too much on in my view.

  186. jason says:

    Bunu would never use America First, he hates America.

  187. Chicon says:

    181 – And nobody ever said “nothing” should be done against violators of trade agreements and GATT regulations and those that steal intellectual property, just that these type of blanket tariffs are going to do more harm than good.

    I’m happy to dispense with the tariffs if we can identify an effective “something” to do about violators.

    Doesn’t this tariff target the countries that impose a big tariff against us (China, EU)? And exempt Canada and Mexico?

  188. Bitterlaw says:

    Hillary ran on bad proposals, too. Would Chicon have supported those policies if she was elected President?

  189. jason says:

    “Also Trump was the fourth President to use it in his campaign, Wilson, Coolidge and Harding used it too.”

    So, that sounds like a defense for his using tariffs too.”

    No, it’s just a defense that there is ZERO negative connotation to the term.

    Just because a flaming racist and anti-semite like Buchanan used doesn’t mean the term is racist, and Buckley called Buchanan out because he is an anti-semite, not because of America First.

    I think America First is fine, and I am against tariffs in a big way. If Trump is using it to defend tariffs, that is the same thing as Buchanan using it for racist purposes, it’s the person and not the term.

  190. jason says:

    “Would Chicon have supported those policies if she was elected President?”

    Of course he would.

    But the free trade proponents are the “purists”.

  191. jason says:

    Doesn’t this tariff target the countries that impose a big tariff against us (China, EU)? And exempt Canada and Mexico?”

    It is a blanket tariff.

    Under pressure, Trump is backing down and beginning to talk about exemptions.

    No thanks to the AFL-CIO conservatives.

  192. CG says:

    So, then a liberal Democrat should be able to get away with saying the n word because it’s “the person, not the term.”

    That’s how Democrats tried to excuse away Robert C. Byrd using the n word in a 2001 interview.

  193. jason says:

    I’m happy to dispense with the tariffs if we can identify an effective “something” to do about violators.”

    So you support something “effective”?

    Good to know, because it certainly isn’t tariffs.

  194. jason says:

    So, then a liberal Democrat should be able to get away with saying the n word because it’s “the person, not the term.”

    So you are really comparing “America First” to the “n” word.

    Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

  195. jason says:

    And in any case, I said nothing about “getting away with anything” because I don’t think America First is offensive to anybody in any way.

    What I said is anybody can take an expression and use for their own purposes.

    “God is Great” is not a problem unless you use it to slaughter innocent people.

  196. CG says:

    William F. Buckley’s book “In Search of Anti-Semitism” speaks in great detail about how the term “America First” (and its use by the Buchanan campaign at the time the book was written in 1991) had historical anti-Semitic connotations from the time of the WWII isolationists.

  197. jason says:

    195 – Mexico and Canada exemt. A blanket with holes…”

    So partial sanity prevails, let’s hope the list of “others” keeps increasing.

  198. Phil says:

    So can Hillary not walk due to health issues or is she just drunk again? Or both?

  199. jason says:

    “President Donald Trump is facing growing pressure from political and diplomatic allies as well as US companies to pull back from proposed steel and aluminium tariffs, although he said he would stick to his guns.

    Inside the White House, there still appeared to be confusion about the timing and extent of the planned tariffs, which would hit allies like Canada and Mexico hard.”

    He didn’t stick to his guns.

    Sorry, AFL-CIO conservatives.

  200. CG says:

    Mexico is an “ally?”

    Would most Trump supporters agree with that?

    Would they even agree on Canada?

  201. Chicon says:

    Bitter and Jason going with the ridiculous statements again. Not worth bothering…

    I guess in bizarro world discussing whether there are exceptions to an anti-tariff stance is somehow being a purist. And demanding that tariffs can never be used is not a purist.

    Send a message deadenders unite.

  202. jason says:

    If Buckley really thought “America First” is in any manner anti-Semitic, I think he was being ridiculous.

    And I am a great fan of William Buckley, but he could be wrong.

    Still, I think he was speaking more about the persons and the ideology than the term per se.

    I doubt he would have minded if Eisenhower or Nixon used it.

  203. Chicon says:

    201 – word usage and definitions change. Gay used to mean something than it does today. Step into the present.

  204. CG says:

    You simply are refusing to acknowledge why it was used in the run up to WWII and what it referred to.

    Sad

    Eisenhower and Trump would have never used it, nor would have any sensible person in the 21st Century.

  205. NYCmike says:

    “Even I can’t translate what the hell it means.”

    -The pigeon hasn’t reached you yet?

  206. jason says:

    I guess in bizarro world discussing whether there are exceptions to an anti-tariff stance is somehow being a purist. And demanding that tariffs can never be used is not a purist.”

    Zzzzzz…

    Convoluted logic at its best.

    You are the one who thinks tariffs are the only remedy. Even after admitting they don’t work.

  207. CG says:

    208. The whole argument is that Trump gets to define what terms mean, per Trumpists. (Trump even claimed he invented the slogan “America First.”)

    I even basically conceded that in the post when I said, “historical connotations aside” that anti-consumer tariffs were not putting “America first.”

  208. CG says:

    Sorry, “Eisenhower and Nixon.”

    I would apologize at Nixon’s grave for that unintentional slur via typo if I could.

  209. jason says:

    “Even I can’t translate what the hell it means.”

    -The pigeon hasn’t reached you yet?”

    Are you tired of lying?

    Will you admit I never said anything about time zones in Lancaster?

    You made this up.

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    -Is Lancaster in a different time zone or something?

  210. CG says:

    I guess by this standard though, mnw can go back to his use of the term “wetback” since he has no racist intent in saying it and it’s the “person not the term” and hey, Eisenhower’s Administration even had a policy called that!

  211. Chicon says:

    “If the same goals can be accomplished by other means, America will remain open to modifying or removing the tariffs for individual nations, as long as we can agree on a way to ensure that their products no longer threaten our security,” Trump said.

  212. Chicon says:

    211 – incorrect

  213. NYCmike says:

    “Will you admit I never said anything about time zones in Lancaster?”

    -LOL!

    Oh Lord!

    We both made statements about JEB!’s failed campaign.

    I made the statement at:

    NYCmike says:
    March 13, 2018 at 11:57 am

    You made a statement at:

    jason says:
    March 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    7 minutes AFTER I DID.

    YOU ARE SLOW! MAYBE “in a different time zone”!

  214. jason says:

    You simply are refusing to acknowledge why it was used in the run up to WWII and what it referred to”

    Zzzzzz….

    I don’t care who used it for what. Three former Presidents used it, Wilson, Coolidge and Harding, and just because Wilson and Harding were idiots it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with “America First”.

    Pat Buchanan, a flaming anti-semite, used it.

    Still nothing wrong with America First, plenty wrong with Buchanan.

    But you already destroyed any possibility of a rational discussion by comparing “America First” to the “n” word.

    That is so stupid it voids anything else you could say.

  215. NYCmike says:

    “You are the one who thinks tariffs are the only remedy. Even after admitting they don’t work.”

    -That’s not true about Chicon.

    In fact, he has stated repeatedly he is open for any suggestions which can accomplish both the economical goal, AND THE POLITICAL GOAL.

  216. CG says:

    Three former Presidents used it before WWII.. before it became the issue it became.

    The only possible way to excuse Trump on this is to say, “Well, Trump doesn’t look at it from the historical standard. He is just using it in his own way.”

    But you are just doubling down and refusing to even acknowledge what it refers to historically.

  217. NYCmike says:

    If Wilson used it, it was definitely meant to be racist.

    That Democrat/Progressive was an evil SOB!

  218. jason says:

    Dang, I used to be able to understand moron logic better.

    Maybe I am getting slow.

  219. jason says:

    before it became the issue it became.”

    It’s only an issue in your head because you want to attack Trump any way possible.

    There are plenty of things to attack Trump for, but running on the slogan “America First” is certainly not one of them.

  220. NYCmike says:

    MAGA was directly taken from Reagan’s Let’s Make America Great Again.

    It is one more instance, as Mr. Vito has pointed out repeatedly when schooling jason on tariffs, where Trump was a big fan of Reagan (and how the voters loved him), and is following many of the things that Reagan did.

  221. Chicon says:

    The Phils have signed Jake Arietta for $25M per year. He was generally very good for the Cubs – and historically great for about a year. He lost 1.5 – 2 mph on the heater in the last year or so and started getting wild, often having to leave early because of pitch count. He’s a competitive guy who was well liked in Chicago. The A-holes will like him.

  222. CG says:

    Using an anti-Semitic slur to a Jewish person is like using the n word to a black person. I despise both instances, but have only been one of the two, so that’s the only perspective I can bring to it.

    Whatever Trump’s “intentions” are, it is a fact that “America First” is a term with historical connotations dating back to the time pre-Pearl Harbor where it was associated with isolationism and anti-Semitism, (i.e. the Jews are pushing for war, but America has to come first… just like how many on the extreme left and the alt-right still describe the supposed Jewish influence on American foreign policy) Many people were understandably drawn to keeping the U.S. out of war back in the late 30s’s and early 40s, but that “movement” definitely became co-opted by extremists and bigots. More than that, they are discredited via history because WWII was an extremely noble cause that the U.S. had no choice but to become involved in.

    Claiming ignorance of this history by people who should know better is just dumb.

  223. Chicon says:

    220 – Exactly, alas intentional misrepresentation of another’s position is the A-hole way.

  224. NYCmike says:

    “It’s only an issue in your head because you want to attack Trump any way possible.”

    -Totally true.

    More obvious than even Robbie, although “CG” keeps his cool better……..the thin air up on the moral high ground helps with his meditation.

  225. CG says:

    But yes, whatever we all might think of tariffs, and clearly, there are some major disagreements, it is clear to all on both sides of the debate what a complete and total liar jason is.

    At least, there is that.

  226. Chicon says:

    227 – you’re reaching.

  227. jason says:

    to even acknowledge what it refers to historically.”

    It doesn’t refer to anything historically.

    There is no universal consensus that America First is something terrible and racist, because it isn’t.

    Some people might have used it as such, so what.

    I pity the day in America where you can’t say “America First”.

    I guess Proud ObamaCON will be happy, the Soviet Union will have made a big comeback.

  228. NYCmike says:

    “CG”, get back in the freezer so you don’t melt!

  229. jason says:

    is clear to all on both sides of the debate what a complete and total liar jason is.”

    What did I lie about, just for curiosity sake?

  230. CG says:

    Statements made by chicon, mnw, NYC, me, whomever.

    Gotta run. Play nicely.

  231. jason says:

    Trump is no Reagan, is no fan of Reagan, and is not following Reagan.

    Let’s get that clear.

  232. Chicon says:

    236 – yep, lots of people saying that….

  233. jason says:

    What statement of yours did I lie about?

    That you compared “America First” to the “n” word.

    Hmmm… let’s see.

    So, then a liberal Democrat should be able to get away with saying the n word because it’s “the person, not the term.”

    You can run, but you can’t hide.

  234. jason says:

    So because some isolationists before WWII used “America First” it can never be used again in any connotation?

    LOL

  235. NYCmike says:

    “236 – yep, lots of people saying that….”

    -For some reason, jason, “The True Conservative”, gets upset that people point out that Trump pushes policies which were pushed by Reagan in the 1980’s…..I am starting to think that jason liked Bush-type-squishy-Republicanism more than he liked Reagan-type-Republicanism…….actually, I thought this many years ago, and it looks like I was right…..AGAIN!

  236. NYCmike says:

    “Gotta run. Play nicely.”

    -GFY, snowflake!

  237. jason says:

    -For some reason, jason, “The True Conservative”, gets upset that people point out that Trump pushes policies which were pushed by Reagan in the 1980’s”

    You are an idiot.

    I wish Trump would push policies close to Reagan, unfortunately that is complete fantasy.

    I think Reagan was by far the best President in my lifetime so GFY.

  238. NYCmike says:

    “CG” as Reagan’s speechwriter:

    Reagan: “Let’s Make America Great Again!”, but don’t make it FIRST!

  239. jason says:

    Reagan was for small government, does anyone really think Trump is for small government?

    Anyone?

    I want to have a good laugh.

    When do you think you would ever hear Reagan say default is not an issue since all we have to do is print more money.

    Can you see Reagan saying “I’m the king of debt”.

    I support Trump on a lot of issues, but let’s not get carried away and drink too much Kool-Aid and start comparing him to Reagan.

  240. jason says:

    After admitting Trump is not a conservative, now NYC is comparing him to Reagan?

    I love this place.

  241. mnw says:

    For the historically literate, “America First” has anti-Semitic connotations. Charles Lindbergh, the principal spokesman for America First, made a speech or two in which he blamed “Jews, Roosevelt and Britain” for dragging America into WWII. Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech, which was broadcast live on the Mutual Radio Network, is available for your listening pleasure via YouTube.

    America First dissolved after Pearl Harbor.

    Happily for Trump, I suspect not one voter in a thousand has any idea what America First even was.

    America First wasn’t a rightwing outfit exactly. It was a coalition. Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate for president, was an ardent America Firster.

  242. jason says:

    I just spent a lot of time defending Trump and “America First” against Corey’s silly attacks.

    But I draw the line on comparing him to Reagan.

  243. NYCmike says:

    “I wish Trump would push policies close to Reagan, unfortunately that is complete fantasy.”

    -Mr. Vito,

    Can you provide those links you used last week?

  244. NYCmike says:

    Also, tax cuts…..Reagan would be against those? I don’t think so.

    Also, conservative judges…….Reagan would be against the ones Trump has picked? I don’t think so.

    Also, cabinet members like Mattis, Sessions, Kelly, Devos, Carson……Reagan would be against them? I don’t think so.

  245. NYCmike says:

    “But I draw the line on comparing him to Reagan.”

    -Nobody compared Trump to Reagan.

    We did compare ACTIONS taken by both administrations.

  246. NYCmike says:

    And Personally, ACTIONS are lot more important than what is said…….we just had 8 YEARS of the opposite in Obama!

  247. jason says:

    Happily for Trump, I suspect not one voter in a thousand has any idea what America First even was.”

    Sorry, but that is not the reason.

    The reason is people understand a slogan can be incorporated by this or that group over time but that does not render it necessarily toxic forever and it doesn’t mean whenever you use it it has to have the same connotation.

    Lindbergh was a flaming anti-semite AND isolationist but others have used the term in completely different circumstances.

    Case in point:

    “The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

    Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

    “The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

    The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.”

    Does this really mean if anybody uses FORWARD in a future campaign they are Marxists?

    Let’s get a grip.

  248. jason says:

    Zzzz.,..

    I have given Trump lots of credit for tax cuts, conservative judges and some cabinet members.

    Thank God you didn’t mention the isolationist protectionist moron Ross.

  249. NYCmike says:

    Heh….when I looked up the campaign slogan for Reagan, which was VERY SIMILAR to Trump’s, there was a piece about Hillary’s 85 campaign slogans!

  250. jason says:

    “Nobody compared Trump to Reagan.”

    Ok, glad that is cleared up.

  251. NYCmike says:

    “Does this really mean if anybody uses FORWARD in a future campaign they are Marxists?”

    -Obama fit the bill…..why wouldn’t anyone else who uses that campaign slogan?

  252. jason says:

    If Jeb Bush has used America First Corey would love it.

    Take it to the bank along with Sheeple’s prediction.

  253. NYCmike says:

    That might have been the one instance where Obama was truthful, along with that time with Joe The Plumber…..jason, THAT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE!

  254. jason says:

    .why wouldn’t anyone else who uses that campaign slogan?”

    Because I think a conservative could use FORWARD also and it wouldn’t have the same connotation.

    Let’s say “Let’s Move America Forward”

    Sound Marxist to you if for example Rubio or Carson used it?

  255. NYCmike says:

    “Sound Marxist to you if for example Rubio or Carson used it?”

    -No, but I would council them NOT to use it.

    I may call them right now!

  256. jason says:

    Hey Moron, I didn’t say Obama didn’t fit the bill.

    Read what I said.

    Does this really mean if anybody uses FORWARD in a future campaign they are Marxists?

    IN A FUTURE CAMPAIGN.

  257. jason says:

    Counsel not council….

    Geezus, even a llama knows that.

  258. jason says:

    “Sound Marxist to you if for example Rubio or Carson used it?”

    -No,..”

    Right, it doesn’t sound Marxist even if you don’t like it.

  259. NYCmike says:

    “Counsel not council….”

    -Yes.

    Thank you.

  260. CG says:

    In my original post, I even made it clear I was putting the historical connotations of “America First” aside, in my argument that tariffs were not putting “America first”, but jason’s immediate reaction was to LOL and claim that nobody could possibly claim a different perspective historically.

    He ought to just admit he did not know or forgot about the WWII matter and claim to be one of the 999.

  261. CG says:

    and during the primaries of course, jason made absolutely no distinction between Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan.

    Now, he has found a way to make a distinction.

    How is Trump not “Buchanan Lite?”

    Did Buchanan know what he was doing when he ran on a slogan of “America First?” Can anybody possibly suggest otherwise?

    We probably can hypothesize that Trump is maybe uneducated enough not to know or realize what slogan he was using had meant in the past. Someone around him who knew more probably knew exactly what they were doing though.

  262. NYCmike says:

    ” 999″

    -Herman Cain everybody!

  263. NYCmike says:

    “CG” is like that woman who couldn’t understand how Nixon could win, after all (paraphrasing), “nobody I know is voting for him.”.

    There are more dog whistles going off in “CG”‘s head than in the local dog run on a spring Saturday morning.

  264. NYCmike says:

    “CG”, is your hero Michael Eric Dyson?

  265. CG says:

    Since Jonah Goldberg has been praised here recently, this is what he said shortly after Trump’s inaugural.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/donald-trump-america-first-slogan-stands-nationalist-identity/

    He even concedes that he believes Trump is sincere in the way he uses the term.

    That may be (though I tend to skeptical), but it is preposterous to deny the history around the term and how it changed from when Woodrow Wilson might have used it.

  266. CG says:

    269. Of course not.

    Who is your hero?

  267. Chicon says:

    Still waiting for the resignations of Mattis and McMaster. The media said they’re tied together….

  268. NYCmike says:

    “Since Jonah Goldberg has been praised here recently”

    -When? For what? The Link? The comment?

    ANYTHING?

    Not that I am against Jonah Goldberg, I just did not see anyone mention him.

  269. mnw says:

    I would disagree that Lindbergh was “a flaming anti-Semite.” He made one momentary mistake & paid for it the rest of his life.

    There were discrete political groups, including the Roosevelt Administration, actively working to bring America into WWII.

  270. CG says:

    I think the report several months back was that it was Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster in the pact. I don’t think Tillerson was involved.

  271. NYCmike says:

    “Who is your hero?”

    -Tough question, I like a lot of different people….will have to think about it.

  272. CG says:

    Someone was praising Jonah Goldberg on here for something he said that was considered pro-Trump policy-wise. (He is of course “Never Trump”)

    I agree with the column I linked. However one associates the term “America First” in their own mind, I do not think it is a good thing when you get beneath the way it “sounds” on the surface.

  273. NYCmike says:

    I trust Mattis and Kelly more than I trust McMaster, but I don’t lose much sleep over it.

    If any of those 3, especially Mattis, leave, it would make me worry a bit about whom would replace them.

  274. CG says:

    Lindberg was a Hitler accomodationist to be sure. He wasn’t the only one.

  275. NYCmike says:

    “Someone was praising Jonah Goldberg on here”

    -Who? When? About?

    I am sure many writers have written something that I agreed with , and have NOT agreed with.

    Does that happen to you?

    I guess I would have to see how many thought JEB!2016 was viable……

  276. CG says:

    Well, I am sure they will find out on Twitter if they are the next to leave.

    Trump’s not even man enough to break up with Tillerson via phone or letter or anything.

  277. CG says:

    Just about everyone here, regardless of what they felt about Jeb Bush’s chances at winning the nomination (which I never thought he would either) said that Jeb Bush would be a better President theoretically than Donald Trump and that Jeb Bush would run better against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump theoretically.

    jason, for all his anti-Bush hysteria certainly conceded those two points again and again.

    And they are correct. Jeb Bush is not President, but if he were, he would be governing as a conservative, unlike Mr. Tariff.

  278. jason says:

    jason made absolutely no distinction between Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan.”

    That of course is just pure unadulterated lying.

    Go back 10 years here to see if I EVER had one good thing to say about Pat Buchanan… I always argued here that he was a flaming anti-semite and an isolationist idiot.

  279. CG says:

    And you had no good thing to say about Donald Trump during the primaries either. You said he was a flaming anti-Semite and isolationist idiot as well.

    But then you found a way to “accommodate” yourself. What is that Robbie says about you….?

  280. CG says:

    Exactly what are the distinctions between Donald Trump as President and what a President Pat Buchanan would be doing?

    Can anyone name some or any?

    It seems like what we are getting now, for better or worse, would be basically what America would be like policy-wise under a President Pat Buchanan.

    The one major difference between the two is that Buchanan is almost certainly genuinely Pro-Life and has never paid for anyone to have an abortion.

  281. CG says:

    “but Corey, Buchanan doesn’t have a Jewish son- in law.”

    Well, Buchanan had no kids. Maybe an ultra-wealthy Jewish in-law would have been ok. We will never know. We are talking about policy here.

  282. jason says:

    Jeb Bush would be a better President theoretically than Donald Trump and that Jeb Bush would run better against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump theoretically.

    jason, for all his anti-Bush hysteria certainly conceded those two points again and again.”

    Huh, not quite.

    I NEVER thought Bush would run better than anyone, I always made clear I thought he was a certain loser in the GE.

    Look it up, find ONE post where I thought Jeb could beat Hillary. There are none, and I doubt I compared Trump’s chances against Hillary with him since I didn’t think he would be nominated either.

    Yes, I thought during the primaries and part of the fall campaign that Trump would lose too, although I did hedge my bets towards the end.

    As far as who would be the better President, I did say Bush would be better, in fact I said anyone would be better except for Rand Paul.

    But time changes things, I am no longer convinced of that. I think Jeb would be a very weak President and the Dems would walk all over him. Certainly Jeb would be more congenial, and I doubt he would go down the tariff rathole, but I also doubt he would have gutted the Obamacare mandate and passed the tax bill. I also doubt Jeb would have pulled out of the Paris Accords and taken a strong stance against pouring trillions into global warming initiatives, his energy policy is a lot better than Jeb’s.

    Certainly Jeb would have been better than Hillary. Better than Trump I no longer am sure. As I say, Trump has impressed me much more as President than he ever did as a candidate.

    If he stays away from infrastructure boondoggles, protectionism, criticism of NATO, paid family leave, a physical wall, destroying NAFTA, etc he could be truly a good President.

  283. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    282. “Just about everyone here, regardless of what they felt about Jeb Bush’s chances at winning the nomination (which I never thought he would either) said that Jeb Bush would be a better President theoretically than Donald Trump and that Jeb Bush would run better against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump theoretically.”

    Looks like I am an exception to the “just about everybody.” Jeb would not have won; and he would have been an awful president. Its time to put the Clinton and Bush families behind us.

  284. CG says:

    You ranked them all in terms of electability and you had Jeb Bush several spots ahead of Trump.

    You said several times after the nomination was decided that if Trump did win, you would be forced to admit that I was right and that Jeb would have beaten Hillary too.

    You consistently said that even though Jeb was “Hillary-Lite”, he would be far better than Trump.

  285. CG says:

    “times change”

    Indeed they do, for you.

  286. jason says:

    Exactly what are the distinctions between Donald Trump as President and what a President Pat Buchanan would be doing?”

    I love easy questions.

    Buchanan would pull all political and military support to Israel

    Buchanan would surrender in Afghanistan the first day.

    Buchanan would pull out of most military alliances and pull troops from Japan and Korea.

    Buchanan would not spend a DIME on the military, in fact he would gut it.

    Buchanan would erect blanket tariffs on just about everything not just steel and aluminum.

    Buchanan would end foreign aid just about everywhere.

    That’s just for starters.

  287. CG says:

    For the record, Jeb ran on a platform of withdrawing from the Paris accords. The one candidate who disagreed was Kasich, whom we were told was way more conservative.

    Hypotheticals don’t matter at this point. What is ridiculous about this comment section is the intellectual surrender that comes with every claim that any sort of opposition to Donald Trump is tied up with Jeb Bush. That’s what people say (jason and NYC) when they do not know how to say anything else

  288. NYCmike says:

    “And they are correct. Jeb Bush is not President, but if he were, he would be governing as a conservative, unlike Mr. Tariff.”

    -“Mr. Tariff”?

    Would that be Reagan, Bush, or Trump?

  289. CG says:

    “If he stays away from infrastructure boondoggles, protectionism, criticism of NATO, paid family leave, a physical wall, destroying NAFTA, etc he could be truly a good President.”

    So, in other words, you are counting on him to break all these campaign promises.

  290. jason says:

    You ranked them all in terms of electability and you had Jeb Bush several spots ahead of Trump.”

    No, I don’t think so.

    I ranked them according to my preference I believe.

  291. NYCmike says:

    “That’s what people say (jason and NYC) when they do not know how to say anything else”

    -Heh…..JEB!2016 is the root of all of your unhappiness…….you know it, please accept it, and move on.

  292. NYCmike says:

    “So, in other words, you are counting on him to break all these campaign promises.”

    -I would count on a Republican Congress to NOT write legislation for most of those things where they have that power……unless of course, Trump has grabbed all legislation-writing powers for himself…….///

  293. CG says:

    Trump is Mr. Tariff, his proposals go far beyond anything any other Republican (post WWII) President has ever suggested.

    And he should know that the more limited tariffs failed in the other cases, and that should be all the more reason to stay away from what he wants to do now.

    But NYC, are you prepared to call Ronald Reagan, “Mr. Amnesty?”

    How come you went on such a rampage against Rubio for advocating a policy that Reagan would have certainly done as President?

  294. jason says:

    “So, in other words, you are counting on him to break all these campaign promises.”

    I am hoping he will adapt to the circumstances.

    Virtual wall yes, physical no.

    Tariffs no, stronger enforcement of violators yes.

    Renegotiate Nafta, ok, end it no.

    Infrastructure by private funding, yes, government only no.

    Things like that.

    Of course the deadenders want all or nothing, that is why they are deadenders.

  295. CG says:

    You did preference rankings and electability rankings.

    At the time, you had Jeb well ahead of Trump in both cases.

  296. Messy57 says:

    301…Damn, MISSED it!!!!

  297. CG says:

    297. So do you support the efforts of Sen. Flake to write legislation to try to stop Trump from imposing the tariffs?

  298. jason says:

    times change”

    Indeed they do, for you”

    No they change for everyone, except you are still stuck in the primaries with Jeb Bush.

  299. CG says:

    No, it has nothing to do with Jeb Bush. I am “stuck” with the same values and ideas about America I have had since I was a child.

  300. Chicon says:

    “CG”, we’re both wrong. It was Rex, Mattis and Mnuchin. Still no further resignations…..

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/tillerson?utm_term=.coDGye1DP#.lkMW37AXg

  301. jason says:

    “So do you support the efforts of Sen. Flake to write legislation to try to stop Trump from imposing the tariffs?

    Of course, and I have said as much.

  302. CG says:

    I was asking your NYC friend that question in response to his last post.

  303. CG says:

    on my screen, 297, which I referenced was a NYC post. Maybe they are numbered differently elsewhere

  304. Chicon says:

    “Tariffs no, stronger enforcement of violators yes.”

    Again, what would this stronger enforcement entail? Strong memos?

  305. Messy57 says:

    274. Lindburgh wasn’t a flaming antisemite. He as a normal antisemite, as many Northern Europeans were at the time.

    He didn’t really go off the rails until after Hitler invaded Poland, and after the war, he was ashamed of himself.

  306. NYCmike says:

    “How come you went on such a rampage against Rubio for advocating a policy that Reagan would have certainly done as President?”

    -I believe Reagan admitted it was a mistake to not take care of enforcement first. He learned.

    Rubio made a mistake with Schumer/Durbin….then made a stupid statement again last year….he has not learned yet.

  307. mnw says:

    CG is SOO full of skit. 304. BARF. GAG. Somebody pin a rose on little snowflake, quick.

  308. Chicon says:

    306 – earlier you were okay with threatening a tariff, as long as it isn’t enacted. How will removing the threat of a tariff help the President with “stronger enforcement of violators”?

  309. CG says:

    309. Are we talking just about China or Europe/Canada/Mexico/Australia too?

    Mitt Romney had a very tough on China stance in 2012. It was strictly limited to China though because they are clearly different.

    Trump is more upset about Europe and Canada and Australia than China. He seems to put emphasis on which world leaders he likes personally more than others, which is no way to conduct a government.

  310. NYCmike says:

    “297. So do you support the efforts of Sen. Flake to write legislation to try to stop Trump from imposing the tariffs?”

    -Haven’t seen much about this…….I am waiting to see if the tariffs are implemented, on whom, and at what rate….also, to see how they affect certain political races….before I start hyperventilating about them.

  311. jason says:

    You ranked them all in terms of electability and you had Jeb Bush several spots ahead of Trump.

    No

    You said several times after the nomination was decided that if Trump did win, you would be forced to admit that I was right and that Jeb would have beaten Hillary too.”

    Yep, but that is when I thought Trump was a sure loser. Now I am on record that only he could have won, with Rubio with an outside chance with a much narrower map winning the Romney states plus NV, NH, CO, FL, NM, VA and IA. Only Trump could have won MI, PA and WI.

    You consistently said that even though Jeb was “Hillary-Lite”, he would be far better than Trump.”

    I no longer think that, because he has now been President for over a year, so reality matters.

  312. mnw says:

    Messy knows as much about Lindbergh as every other thing. NOTHING whatsoever.

    How many “i”s in “disintegrate” are there anyway… Messy?

  313. CG says:

    So, if Reagan would have come to think it was a mistake on tariffs (and since they were revoked that seems obvious), isn’t that a mistake for Trump?

    By the way, I am unaware of Reagan ever expressing any regret over Simpson-Mazzoli. Can you find something to counter that or is that just how you “feel?”

  314. NYCmike says:

    “I am “stuck” with the same values and ideas about America I have had since I was a child.”

    -How many legal immigrants did Reagan allow in per year?

    He must have been really evil!

  315. CG says:

    315. So, you are punting. Figures.

  316. CG says:

    He let in a whole lot more than you would and he celebrated them too.

  317. jason says:

    and during the primaries of course, jason made absolutely no distinction between Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan.”

    This is probably true.

    I attacked both of them.

  318. CG says:

    Ok, so first it was a “lie” and now it is “probably true.”

    Progress.

  319. Messy57 says:

    Lamb 53, Lamb 47.

  320. NYCmike says:

    “He let in a whole lot more than you would and he celebrated them too.”

    -I would be fine with the same number of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS let in by Reagan every year….and I celebrate them all the time! I live in the mecca for immigrants, where we have more opportunities than any other place in the world! As long as they assimilate, I have ZERO issues with LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

  321. NYCmike says:

    “Lamb 53, Lamb 47.”

    -Which one is voting on Wednesday?

  322. CG says:

    You have “zero issues” with legal immigration, but only for half of them.

    The other half, you have “100 percent” of an issue with.

  323. NYCmike says:

    “315. So, you are punting.”

    -HHR dictionary change:

    “Punting” = waiting for more details to make an informed decision

  324. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    324. You have a great political idea, a candidate should get both parties nomination and run against himself.

  325. CG says:

    You’ve never waited for “details” before.

    Here’s the reality though. In spite of what Flake might try to do, he won’t be able to succeed.

    Trump can impose these tariffs, legally, all on his own, just like how Obama was able to impose the Iran Deal.

    Presidents have incredibly broad discretion when it comes to “national security.”

    If there were a vote on the tariffs, we would see most Democrats vote for them, ,many, if not most Republicans against them, except for those who fear Trumpkin repudiation in primaries, and thus, it would pass anyway and become a bad policy.

  326. NYCmike says:

    “You have “zero issues” with legal immigration, but only for half of them.”

    -We were speaking about legal immigration during Reagan’s time……how many was it?

    If you want to speak about NOW, I will repeat what I said MANY TIMES: Cotton-Perdue includes an arbitrary number, which I would gladly see go up, IF (notice where the word IF is, jason) the other components of that bill are adopted and passed.

  327. Chicon says:

    Lamb 51 – Captain Kangaroo 49.

    I’ve gone full Robbie….

  328. CG says:

    It’s inaccurate to claim that legal immigration decreased when Reagan was President.

    In the past, you cited statistics showing a lower number during Reagan’s first couple years in office, and that is because the U.S. was still in the Jimmy Carter recession. You didn’t seem to understand that factor and why a weak U.S. economy leads to decreased immigration.

    The economy flourished under Reagan’s policies and immigration (both legal and illegal) increased a great deal as well.

  329. NYCmike says:

    “You’ve never waited for “details” before.”

    -There are differences between a legislator (Rubio) saying something, as opposed to an Executive (Trump) saying something……do you really need this explained to you?

    Well, I guess since you believe that a President alone can write and pass, and sign into law, legislation…….

  330. CG says:

    Shari Lewis’s Lamb Chop vs. Captain Kangaroo

    What a race..

  331. CG says:

    334. Yes, an executive has a lot more power.

    You ought to be far more upset about Trump’s tariffs than Rubio trying to work on immigration reform, unless you simply like tariffs and do not want immigration reform.

  332. NYCmike says:

    “It’s inaccurate to claim that legal immigration decreased when Reagan was President.”

    -I never claimed this.

    I am asking for HOW MANY Legal Immigrants were admitted.

    You claim Cotton-Perdue is so draconian, yet only 30 short years ago it was normal to have half the number that we admit now.

  333. NYCmike says:

    “You ought to be far more upset about Trump’s tariffs..”

    -You ought to be far more happy that Hillary was defeated by Trump.

  334. NYCmike says:

    “324. You have a great political idea, a candidate should get both parties nomination and run against himself.”

    -He learned from Putin.

  335. CG says:

    We have a larger population, larger economy, and a more physically developed country than we had a generation ago, so however many we let in legally during the 1980s, should see a similar level of increase.

  336. CG says:

    How many fewer people lived in metro Las Vegas thirty years ago?

    I don’t know why you think your argument makes sense.

  337. CG says:

    We didn’t have wildcard playoff teams in baseball either when Reagan was President.

    I’d be ok with going back to that.

  338. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    Here is Governor Moonbeam pushing his multi-billion dollar bullet train boondoggle to Trump. The real tragedy is that the areas he mentions in the Central Valley are among the most impoverished in the nation; with very high unemployment rates. Much of it is caused by Brown’s policies that have destroyed permanent manufacturing and blue collar jobs in California.

    Brown to Trump:

    “After you’ve examined your wall prototype on the border, I invite you to head north to the Central Valley – the heart of California. Here in cities like Fresno and Madera more than a dozen bridges and viaducts are being built for the nation’s first and only High-Speech Rail line. We are already putting 1,700 Americans to work.

    You have lamented that we don’t have one fast train in our country. Well, Mr. President, in California we are trying to fix that. We have a world-class train system under construction. We invite you to come aboard and truly “Make America Great Again.”

    In his letter, Brown did not mention that the bullet train costs a pretty penny. The system is already $13 billion more than it was expected to cost two years ago. Current estimates put the price tag at $77.3 billion and it could rise to $98.1 billion, according to the Los Angeles Times. That number can be attributed to unexpected rise in costs for building track in the Central Valley, costly environmental reviews, lawsuits, and the relocation of communications cables.”

  339. CG says:

    Trump will probably like the idea if Brown is the first (or last) to get to him.

  340. NYCmike says:

    “I don’t know why you think your argument makes sense.”

    -I believe in constantly looking at all facets of the powers granted to the federal government and determining if there should be a better use of that power.

    In the history of our country, the amount of immigration has increased/decreased depending on many different issues.

    When it comes to the number for legal immigration, a decrease is not necessary, IF the other issues (chain migration, unlimited benefits, security issues, etc) are handled properly.*

    *jason, do you understand the “IF” is in a specific spot for a reason?

  341. CG says:

    The history of the country has seen drastic limits on legal immigration put into place by the government.

    So, just own up to the fact that is what you want to see happen again.

    You have every right to have that opinion, but I cannot help but find it odd that people who think like that insisted for years that they only cared about stopping illegal immigration and had no issue at all with legal immigration.

    Some people were being much less than honest.

  342. Cash Cow TM says:

    Weather service calling for snow squaws in WV.

    Why would they use n insensitive term like that?

  343. NYCmike says:

    “So, just own up to the fact that is what you want to see happen again.”

    -I can’t own up to something to which I disagree with.

    I don’t WANT it to happen. I DO WANT the other issues (chain migration, unlimited benefits, security issues, etc) taken care of first.

    IF (that word again!) those other issues are NOT taken care of, so be it. It isn’t a disaster to say “STOP” every now and then.

  344. CG says:

    What “security issues” are you associating with legal immigration?

    Why do you think there are “unlimited benefits?”

    Should Melania Trump’s parents not been allowed to become permanent residents? (her husband probably wishes they weren’t)

  345. Wes says:

    Why don’t we restructure immigration to encourage an influx of skilled workers while actively working to prevent illegal immigration?

  346. Wes says:

    No immigrants at all should be voting or receiving any kind of public benefits till they have achieved citizenship.

  347. CG says:

    Of course not for voting.

    Is public education a “public benefit?”

  348. Chicon says:

    Wes, if Lamb wins tonight will it be Trump’s fault, in your opinion?

  349. Wes says:

    That may be a contributing factor, Chicon, but I would attribute it more to the fact that Saccone has been by all accounts a lackluster candidate.

  350. Chicon says:

    I had similar thoughts. Thanks.

  351. Wes says:

    Here’s where Corey starts nitpicking to try to tear apart any position that doesn’t amount to unrestricted immigration.

    If immigrants are paying taxes, have current (unexpired visas), and have no criminal records, then of course they should have access to public education so as to better themselves and become productive members of society.

    Welfare or other such benefits should be reserved to citizens only. (That would include immigrants who have become naturalized citizens.)

  352. Wes says:

    Any time, Chicon.

  353. CG says:

    I didn’t know I was in favor of “unrestricted immigration” or that I would be accused of such a thing.

    Anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen, whether you think that should be the policy or not, and thus a lot of citizen children will have non-citizen parents, and thus that makes the “welfare” question far more complicated.

    Consistent with welfare reform measures, for citizens and non citizens alike, all who can work should be required to do so or be enrolled in school, training, etc.

  354. Wes says:

    To expand on that, in last year’s elections, Trump was clearly a decisive negative factor in Virginia. In Alabama, Roy Moore was always going to be a weak candidate and his own worst enemy. Alabamans finally tired of him after initially dubious allegations became credible and gave them more of a reason to vote against him than had previously been the case.

  355. Wes says:

    I would say you are, Corey. You have never expressed anything but opposition to ANY statement indicating a desire for the US to control immigration.

  356. CG says:

    And I haven’t denounced the modern day slave trade either.

    I must be GUILTY!

    (Of course, I have very much advocated for greater enforcement against illegal immigration.)

  357. Wes says:

    And, no, being born to non-citizens on American soil should not automatically grant one citizenship. Citizens should have blood ties to the country or achieve that status through naturalization.

    For the moronic birther crowd, Obama had an American mother; ergo, he was an American citizen despite your fonest wishes otherwise.

  358. Wes says:

    Nice strawman, Corey.

    Perhaps a bit of intelligence or originality would strengthen your rather pathetic retorts in the future.

  359. Wes says:

    Fondest*

  360. CG says:

    The law grants that citizenship though so it would have to be changed via the Constitutional Amendment process and that seems unlikely to say the least.

    Also, Obama was born in a U.S. state. I think Wes agrees but is just taunting the “birthers.”

  361. Wes says:

    Hawaii became a state in 1959. Obama was born in 1961. He was born in a state. Even had he been born in 1968 in Hawaii, he would have born in an American territory and therefore on American soil.

  362. Wes says:

    I never said changing birthright citizenship from being granted simply because of birth on American soil would be an easy process.

    I just said it shouldn’t be the case.

    You seem to have a problem distinguishing my opinions and expectations.

  363. CG says:

    If only his true birth certificate showed a 1968 birth date, he would have been ineligible to be President!

    That must have been what Trump’s “investigators” found.

  364. CG says:

    The system is what it is, and thus, the welfare system is going to have to respond accordingly, until and unless the system changes, which is unlikely to ever happen.

  365. hugh says:

    Captain Kangaroo is great. I think we have a weak candidate and they have a great blue fraud candidate. My guess is tonight will not be a late night. I am kind of tired of these candidates we are putting forward. I am also tired of a president that knows how to make the economy go, but has zero self discipline making it difficult to keep certain people in the fold like suburban women.

  366. Wes says:

    I wonder if Eph Rove still buys into the birther nonsense.

  367. CG says:

    Nevermind, my math is off. Nevermind.

  368. CG says:

    Trump won this district by 20 points and 58% of the vote. It should be close to a slam dunk, but when you aren’t running against Hillary, it’s not as easy in places like that.

    It’s clear though that Democrats are ultra-motivated and a Republican candidate who claims to be “more Trump than Trump” and cannot find one area of disagreement at all with Trump is going to be a lightning rod. A more independent, non-Trumpian Republican (like the now disgraced Rep. Murphy) would have had not much difficulty holding the seat.

  369. Wes says:

    Obama could theoretically have born as late as January 20, 1974, and met the age requirement to beckme President in 2009.

  370. SanDiegoCitizen says:

    351. “No immigrants at all should be voting or receiving any kind of public benefits till they have achieved citizenship.”

    Agree on public charity programs.

    However, there are a lot of legal immigrants who work, pay taxes, etc. If you are working and paying into the workers compensation fund, shouldn’t you have a right, if you qualify, to earn benefits? What about retirement plans & social security that a legal resident pays into?

    Given the aging demographics and low birthrate of the existing U.S. population. Your going to see more foreign workers; there needs to be a system set up so that they are paying their fair share of taxes and assessments. If they pay them, believe they should get the benefits other taxpayers receive.

  371. Chicon says:

    373 – appreciate the analysis, but I believe in Wes First!

  372. Wes says:

    Both Henry Clay and Joe Bien were 29 upon achieving legislative appointment and election to the Senate respectively. However, each was 30 upon taking office.

    Using the Senate as a yardstick, Obama could have been elected President at 34 and taken office at 35.

    That’s unclear though as no President has ever been younger than 42.

  373. MichiganGuy says:

    New Jersey Senate (Quinnipiac)
    .
    Menendez 49%
    Hugin 32%
    .
    https://poll.qu.edu/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2527

  374. Wes says:

    Social Security I have mixed feelings on, SDC. Retirement plans are private though and therefore lie outside the scope of my argument.

  375. Wes says:

    On the other hand, SDC, if an immigrant is here long enough to receive Social Security, why is he/she not a citizen?

  376. Wes says:

    Republicans haven’t won a Senate race in the Sewer State since 1972. 2018 won’t be when they break that losing streak. The NJGOP is nearly as big a joke as the CAGOP or HIGOP. (The DEGOP needs to just disband after the O’Donnell debacle.)

  377. Tina says:

    American First is racist.

    Hillary First is not racist.

    Jebot

  378. MichiganGuy says:

    Maryland Governor (Burton Research and Strategies)
    .
    Hogan (R) 54%
    Baker (D) 29%
    .
    Hogan (R) 57%
    Kamenetz (D) 26%
    .
    https://marylandmatters.org/2018/03/13/gop-poll-shows-hogan-with-substantial-leads-over-baker-kamenetz/

  379. Tina says:

    From the socialiast on the Lido Deck

    Bill Kristol
    @BillKristol
    I guess you could say Trump chose Putin over Tillerson.

  380. Tina says:

    So, when he chise Tillerson, the jebots and leftists said tillerson was pro pooty poot.

    When he freplaces tillerson, trump is still pro pooty poot, per the leftists

  381. jason says:

    You have every right to have that opinion, but I cannot help but find it odd that people who think like that insisted for years that they only cared about stopping illegal immigration and had no issue at all with legal immigration.

    Some people were being much less than honest”

    Dang, I have to agree with Corey on this one since I often ask the same question.

    So far NYC has not given us an answer except to say that a 50% cut in legal immigration might be “negotiable” (NYC must have “sources”)

  382. Tina says:

    Is moon beam touting the train whose budgetary needs just increased by 10 billion,

  383. Tina says:

    I believe in Hillary First!

    Jebot

  384. Tina says:

    I am also in favors of illegals first.

    Jebot

  385. Tina says:

    Any lord arsehat numbers yet on pa?

  386. Tina says:

    Breaking

    Obama hired fusion to go after quittens in 2012.

    Obama paid money to fusion in 2016,

    Dossier hiax.

  387. jason says:

    It’s clear though that Democrats are ultra-motivated and a Republican candidate who claims to be “more Trump than Trump” and cannot find one area of disagreement at all with Trump is going to be a lightning rod. A more independent, non-Trumpian Republican (like the now disgraced Rep. Murphy) would have had not much difficulty holding the seat.

    Zzzzzz….

    Conversely, you can say if the Democrat ran as a Democrat and not as a Pelosi hating, gun loving, fake conservative that doesn’t attack Trump, it would be much easier to hold the seat.

  388. Tina says:

    REx did well in the ME.

    However, his policies were not aligned with the President’s.

    As Secretary of the DoS Rex Tillerson supported the Paris Climate Treaty; the President did not; Secretary Tillerson supported the Obama administration’s Iran deal; the President did not; Tillerson was more apologetic toward lax immigration policy; the President is not; and there were other visible departures visible surrounding the use of economic leverage to achieve national security advancements, specifically on the issue of China and North Korea policy.

  389. jason says:

    Corey thinks the fact the Republican is close to Trump is a liability, but he neglects to mention that a Democrat who doesn’t attack Trump is benefiting from it.

    Hypocrisy at its best.

  390. Tina says:

    Quittens woukd have been a worse sos.

    Pompeo is an upgrade,

    Now he needs to do a few things

    Exit Nafta

    Quit Nafta.

    Fire Swampstein and have the rs defund Mulehead.

  391. Tina says:

    Exit he iran deal.

  392. BayernFan says:

    I do wish Trump had sought to appoint some Dems to stuff that may have led to GOP takeovers….like that Heidi Senator. Maybe he tried, idk.

  393. CG says:

    Lamb doesn’t really need to attack Trump. The Democrats are going to vote for him no matter what.

    (and as I told them on another blog, they are all hypocrites on the gun issue, as they gush over Lamb)

  394. Tina says:

    The leftists and illegals are upset that trump blasted moonbeam.

  395. Tgca says:

    400!!!

  396. CG says:

    Lamb has definitely been quite critical of Trump though and brought in Biden to campaign for him, etc.

  397. Tina says:

    Saccone sucks as a candidate. Too ugly and too passsive.

    A disaster.

  398. jason says:

    Messy57 says:
    March 13, 2018 at 3:18 pm

    Lamb 53, Lamb 47.”

    I thought Messy never finished grade school but this is quite brilliant.

    When it comes to have it both ways, she is certainly smarter than NYC with his “it will be tough for my prediction to come through” BS.

  399. jason says:

    Huh, having it both ways.

  400. Tina says:

    Goldestein was also fired at the department of keftist state,

    Goldestein came out with the false press release.

    Sf press person at Ice also fired.

  401. MichiganGuy says:

    The dailykos kids have their own polling firm now.
    .
    Civiqs
    .
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/12/1748087/-Announcing-Civiqs-the-coolest-thing-I-ve-helped-build-since-Daily-Kos
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Don’t we have enough liberal bias polling. 🙄

  402. Tina says:

    Any updates on pa?

  403. jason says:

    “Democrat Conor Lamb on Tuesday downplayed the idea that his special election House race is a referendum on President Trump..

    Asked if the race would say something about Trump’s popularity, Lamb answered that it simply said that people are excited about his local race against GOP state Rep. Rick Saccone.

    “I’m happy for them that their voices are going to be heard all around the world today. But this is a local race, people are voting for either me or Rick Saccone I don’t think it has anything to do with the president,” Lamb said.

  404. Bitterlaw says:

    -“Mr. Tariff”?

    Would that be Reagan, Bush, or Trump?

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph. If NYC was captain of a ship, he would ram it into an iceberg and say, “Captain Smith did it, too. Why shouldn’t I do it?”

  405. jason says:

    “Lamb never mentioned the president by name in our conversation. When I asked what he thought of Trump, the Democrat sat up taller and sounded slightly—almost imperceptibly—agitated: “We need the office of the presidency to succeed if we’re gonna make any progress on these issues,” Lamb said firmly. “The number-one thing people talk about is wanting to get someone down there who’s actually gonna attack the problem, not attack the other side.”

  406. CG says:

    That’s all Lamb needs to say. He knows he is counting on the votes of those who think otherwise, and so is Saccone.

    Are we to take Democrat politicians statements at face value?

    What we know is that Trump went to the district to campaign for Saccnone, which may drive up turnout against him on its own, and during the rally, he barely mentioned the candidate and said many other incendiary things.

    Maybe that will help his guy win. Maybe it will hurt. We will see in a few hours. I call the race as a Tossup.

    Before Virginia, most everyone insisted that the Republicans were going to outperform the polls, and that Trump would not be a drag. That turned out to be very much not the case.

    This is a district that Trump won by 20 points. There shouldn’t be any excuses.

  407. jason says:

    WAYNESBURG, Pa. — For more than an hour, union leaders rallied support Sunday for Democrat Conor Lamb in his special congressional race against Republican Rick Saccone without mentioning President Trump a single time.”

  408. Tina says:

    I trust the bushs on the exonomy and iraq.

    Jebot

  409. MichiganGuy says:

    “SEVERAL REPUBLICANS reached out to us this morning and said they expect it could be an early night in Pennsylvania. At this point, GOP insiders involved in the race expect Democrat CONOR LAMB to win Pennsylvania’s 18th district. Some RNC overnight data came back, and Republican Rick Saccone is in a tough spot, according to these sources.”
    .
    https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-power-briefing/2018/03/13/rex-tillerson-fired-state-department-254312

  410. jason says:

    There are 70k more Dems than Rs in the District.

    If Lamb is not critical of Trump, enough Trump “Democrats” might think he is acceptable.

    So I don’t think your point that Saccone’s problem is being allied with Trump, it’s the opposite the problem is that Lamb is running as a conservative who is not critical of Trump.

  411. Tina says:

    Saccone let the drat get to his right.

    We all know he is a blue fraud.

  412. CG says:

    If they can take a district that Trump won by 20 points “without mentioning him”, even though Trump is involving himself, what does that say about all the other closer districts?

    One thing that should be remembered is “candidates matter” and Republican candidates should not attempt to run as Trump clones.

  413. Tina says:

    Rnc got into the game late too it seems,

    Trump is not the issue in this district.

    Saccone is the issue,

  414. jason says:

    Saccone aligning himself with Trump was the right thing to do, win or lose.

    Lamb’s strategy of staying away from criticizing Trump was also the right thing to do.

  415. Tina says:

    It will be an early night, unfortunately,,

  416. CG says:

    Excuses, excuses…

    Saccone sucked as a candidate. Trump is a drag for Republicans in many places. Ignore the warnings at your own peril.

  417. Tina says:

    So, ds do outnumber rs in that district?

  418. Tina says:

    Jebot stupidity, and more stupidity….

  419. CG says:

    Those who disapprove of Trump in that district will vote for Lamb by something like 99-1.

    That argument does not hold up.

  420. Tina says:

    Rottie predicted saccone.

    Pretty much, go with the opposite that it predicts.

    3 years of sheotty and weong predictions from the muh russian hoaxer.

  421. jason says:

    ALERT — SEVERAL REPUBLICANS reached out to us this morning and said they expect it could be an early night in Pennsylvania. At this point, GOP insiders involved in the race expect Democrat CONOR LAMB to win Pennsylvania’s 18th district. Some RNC overnight data came back, and Republican Rick Saccone is in a tough spot, according to these sources. Polls close at 8 p.m.”

    LOL

    I don’t know of any GOP “insiders” that would talk to a left wing rag like Politico about any “overnight data”.

    This could well be true that Saccone is in trouble but I bet the story is bogus.

  422. Tina says:

    Actually 3years is not accurate.

    2012, it was hapoy that quittens lost and wanted a broken up convention.

  423. jason says:

    Yeah, the fact Wobbie predicted Saccone to win is a real downer, the guy has made being wrong a science.

  424. Tina says:

    THe socialist slurred pompeo. Pompeo coukd litterally take out the socialist quickly.

    6h
    Is @BillKristol calling West Point grad, Army officer, Congressman, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo a Russian agent?

  425. Tina says:

    I figured the laws of averages would work to the favor of the russian hiaxer.

  426. Tina says:

    The socialist ahoukd do a ahow on the lido Deck with mika joe scarfarce and the face.

  427. CG says:

    Trump will probably be Tweeting tonight that Saccone lost because of his mustache and that he ignored the request by Trump to shave it off.

  428. jason says:

    Trump is a drag for Republicans in many places.”

    If that were true, Lamb would have run against him.

    Lamb is smarter than Corey, but then that’s a low bar.

  429. Hugh says:

    Saccone sucks and trump is becoming a drag on the ticket. Whether it’s due to firing up dems or depressing the gop or turning off rep leaning independents it doesn’t matter. The fact is if our candidates run from Trump they’re screwed, so they are between a rock and a hard place. If he was not such an as s wine of a human being, with this economy we would be poised to win anything close.

  430. CG says:

    and Ann Coulter will be sure to bring up that Saccone has an Asian wife.

  431. Tina says:

    look how fast the socialist has fallen.

    Used to be a cnn crossfire stooge, then a bush apologist on faux, and now an msld fake con.

  432. jason says:

    Fortunately, most Dems will not emulate Lamb, they will run as Marxists.

  433. Bitterlaw says:

    Bill Kristol is now a socialist? Does Tina use different definitions than the rest of us?

  434. CG says:

    the “many places” are even more so in districts that Trump did not win by 20 points.

    There are GOP held seats in districts he lost. What can we expect to happen there?

    One thing I know, is that those Dems are going to try to make it all about Trump.

  435. Tina says:

    Trump was not a factor in this race though,

    Saccone is terrible,

  436. CG says:

    Lamb doesn’t have to lift a finger to mention Trump. He has those votes banked.

    Why did he bring Biden in though?

  437. Tina says:

    I see, the socialists defender s back. Have you read what the socialist tweeted about the tax cuts?

  438. Tina says:

    Lamb did not make it about trump.

  439. Tina says:

    Something about letting his inner socialist cry out against the tax cuts.

  440. Tina says:

    Nick Short ??
    Nick Short ??
    @PoliticalShort
    ·
    39m
    Adam Schiff’s TV career at risk after GOP shuts down Russia probe.

  441. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    Hey y’all. This Pittsburgh Post Gazette article is a positive for Mr. Saccone(R) in the PA CD-18 race.The newspaper claims that the turnout in Lamb’s(D) strongest County,Alleghany, has been low by historical standards.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/early-returns/erlocal/2017/05/18/pa-primary-election-results-Allegheny-County-voter-turnout/stories/201705180103

  442. jason says:

    “The anti-Lamb ads Republicans have been running are, er, interesting. Earlier in the campaign Lamb announced he would not, if he won, vote to continue Nancy Pelosi as House party leader the next time she’s up. He’s kept to a carefully centrist message, largely refusing to criticize Trump – while endorsing his tariffs – and stressing his background in law enforcement, his military service, and even his Catholicism.”

  443. CG says:

    Funny that Kristol a supposed “socialist” is opposed to government tariffs and protectionism while those who claim someone is a “socialist” is in all in favor…

    Goodnight.

    (For the record, if I live in PA 18, I would write in Mr. Belvidere.)

  444. Tina says:

    Career as a leaker, liar, scammer, and hoaxer.

    In short, a jebot.

  445. jason says:

    The PPG endorsed Saccone so maybe trying to help him out.

  446. Wes says:

    I think Saccone goes down by one to three points.

  447. jason says:

    Kristol is not a socialist.

    But he is a weak spineless turd that can’t admit he was wrong.

    He reminds of someone else here.

  448. Tina says:

    It could be mika joe scarfarce aka reql con that spoke to politico. He has secret sources.

  449. jason says:

    He’s kept to a carefully centrist message, largely refusing to criticize Trump – while endorsing his tariffs”

    Yep, sounds like he is really “anti-Trump”

  450. Sheeple, Jr. says:

    #450
    The article says under 20% Alleghany turnout.
    Anything with the news media is possible, but facts are facts and I cannot see how this article would help or hurt either candidate this late on voting day.

  451. Tina says:

    I will be celebrating when saccone goes down.

    Jebot

  452. Tina says:

    When lamb wins, bet he supports piglosi.

  453. jason says:

    43 Democrats voted against Tillerson as SOS just to spite Trump.

    Now they are all whining that he got fired.

    I love the hypocrisy.

  454. MichiganGuy says:

    2018 Generic Congressional Vote:
    .
    Democrat 49%
    Republican 40%
    .
    How would you rate the job Donald Trump has been doing as President? Do you approve or disapprove of the job he is doing?
    .
    Approve 42%
    Disapprove 55%
    .
    GW Battleground Poll
    .
    https://www.tarrance.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BG-63-questionnaire.pdf

  455. jason says:

    When lamb wins, bet he supports piglosi.”

    Sure he will, and the whole Democratic agenda.

    Corey is ok with that because “Saccone is too close to Trump”.

  456. jason says:

    Wow, Trump is only 3% away from disaster.

    (For Wobbie of course, given his repeated opinion that the GOP congress is safe if Trump gets to 45%)

    Poor bastard must be crapping his pants.

  457. jason says:

    I am sure Wobbie will be here to celebrate Lamb’s win if it happens like he celebrated Obama’s win.

  458. Bitterlaw says:

    If Saccone wins, I will give Trump and capacity rally credit. If Saccone loses, I will only blame Saccone.

    I still say Saccone loses.

  459. jason says:

    I agree. Trump gets the credit but not the blame.

  460. MichiganGuy says:

    Meanwhile, confused voters in Pennsylvania’s 17 other congressional districts have logged angry calls and messages with their local elections offices after finding their own polls closed Tuesday.

    Northampton County Registrar Dee Rumsey said her office received more than a dozen calls before noon from voters pursuing their constitutional right to vote. Several media outlets, she said, failed to make clear it was not a statewide race, but limited to one district in southwestern Pennsylvania.
    .
    http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-lehigh-valley-special-election-confusion-20180313-story.html
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

  461. Tina says:

    That is fair bl, regarding saccone.

  462. Phil says:

    Lamb is a typical blue fraud. Expect him to be a yes to impeach Trump once Nancy’s new Democratic House majority is seated next January…..and House Democrats will impeach Trump. Don’t anyone doubt that. Don’t doubt it for a moment.

    I prefer the honest Marxist types……like our Democratic senatorial candidate down here in Texas. O’Rourke just tells it like it is. ‘’I Want your guns and I can’t wait to jack up your taxes”. The guy is actually refreshing. Almost refreshing enough to vote for.

  463. jason says:

    Of course the Marxists, the MSM, the trolls and the two Jebbots will blame Trump.

    But the fact they all think alike is just a coincidence.

  464. jason says:

    I voted by email myself.

  465. jason says:

    I sent the Registrar in Allegheny County an email with my vote.

    If it was for Lamb I am sure it would count.

  466. Phil says:

    ….but Lamb is smart enough to do what it takes to get elected. Remember 2006, when Democrats ran almost three dozen “moderates” like Heath Schuler to gain their majority? Worked like a charm. Only problem is that once they get in these blue fraud types couldn’t cover up their lefty voting records. It becomes a matter of public record.

    I n the meantime we have to endure Speaker Pelosi and a bunch of Loons as House committee chairmen for a term or two.

  467. JC says:

    I haven’t really been following the PA election. Based on the polls I’d have to give a slight advantage to the Dems due to this being a special election. It’s all about turnout.

    I’ll be glad to be wrong. Hopefully Trump’s visit energized enough republicans to go to the polls.

  468. NYCmike says:

    JC,

    Jason and I made the same prediction…..although he copied my prediction (look at the time stamps).

    Also, I noticed the poll at the top was the opposite of my prediction….and if that poll is true….it would be very hard for my prediction to come true.

    Actually, it would be impossible for my prediction to come true.*

    *jason to translate this like no other person alive.

  469. NYCmike says:

    ” If NYC was captain of a ship, he would ram it into an iceberg and say, “Captain Smith did it, too. Why shouldn’t I do it?””

    -I heard Captain Smith had a good lawyer…..got him off on sleep apnea, along with a million $ settlement from the medical insurance because the doctor did not diagnose the “condition”.

  470. MichiganGuy says: