Magox

Reality is that Scarborough IS truly a conservative. Deep down, he cringes when he hears liberals espouse their left views, however he is an anti war guy (in the lines of Pat Buchannan) who does have "moderate" social views. He doesn't support tax increases and is a small government conservative. If he was one of today's politicians, he'd be a tea party candidate. He just happens to work for MSNBC, and it is after all his job, you know, to get ratings. He appeases those to the left just enough to keep them tuned in, and talks about the Debt and Deficit enough to keep conservatives tuned in.

I still want to know why we're rooting for gays?

Ever since the elections, Politico has had a field day with writing up pieces about internal division with the GOP. lol

I agree, but how do you sell that? I'll tell you how, you don't.

ACA will prove to be a disaster

I agree with this concept for just about all health care. But I believe with the nation of fat asses we have, it's gonna take an organic approach that entails healthier living to compliment a better delivery system of how we administer medicine.

Rising health care costs are the main driver. But certainly isn't the only issue.

I've rooted for many teams and people, but not sure I ever rooted for the gays.

exit poll data

Look at the 2010 Census, that would be the most accurate data.

That's the least he could of said.

The more I keep thinking about this Cliff Bill, it actually is a very conservative Bill. It was a bill that permanently lowered taxes for the vast majority of the population. If anything, this bill builds on to George Bush's legacy.

Well yeah, they typically vote for Conservatives because of Castro. However, the children of many of these people who fled Cuba don't relate to the experiences their parents have had. They have become Americanized, living in urban areas such as Miami, and they relate socially much more with D's than R's.

People can support whatever they want to support, that's their choice. But you can't credibly say that you are a proponent of small government and then at the same time support a massive entitlement that drastically expands Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance for those that make under $60k a year. The point that he's bringing up has very little to do with what I was saying, he's talking about the clause that allows for people with pre existing medical conditions thats in the ACA. There are many ways of helping solve this issue without having to pass the bill that was passed. There's a difference. Here is one existing solution and it works incredibly well for many people. How about just expanding this program? https://www.pcip.gov/ Even cubans are beginning to vote more Democratic, thanks to the youth. They don't have the same qualms against Castro as their parents do. All one has to do is look at the exit polls of Florida and you will see that Obama lost the cuban vote in the single digits. That is unheard of. Why? Because of the youth.

You said "People are people" and I simply and accurately pointed to you how absurd that comment by providing an example that People aren't simply just people. The younger latino population are becoming a homogenous group, all you have to do is look at the exit polls of the past two elections to see it. Also, you don't believe that the rigid hard liners from the perspective of latinos aren't violating their civil rights. From their perspective, they see the Arizona immigration laws as a shot across the bow against latinos, a form of profiling. I'm not arguing that is the case, but that is the way they perceive things. So again, the point is to be more inclusive to Latinos, or suffer the consequences and become a more left leaning country.

Ok, you go ahead and sell that to the black population.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the recent trends. Bush won 43% of the latino vote, at that time, the latino vote made up less than 10% of the total electorate. 2008 McCain won 33% of the total latino vote, which made up close to 13% of the total electorate, and Romney won around 28% of the latino vote, which made up over 15% of the total electorate. That's an increase of 50% for latino turnout relative to the rest of the electorate, and when you look at the sharp drop off in % of Latinos voting for R's, then that is a huge red flag. I spoke about this at length, well before you ever came to this board. I warned the immigration hardliners on this board well before the election, and they didn't want to accept that reality. Well, it happened. Reality is that latinos are going to make up close to a quarter of the electorate within 15 years. Considering not just the growing latino electorate, but the trends for who they've been voting for (The D's), and you couple that with blacks who uniformly vote for D's, you better look to adopt policies, or at the very least become a more inclusive party or the math will catch up, which it already has begun. So yes, demographics do matter and anyone who denies this is denying reality.

Ok, so you deny math.

You can't deny the changing demographics. Or can you?

As long as we continue economic policies centered around social justice (injustices), the economy will never come close to reaching it's potential.

In a fully employed economy, 2.5-3% is acceptable, in an economy with real unemployment through the roof, 2.5-3% is totally unacceptable.

What kind of question is that? What are you exactly asking?

Depends on if it's cost effective or not. Doesn't make sense to build the infrastructure for a mass transit system in a region of the country that isn't either geographically or economically viable. Some of these projects make sense, some don't.

I never implied that you were a leach

Oh I don't know. That is above my pay grade.