Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 13, 2015, 08:44:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
89000 Posts in 2287 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 137
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics, Thomas Sowell on income inequality on: Today at 12:16:04 AM
Keep this in mind as you watch the inaugural Dem-Socialist debate:

“Nowhere in the world do you find this evenness that people use as a norm. And I find it fascinating that they will hold up as a norm something that has never been seen on this planet, and regard as an anomaly something that is seen in country after country.”
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: Today at 12:13:08 AM
We already have good answers in this thread like "running out of other people's money" and "the fundamental error of socialism" by Pope John Paul II.  As as we come into tomorrow's Democratic Socialist Party extravaganza with Bernie and the gang, the need to be able to fully explain to any young or impressionable voter you may encounter, why not socialism, has never been greater.


"The term “liberal” originally referred politically to those who wanted to liberate people—mainly from the oppressive power of government." 

“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”     - Thomas Sowell
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: October 12, 2015, 11:02:59 PM
"There was a recovery?"

You beat me to that!  Ready to start some recovery jokes?  How will we know it's over - the lady with the fat calves will sing?  Where were you when the Obama recovery hit?   I sneezed, my eyes closed, and I missed it.  How was it?

While we were 'recovering', we had this biggest debt run-up, greatest unfunded liabilities, lowest business startup rate, most people who left the workforce, and the biggest drop in median income in our nation's brief history.

Recovery means return to normal, not return to some new normal.
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Private beneficiaries of Eminent Domain on: October 12, 2015, 09:59:09 PM

From the link:  "A Nebraska landowner has sued to block the taking of his property (actually, an easement across his property)"

It is a 36" pipe, a public utility easement as I understand it.  No property deeds were stripped and no one was shackled and forcibly removed from their homes in the way Suzette Kelo and Vera coking were by public officials at the direction of Pfizer and Trump.

No one near mainstream opposes eminent domain for PUBLIC USE including things like roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, prisons, even though these may have a private operator or house a private business.

The Kelo controversy is about public taking for a preferred PRIVATE USE.

So what about public utility right of ways?  Public utility commissions regulate quasi-private companies that operate a utility - like a pipeline.  Are they public use?  Yes.  Is that a gray area?  I don't think so.

Is Keystone XL for public use?  Yes.  How?

The way I see it, every ambulance, every police car, every fire truck in America uses this product and it needs transporting across the country, one way or another.  Places like the WHITE HOUSE are heated with this product, a very basic example of public use of the product in need of transporting.  That is not the same as a factory, a mall or a casino that could be located somewhere / anywhere else.

The product has public use, requires transport and the pipeline is the safest way  and most efficient to transport it by a factor of something like 10 fold compared to trucking it which is used now absent the pipeline.

I don't know about the structure of the company operating the pipeline or why it is Canadian or if that matters.  I imagine they are regulated like every other public utility company.  The way it should work in my view is that the public should own the right of way and the company pays for operational rights that entice them to make the investment.  

Is this different than a public taking for private development?  Yes, in a couple of ways.  It's only a 36" pipe, an easement, an inconvenience, not a displacement as far as I know.  It is a partial taking and those also require compensation according to Supreme Court precedent.  

But the crucial difference is public use.  I made the argument above that this is a public use. But if it is not, if it is merely our crony government helping out one preferred economic interest over everyone else, well then it is only legal under the Breyer, Souter, Trump rule - which is '"wonderful" - if you are the preferred private economic interest who has the government clear out properties for you.

5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Federal wages on: October 12, 2015, 09:58:06 AM

Federal civilian workers had an average wage of $84,153 in 2014,

Not noted in the numbers, my brother in law retired from the federal government in his 40s with the full retirement package.
6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / George Will: Impeach the IRS Commissioner on: October 12, 2015, 09:55:15 AM
George Will:  Impeach the IRS COmmissioner
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Day 886 IRS Scandal on: October 12, 2015, 09:53:01 AM
Day 886 of the IRS Scandal.  Anyone following it?
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House? A dissenting view on: October 12, 2015, 09:51:00 AM

"...OCTOBER 9, 2015|
Congress, Connor Ewing, James Madison, Presidential Succession Act of 1947, Speaker of the House, U.S. Constitution
Dysfunction Is No Excuse for Misreading the Constitution
by DIANA SCHAUB|3 Comments
Can the U.S. House of Representatives elect a non-member to the Speakership? Disgusted by the dysfunction in Congress, some are suggesting this is constitutionally possible. Connor Ewing, in this space yesterday, asserted the only thing standing in the way is “over two centuries of legislative practice to the contrary.” 

He and a handful of others now claim that nothing in the text of the Constitution would prevent the members from electing an outsider. They cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker,” arguing that this leaves the choice entirely free (or at least free enough that a private citizen could be tapped for the post).

However, this construction of the passage ignores a number of other textual elements in the Constitution, as well as other relevant texts. There is an inescapable logic to the setting forth of the Constitution’s sections which should guide interpretation. In Article 1, Section 1, we learn that Congress is vested with specified legislative powers and that Congress “shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1, we learn that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”

These definitions govern the meaning of subsequent clauses..."
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rubio Attacks Trump on Eminent Domain on: October 12, 2015, 09:48:10 AM
Who could have seen THIS coming?

Rubio Hits Trump on Eminent Domain
10:50 AM, OCT 7, 2015 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

Manchester, N.H.
Florida senator Marco Rubio responded Wednesday morning to Donald Trump's comment that the use of eminent domain for private projects is a "wonderful thing."

"He's wrong," Rubio told THE WEEKLY STANDARD following a campaign event at a tech company in New Hampshire. "In Florida when I was a state legislator, we passed what has become model legislation for other states around the country--that I actually passed--both a law and a constitutional amendment that keeps developers like Donald Trump from using eminent domain to take private property away from an owner and give it to another private owner, which is what the Kelo decision said should be legal unless states barred it. So he's wrong about that. One of the most important rights Americans have is private property."

In an interview Tuesday evening with Bret Baier on Fox News, Trump praised the government's seizing private property from individuals in order to "build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory."

Conservative commentators widely criticized Trump for supporting the government trampling on individual rights.
10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness, consumers will pay more for minimum wage on: October 12, 2015, 09:43:40 AM
Yes they will!

It would be fun to submit this paper to Econ professors for grading with the name President Obama removed from it anbd see who gives it a passing grade.

I thought that a government mandated minimum wage on private businesses was a just intended to force the presumed rich, greedy businesses to pay what they could easily afford to pay out of their wrongful profits.  Now proponents admit it is a tax on consumption.  Of course it is!  It is a tax on employment too.  You don't pay the minimum wage tax if you can automate instead and eliminate the job.  ANd you don't pay it if you close your doors instead.

Tax it and you will get less of it, Econ 101.  Less consumption, less employment, hiring, fewer businesses and fewer and fewer people getting and holding the so-called raise - more pay for the same level of work.

Of course it isn't a raise anyway, for anyone, if you have to pay more for everything you buy with it - even if you still had your job.

In that case under liberal-think (oxymoron), simply raise minimum wage again to afford the new, higher prices, and raise all other wages too to keep pace (and get less of them too!) and raise prices again, and repeat and repeat and repeat...

Back to the 70s...
(Bernie Sanders wants a top tax rate of 90% in Obama's third term and Hillary wants Executive power to shut down Congressional inquiries.)

And they say its Republicans who want to take us back in time.
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: October 11, 2015, 10:58:40 PM

Trying to find post of a REALLY good CT Supreme Court decision on right to bear arms.

Help please!

12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc) on: October 10, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
And if China uses it's Sunburn missiles to defend it's claimed territorial waters?

Under Obama rules of engagement, I assume US forces will be unamed and (any survivors) will surrender if challenged.
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Bobby Jindal on: October 09, 2015, 08:36:04 PM

"He taxes capital gains as ordinary income which is a big mistake because such a big part of a long term gain is the inflationary component - not a gain at all."

I am surprised by that.   

Me too.  Just a small defect in the sense that this is version 1.0 of a very good plan.  Each of these plans has small flaws, and like 2012, each of the plans is a million times better than what we have now.

Jindal's only problem is charisma.  99.99999% of us don't have what it takes to catch on and be elected leader of the free world. He is a very smart, conservative guy, two term of governor of a sufficiently important state, with a great agenda, honest, no scandals, etc.   I wish someone like him would win, but it isn't going to happen.
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi, Gowdy, Clinton crime family emails on: October 09, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has told Elijah Cummings, his Democratic counterpart on the committee, that he will soon release 1,500 pages of new Hillary Clinton emails concerning Libya that the State Department recently turned over. A “small number” of them pertain to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound, Gowdy said.

In his letter to Cummings, Gowdy also revealed that many of the emails in question involve Sid Blumenthal.

The contents of some of Hillary’s correspondence with Blumenthal, as described by Gowdy, help us understand (1) why she wanted to conduct State Department related business on a private server, (2) why she didn’t want to turn her emails over to the State Department when she left office, and (3) why the State Department withheld these particular documents from Gowdy’s committee for so long.

If Gowdy’s letter is correct, the latest batch of emails suggests that Clinton used her office to advance Blumenthal’s business interests in Libya. It also shows that she both received and sent (on her private server) an email that revealed the identity of a CIA source in Libya. Finally, it thereby confirms that, contrary to her insistence, she used the private server to send out classified information.

As to the first point, Gowdy states:

At the same time that Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing a business interest of his own in Libya that stood to profit from contracts with the new Libyan government—a government that would exist only after a successful U.S. intervention in Libya that deposed Qaddafi.

We already knew about this from prior email exchanges. Blumenthal had a financial interest in Osprey Global Solutions, a security company that hoped to obtain contracts from a post-Qaddifi government. In addition, we already knew that Blumenthal was pushing Clinton for U.S. intervention in Libya knowing that such intervention would help produce a post-Qaddifi government with which Osprey might be able to do business.

But what’s new (as far as I know) is that Clinton apparently assisted Blumenthal in his effort to advance this financial interest. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Emails. . .show that Clinton actively promoted security arrangements that might have benefited Osprey. Blumenthal told Clinton in an April 2011 email that Libyan revolutionary leaders were “considering the possibility of hiring private security firms to help train and organize their forces.”

Clinton forwarded that email to Sullivan, adding, “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”

To be sure, this constitutes only limited support. Moreover, Clinton might genuinely have thought that using private security experts was a good idea.

But Clinton’s favorable comment about private security can easily be viewed as an attempt to scratch the back of a person she has described as an old friend. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Clinton would have offered an opinion on this subject — which wasn’t yet ripe and isn’t within her area of expertise (as the Benghazi attack showed) — but for a desire to help her old friend “Sid Vicious.”

No wonder both Clinton and the State Department wanted to keep these emails under wraps.

The second new problem for Clinton is that, according to Gowdy’s letter, Blumenthal sent an email to Clinton’s personal address containing the name of a CIA source in Libya. Hillary then passed the email along to a colleague, using her private email system.

As Gowdy puts it: “This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives.” I agree with Ed Morrissey that this breach is worse than the disclosure during the Bush administration that Valerie Plame was with the CIA. Plame was basically a Washington, D.C. socialite. The CIA’s source in Libya was, in effect, a spy who faced the very real risk of being killed if his or her status became known.

Finally, the fact that Clinton passed along an email identifying a CIA source by name destroys whatever might be left of her claim that she never sent classified information from her private email address. It also destroys her fallback defense that she never sent information she had reason to know was classified at the time of transmission.

The identity of CIA human sources is classified and obviously so. Clinton certainly knew this.

One reason why Gowdy sent his letter to Cummings was to regain momentum for the hearings following Kevin McCarthy’s comments linking the Benghazi panel to Clinton’s falling poll numbers. Hillary Clinton is running for president; Kevin McCarthy is no longer even trying to become Speaker. Nor, as far as we know, is there an FBI investigation into possible wrongdoing by McCarthy.

It seems likely that before long, the focus will return to Hillary and her server.
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Bobby Jindal on: October 09, 2015, 11:17:56 AM
A quick skim leaves me with a very favorable impression.  I very much like the 2% rate for low income people so everyone has skin in the game, and like the idea of a zero corporate rate ("tax the CEO, not the corp") but wonder if some problems might arise with it (e.g. smaller salaries in return for extremely cushy work environment paid for with tax free dollars).

I also like the 2% feature and I like other parts.  He taxes capital gains as ordinary income which is a big mistake because such a big part of a long term gain is the inflationary component - not a gain at all.

This plan will fall by the wayside just because his candidacy isn't taking off, but hopefully others can carry its good features forward.
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Condaleeza Rice, Robert Gates, How to Counter Putin in Syria on: October 09, 2015, 10:07:30 AM
How America can counter Putin’s moves in Syria

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates October 8 at 9:08 PM
Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. Robert M. Gates was defense secretary from 2006 to 2011.

One can hear the disbelief in capitals from Washington to London to Berlin to Ankara and beyond. How can Vladimir Putin, with a sinking economy and a second-rate military, continually dictate the course of geopolitical events? Whether it’s in Ukraine or Syria, the Russian president seems always to have the upper hand.

Sometimes the reaction is derision: This is a sign of weakness. Or smugness: He will regret the decision to intervene. Russia cannot possibly succeed. Or alarm: This will make an already bad situation worse. And, finally, resignation: Perhaps the Russians can be brought along to help stabilize the situation, and we could use help fighting the Islamic State.

The fact is that Putin is playing a weak hand extraordinarily well because he knows exactly what he wants to do. He is not stabilizing the situation according to our definition of stability. He is defending Russia’s interests by keeping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. This is not about the Islamic State. Any insurgent group that opposes Russian interests is a terrorist organization to Moscow. We saw this behavior in Ukraine, and now we’re seeing it even more aggressively — with bombing runs and cruise missile strikes — in Syria.

Putin is not a sentimental man, and if Assad becomes a liability, Putin will gladly move on to a substitute acceptable to Moscow. But for now, the Russians believe that they (and the Iranians) can save Assad. President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry say that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. That is true, but Moscow understands that diplomacy follows the facts on the ground, not the other way around. Russia and Iran are creating favorable facts. Once this military intervention has run its course, expect a peace proposal from Moscow that reflects its interests, including securing the Russian military base at Tartus.

We should not forget that Moscow’s definition of success is not the same as ours. The Russians have shown a willingness to accept and even encourage the creation of so-called failed states and frozen conflicts from Georgia to Moldova to Ukraine. Why should Syria be any different? If Moscow’s “people” can govern only a part of the state but make it impossible for anyone else to govern the rest of it — so be it.

And the well-being of the population is not the issue either. The Russian definition of success contains no element of concern for the dismal situation of the Syrian people. Refugees — that’s Europe’s problem. Greater sectarianism — well, it’s the Middle East! Populations attacked with barrel bombs and Assad’s chemicals, supposedly banned in the deal that Moscow itself negotiated — too bad!

Putin’s move into Syria is old-fashioned great-power politics. (Yes, people do that in the 21st century.) There is a domestic benefit to him, but he is not externalizing his problems at home. Russian domestic and international policies have always been inextricably linked. Russia feels strong at home when it is strong abroad — this is Putin’s plea to his propagandized population — and the Russian people buy it, at least for now. Russia is a great power and derives its self-worth from that. What else is there? When is the last time you bought a Russian product that wasn’t petroleum? Moscow matters again in international politics, and Russian armed forces are on the move.

Let us also realize that hectoring Putin about the bad choice he has made sounds weak. The last time the Russians regretted a foreign adventure was Afghanistan. But that didn’t happen until Ronald Reagan armed the Afghan mujahideen with Stinger missiles that started blowing Russian warplanes and helicopters out of the sky. Only then did an exhausted Soviet Union led by Mikhail Gorbachev, anxious to make accommodation with the West, decide that the Afghan adventure wasn’t worth it.

So what can we do?

First, we must reject the argument that Putin is simply reacting to world disorder. Putin, this argument would suggest, is just trying to hold together the Middle East state system in response to the chaos engendered by U.S. overreach in Iraq, Libya and beyond.

Putin is indeed reacting to circumstances in the Middle East. He sees a vacuum created by our hesitancy to fully engage in places such as Libya and to stay the course in Iraq. But Putin as the defender of international stability? Don’t go there.

Second, we have to create our own facts on the ground. No-fly zones and safe harbors for populations are not “half-baked” ideas. They worked before (protecting the Kurds for 12 years under Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror) and warrant serious consideration. We will continue to have refugees until people are safe. Moreover, providing robust support for Kurdish forces, Sunni tribes and what’s left of the Iraqi special forces is not “mumbo-jumbo.” It might just salvage our current, failing strategy. A serious commitment to these steps would also solidify our relationship with Turkey, which is reeling from the implications of Moscow’s intervention. In short, we must create a better military balance of power on the ground if we are to seek a political solution acceptable to us and to our allies.

Third, we must “de-conflict” our military activities with those of the Russians. This is distasteful, and we should never have gotten to a place where the Russians are warning us to stay out of their way. But we must do all that we can to prevent an incident between us. Presumably, even Putin shares this concern.

Finally, we need to see Putin for who he is. Stop saying that we want to better understand Russian motives. The Russians know their objective very well: Secure their interests in the Middle East by any means necessary. What’s not clear about that?
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: October 07, 2015, 11:09:14 PM
Ted Cruz receives very favorable coverage today from my new favorite political reporter Eliana Johnson.

The Texas senator may look like an also-ran, but he’s a legit contender. Where’s Ted Cruz? The outspoken Texas senator has been unusually quiet in recent weeks. But in GOP circles, there’s soft but growing chatter that he is likely to be one of the last men standing in one of the most chaotic and unpredictable presidential races in recent memory. You wouldn’t know it from his poll numbers. Cruz is running at about 6 percent nationally and in key states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s well behind outsiders Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson, and those numbers accord with the attitude that many influential Republicans have taken toward him since his arrival in Washington three years ago: There’s no way he can win the nomination. He’s too conservative and doctrinaire, and his abrasiveness doesn’t help the cause. Given his poll numbers and his

s is the man, after all, who, according to one of his allies, began meeting with Iowa activists to plot his path to victory in the state in August of 2013, just nine months after he was elected to the Senate. Is it possible that he’ll sneak up on the Republican establishment again, just as he did in his 2012 Senate race?  Within Republican circles, attitudes about his viability have begun to change. Even strategists associated with some of Cruz’s rivals acknowledge that, in a historically crowded field, he may be one of the last men standing. “He’s got a long way to go, but unlike some of these guys, he has a coherent strategy, he has a lot of money, he has a pretty consistent message, and he’s not making mistakes,” says a top Republican strategist allied with Florida senator Marco Rubio. “He’s running a good campaign.” RELATED: The Paradox of Ted Cruz With strong support in Iowa and South Carolina, Cruz has a path through the early states; both his campaign and his super PAC are flush with cash; and he’s a skilled politician who doesn’t slip up much on the campaign trail or in debates. But unlike Cruz himself, his strategy is not head-turning but simple, steady, even creeping. “He’s not readily considered a first-tier candidate, but if you look at the critical ways to evaluate whether a candidate is strong or not, he should be a first-tier candidate,” says GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak. By all accounts, Cruz is positioned to succeed in Iowa, which has been friendly to conservative candidates in years past. The Real Clear Politics polling average has him tied for third place with Carly Fiorina, and he has a solid ground game in place. “Our trajectory has been slow and steady upward,” says Bryan English, Cruz’s political director in the state. “I’ve just been kind of curious, okay, when are people going to start paying attention to what we’re doing and that we’re positioned to do very well in Iowa.” RELATED: How Ted Cruz Has Wooed Some of the GOP’s Top Donors The campaign has been getting in position for a long time. Steve Deace, an Iowa-based talk-radio host who has endorsed Cruz, says that as far back as August of 2013, Cruz was asking him to set up meetings with top Iowa activists. Now, Deace says, the Texas senator has “the best [Iowa] organization I’ve ever seen,” composed of the sort of dedicated activists who put Rick Santorum over the finish line four years ago. Cruz also has a plan beyond Iowa. He has referred to the March 1 “SEC primary,” in which eight Southern states go to the polls, as his “firewall”: that is, a backstop against whatever losses he might sustain beforehand. This year, these Southern states will go to the polls before Florida and before the traditional Super Tuesday, a change in the primary calendar instituted by RNC chairman Reince Priebus. Most of those contests, unlike the ones that precede them, are not winner-take-all, and Cruz’s goal is to win the most delegates rather than to take entire states.

Throughout the primary season, Cruz has crisscrossed the South, sweet-talking voters unaccustomed to playing an outsized role in presidential contests. “He has made the largest investment in those Southern states of any candidate,” Mackowiak says. “Most of those political leaders in those states have never been asked to participate in the process.” Texas is one of the “SEC primary” states, and it alone will award 155 of the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination. Cruz, of course, holds a natural advantage. His team spent over a year developing detailed knowledge of the state’s political contours just three years ago. Mackowiak says there’s a “very real possibility” that Cruz will be the overall delegate leader on March 2. Mackowiak says there’s a ‘very real possibility’ that Cruz will be the overall delegate leader on March 2. It’s not uncommon for “insurgent” candidates to take a number of early states, but they then typically have to rapidly raise the cash and build the big infrastructure needed to turn out voters across the country. Rick Santorum’s campaign was starved for money until he won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, after which it had trouble turning a sudden influx of cash into a viable campaign organization overnight. In 2008, in the months before the Iowa caucuses, Mike Huckabee had no national finance chairman or speechwriters, and he didn’t have enough money to commission any internal polls. Cruz is a different sort of insurgent, who has from the first days of the 2016 primary made it clear that he won’t be outpaced financially. Small-dollar donors from an enormous e-mail list culled during the fight over the 2013 government shutdown have made him the leader in hard-dollar donations, and a cadre of eccentric billionaires looking to shake up Republican presidential politics have put over $37 million into his super PACs. He has used that money to build a national organization: As he told a gathering of donors in August assembled at the behest of Charles and David Koch, “If you are going to run a national campaign, you’ve got to be able to compete nationally.”

A year ago, most political onlookers assumed that Cruz and his tea-party colleague Rand Paul would vie for the insurgent crown. A top Republican who’s not aligned with either campaign told me at the time that Cruz and Paul would battle to the death. They were, he said, like “like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort: One cannot exist while the other lives.” As it turns out, it hasn’t been much of a contest. Cruz has proved to be an ambitious and serious campaigner, devoted to doing the hard and unglamorous work required of presidential candidates, while Paul has not, and other candidates have risen to compete with Cruz in the anti-establishment bracket. Cruz has proved to be an ambitious and serious campaigner, devoted to doing the hard and unglamorous work required of presidential candidates. The natural question is why a candidate with strong fundamentals is mired between 5 and 8 percent in the polls. There is, of course, the unexpected candidacy of Donald Trump, who has eclipsed Cruz not only in the polls but also in the national spotlight. Cruz has chosen uncharacteristically to lie low, and flying under the radar has meant that he hasn’t sustained many attacks from his rivals. Meanwhile, though many of his challengers rolled their eyes when he went out of his way to shower praise on Donald Trump, whose withering insults have done damage to stronger candidates, Cruz has managed to stay out of his path of destruction as well. Four months from the Iowa caucuses, he remains virtually untouched by his rivals. And, though he hasn’t had a real breakout moment, his supporters say the polls, particularly in Iowa, simply don’t predict what’s going to happen when caucusgoers and voters start getting more serious. Jeff King, the son of Iowa congressman Steve King, who’s working for one of Cruz’s cluster of four super PACs, says that national polls rarely reflect the reality on the ground in Iowa. “You can almost throw ’em out,” he says.

Polls in Iowa may not be that much better. Of the six polls taken closest to the 2012 caucuses, none showed Rick Santorum running ahead of Mitt Romney; one showed Ron Paul winning. In 2008, Mitt Romney led Mike Huckabee until about a month before the caucuses.  “I would caution everybody to be very, very, very leery of drawing any conclusions from Iowa polling,” says Deace. Some are starting to take note of his strength. In a blog post titled “Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio: This Is Where We Are Headed,” the right-wing commentator Erick Erickson, the soon-to-be-former proprietor of the RedState blog, wrote last month that if Republican primary voters were to cast their ballots now, “We’d find the last men standing would be Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio,” and that Cruz would have the advantage. “He’s in an incredibly strong position,” says David Bossie, the president of the conservative activist group Citizens United. “If Ted Cruz does not win the nomination, he is gonna come back to the United States Senate as the most powerful senator, even without the title of majority leader.”
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: October 07, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
This story changes the election.  Previously Rubio seemed to walk right into the 'rape abortion' mess that brought down some tea party Senate candidates in the last couple of cycles, saying on CNN that the unborn [even in that situation] 'deserve protection under the law'.

That is a logically consistent statement for a pro-life but also a political suicide pact.  I couldn't understand why a man who thinks so fast on is feet, has thought deeply about all the issues, and makes virtually no other political mistakes (since his role in the gang of 8 immigration nightmare) - why would he step in this so badly, an issue the President is mostly powerless on anyway?

Rubio is as pro-life as they get and yet LifeSiteNews reports that Sen Rubio not only supports the sale of the 'morning after' pill, he supports the sale of it over-the-counter, trumping (forgive the expression) all of the Democrats on this crucial, so-called women's health issue.

Marco Rubio supports selling the morning after pill over-the-counter

 Marco Rubio

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio supports selling the morning after pill over the counter.

The Florida senator, a Roman Catholic, said he supports making the abortifacient available without a prescription, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of when conception occurs.

“In the cases [of rape or incest], they’re terrible tragedies. They’re horrifying,” Sen. Rubio said in response to a candidate survey by the news editorial site theSkimm. “And luckily in the 21st century, we have treatments available early on after an incident that can prevent that fertilization from happening. And that’s why I support the morning after pill being available over the counter – and I certainly support them being made available immediately for rape victims.”

However, one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject – Dr. James Trussell – said that the morning after pill may work as an abortifacient and that, for the sake of full disclosure, women must be told by taking the pill they may be aborting their unborn children.

Pro-life advocates have long said that all forms of so-called “emergency contraception,” like many forms of hormonal birth control, often thin the uterine lining and result in elective abortion.

In the remarks, Rubio made clear that he believes the unborn child is a human being deserving of legal protection.

“I have said repeatedly that I understand how difficult it is, a young 15-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and she’s scared and she has her whole future is ahead of her,” Sen. Rubio said. “And I don’t in any way diminish that and I do believe women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.”

“But in the case of a pregnancy there’s a second person involved and that’s an unborn human being,” he continued. “When confronted with two competing rights, the right to live and the right to choose, I’m forced to make a choice. And I’m gonna choose the side of life.”

Sen. Rubio said at the first presidential debate that he does not believe in exceptions for abortion due to rape or incest – but that he was willing to vote for such laws.

His position on emergency contraception echoed a statement Rubio made in August during in an interview with Meet the Press, in which he said he supports the general availability of the morning after pill. He said that he supports the fact that Plan B is currently sold “over the counter, and it’s available to people.”

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is gravely immoral, and that  the morning after pill - since it can induce abortion -  falls under the same sin as abortion. One Vatican prelate called it a “direct attack” on the unborn.

Asked by theSkimm if he would endorse laws to block certain forms of contraception, he drew a clear distinction between his Catholic faith and the law.

“No. And I don’t want to ban any contraceptive efforts,” Rubio responded. “Obviously, my faith has a teaching that governs me in my personal life on these issues. But I think our laws on those issues are different.”
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: October 07, 2015, 10:22:54 PM
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post on Marco Rubio:

You can see why so many are high on Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is not leading the race nationally or in any state polls. Yet many political onlookers are convinced he has the best chance to win the nomination. For reasons I have discussed elsewhere, that may be true, but it is too early to say. Aside from predicting the fall of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, on what is the Rubio rise predicated?

There are at least a dozen factors:

1. He is the candidate most adept at fencing with the media. He turned ridiculous New York Times pieces on traffic tickets and a fishing boat into fundraising and free media bonanzas. Republicans like to bash the media, but they really want a candidate who disarms them. (One reason for Carly Fiorina’s rise.)

2. While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker went too far to the right, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) lost respectability when people figured out his foreign policy was less robust than Hillary Clinton’s, Ohio Gov. John Kasich made no effort to accommodate conservatives and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continued acting like the entire party is composed of Southern tea partyers, Rubio has maintained the perfect spot in the race — on the right edge of mainstream Republicans. He did not, for example, go nuts over the gay marriage ruling or defend the Confederate battle flag, but he introduced a pro-growth conservative tax plan and has continued to enunciate a strong pro-life position. He remains well positioned to unite the party.

3. He has had solid debate performances, speeches and interviews. If anything, his eloquence can work against him, suggesting (like President Obama was) he is too glib. It’s a “fault,” however, that many candidates long to have.

4. Among the candidates, he has done the best job of knocking Donald Trump without getting sucked into an endless duel of insults. Pointing out Trump is touchy and uninformed cut to the quick, with the benefit of being true. He has the ability to project nonchalance rather than show Trump is getting under his skin.

5. The worse the president’s foreign policy missteps are, the more farsighted Rubio looks. His exact prediction of events in Syria earned him some bragging rights.

6.  He hasn’t risen to the bait to attack Jeb Bush, maintaining that they are good friends and that he respects Bush. (To the extent Bush appears to be swiping at Rubio, Bush has faced some blow-back.)

7. Like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, he has put out a series of reform proposals, making his case that he is about the future while Democrats are stuck in the past.

8. He projects an optimistic, happy demeanor. In a field with many angry scare-mongers he stands out in this regard. It explains why his favorable/unfavorable split is high and why he has virtually no gender gap among Republicans and a very small one with voters at large.

9.  He seems to have beaten the “just like Obama” rap by differing with Obama on virtually every issue, demonstrating prowess on foreign policy and putting out detailed, specific plans. In other words, he does not seem like a lightweight.

10. His immigrant story is compelling. Republicans are infamous for providing little or no way for average people to relate to them. By contrast, Rubio’s family story and his modest background (complete with student debt) provide that link to voters who don’t share his ideology and do not come from privilege or wealth.

11. He has run a lean campaign, avoiding the bane of losing campaigns (wasting money).

12. His campaign team is invisible. They know it is about him, not them. You won’t see them explaining strategy; they simply execute.

20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
When you look at one Suzette Kelo, one Vera Coking, one Nancy MacGibbon, each individually standing in the way of progress, it looks kind of silly and petty versus getting the immense public benefit of a new Pfizer facility, a new Trump parking lot or new yuppie housing where none existed before, but that is not the issue.  

When you look at the aggregate of EVERYONE having the right to feel safe and secure in their home all their life, especially against the threat posed by their own government, that is an enormously valuable liberty, bigger than the Mall of America and Coors field combined - by many times.  That is what separates us from the third world countries and what separates us from the tyrannical regime of Iran or the fascist regime of Nazi Germany.  Having that enshrined in the constitution means that no simple majority can ever take that away from us - although one Justice Kennedy in a room full of liberals can.

"Guess I am just a crony capitalist and fascist economics supporter...."

Joking aside, this isn't personal.  Even if you don't see it this way, I think it is important for you to know how strongly other people see it.  You've seen good projects get done and the rest of us have seen small people get trampled on.  Those people who do get all militant about property rights tend on the side of the political spectrum where Donald Trump is trying to build his coalition.  

We just lost a Presidential election and two of the reasons for that loss were that our candidate couldn't make the case for important conservative principles.  He couldn't advocate his economic plan including tax cuts because he was rich and couldn't make the case against Obamacare because of his own Romneycare.  Now as we try to swing slightly back in the direction of founding principles, individual rights and limits on government, our front runner is a bigger advocate for expanding government power than every Supreme Court liberal we have seen.   Trump courting conservatives is not a good fit.  He can go the way of JEB who said he can win the general election (as a Republican) without winning the base.  Good luck with that.

To the final point, those who have seen their 2nd amendment rights chipped away, the first, the 9th, the 14th, those who saw the Court in Wickard Filburn define growing wheat for your own cattle as interstate commerce, etc. are READY for a fight.  None of that is an excuse to erode rights further.  In fact any further imagined encroachment might set off a political firestorm. The reaction some talk about goes a beyond voting...
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
"....but there are simply some people who are stubborn and will not sell under any circumstances. Others use the refusal to sell to jack up the price beyond all reason as sort of an extortion attempt. So when either of these happen, does one just stop the project."

Yes.  And what if I want my new house built where their small sits and they 'stubbornly' refuse to sell?  Again, choose between equal protection under the law, and tyranny.  WHO decides

How come proponents of big government cronyism never propose AMENDING the constitution instead of just running roughshod over it?

4th amendment in part:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated...

Yes, what if I stubbornly don't want to move or have time commitments for the next couple of years that don't allow me to do that in a orderly way?  I should cancel my life plans for the best interests of Government Motors.  Only if I lose elections because I'm not voting for a government command economy.

Kelo takings and major league sports teams getting special treatment that the rest of us can't get are actually areas where conservatives and true liberals agree.  Why not lock in and grow that agreement rather than piss it all away in the false promise of a better economy brought to you by superior, central planning?

This is a fundamental difference between Trump and liberty seeking free markets conservatives - like the founders.

A Pfizer or General Motors plant is not public use - even if both already have an inbreeding of crony government collaboration.  A key part of competitive business expansion planning is the acquisition of real estate to expand.   Valuable land goes to General Motors instead of a bakery because that is best use - based on their willingness to pay the highest price for the parcels.  Only in a dictatorial, socialist country is private business land acquisition (an oxynoron) a government function.  Oops, now I understand ...

NEVER answered is where else to draw the line that effectively prevents abuse if not to honor the words and meaning of the constitution.
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 12:05:48 PM
There is no tyranny worse than the tyranny of the majority.  No, I don't want my private property rights (did we even agree there are any?) put up for a vote.

Proponents keep saying hospital and highway, but the issue is private development.  Why is there no way the developer can entice the homeowner to sell willingly?

Hospitals are public use in a different way than malls and casinos.
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 11:06:07 AM
Under what reading of equal protection under the law does government get the power to prefer one private interest over another?
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
I was just going to post this for Doug.  grin

Some  questions:

Is the use of Imminent Domain ever acceptable when a Private Company is concerned? What about the Public Benefit that occurs with a shopping center, a casino, a hospital, etc? After all, such projects do create jobs. Furthermore, they add to the tax base in far greater dollar amounts that a single home could offer.

What happens when a single homeowner is the only holdout of a project with immense public benefit? That homeowner does not want to sell under any circumstances, no matter what the price?

Every case must be considered based upon the merits of the situation. It is not a one size fits all situation.

As to CD's comments about the negative consequences, Imminent Domain is a subject that matters only to a small minority of politically astute people. It pales in comparison to Immigration, Taxes and other things.

In fact, I would suggest that if Imminent Domain was the "deal-breaker", then Trump would not get those votes anyway.

"Every case must be considered based upon the merits of the situation. It is not a one size fits all situation."

   - Every case must be considered and decided BY WHOM?  is the question.  The final decision of private property ownership transactions is the 5 person city council in my town or the 13 person (all Dem) city council in Minneapolis, etc.?  Superior, big government, central planning allied with the largest private interests is what made America great?

No, it was the amazing aggregate wisdom of all the individual participants in a mostly free market that made this country exceptional.

The Kelo decision isn't on everyone radar screen.  But it will be when Trump starts receiving return fire for his own attacks.

Ten Nine years after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision gutted the right of American property owners to resist eminent-domain seizures, the neighborhood at the center of the case remains a wasteland.

Bankrupt Trump Plaza Casino Closes in Atlantic City

These are his examples of smart growth.  Yes, I oppose that - even when it appears to succeed.

Even if you favor big government cronyism, we already have a party for that.  What we are looking for is an alternative.

25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: October 07, 2015, 10:35:44 AM

This country is past the tipping point, so it really doesn't matter.

In order to turn the country around, you would have to cause the few remaining non-radicalized Dems and newcomers to this country to actually remember and understand what originally made this country great and change their lives and their voting accordingly.  To do anything near that in the face of media, primary education and higher education who have all become 99% radicalized is perhaps, as GM says, past the tipping point.

Our job is to take our best shot at reversing course in the time that we have.  Getting behind someone who made his fortune in big government cronyism and doubles down on it now won't ever get us there.

'I will build the best, biggest, most powerful and efficient, crony government the world has ever seen.'  - Donald Trump (translated)
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 07, 2015, 10:21:05 AM
If Hillary gets elected President, McCarthy's flamboyant stupidity may well be a major contributing factor.

Yes.  And if she doesn't get elected, this world class gaffe may have forced Republicans to actually explain what the concern about Benghazi really is.

She is the one that ran the famous 3am telephone call ad.  This was the call.  She received it.  He received it.  Now we would like to everything they said and did minute by minute in the hours that they failed to respond to it.

I would also like to know exactly what emails went between Ambassador Stevens and Hillary Clinton on her private, unsecured server that a) were ignored requests for additional security, b) pleas for help, and c) indicators of schedule and location that allowed known terrorists to plan a successful attack.

Is she going to answer that, or just scream:  "At this point [between 3 false options], WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Median Income down under Obama on: October 07, 2015, 10:08:33 AM
Written previously on the forum, every time we let in one more low income person, legally or legally, the median income goes down even if the income of every person went marginally up.  This made a nice attack line for the left against Bush.  Now they eat/own their words.  Also hurting median income, jobs and worker is income is the attack against new business investment.

During Ronald Reagan’s first six years in office, GDP grew 22% while the median income grew 6% (see chart 1). During Bill Clinton’s first six years, GDP grew 24%; median income, 11%. But growth began to slow in the 2000s, undermining both the mean and the median. In George Bush’s first six years GDP rose 16%, but median incomes fell 2%. Under Mr Obama it has been even worse: GDP is up 8% and median income is down 4%

“our current problems with incomes are neither a long-term feature of the U.S. economy nor merely an after-effect of the 2008-2009 financial upheaval.”

The most interesting point in the above chart is that Hillary wants to govern more like Obama than Clinton.
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Donald Doubles Down on (Eminent) Domain, Little people in the way? Crush them! on: October 07, 2015, 09:53:47 AM
A limo parking lot for a privately held casino is equal to building a public highway?

This will be a major contributor to his eventual downfall, and you heard it here (almost) first.

He will never be my candidate with this view.  Supreme Court appointments are perhaps the President's most powerful duty, above CinC, in the big government era we have created.  Big Government Power and Crony Government Power is something this non-conservative wants more of.

"for instance you're going to create thousands of jobs" ...   Ends Justify Means.

Just happens to be false in his two prominent examples, Pfizer in New London and casinos in Atlantic City.

"I think eminent domain is wonderful if you're building a highway and you need to build as an example, a highway, and you're going to be blocked by a hold-out or in some cases, it's a hold-out, just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and you'll have 12 sites and you'll get 11 and you'll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else," Trump said Tuesday on Special Report.

"I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance you're going to create thousands of jobs and you have somebody that's in the way. Eminent domain, they get a lot of money," Trump said. "And you need a house in a certain location because you're going to build this massive development that's going to employ thousands of people or you're going to build a factory that without this little house, you can't build the factory. I think eminent domain is fine."
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary Rodham Nixon? on: October 07, 2015, 09:39:34 AM
". This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans. I would have never done that, and if I were president and there were Republicans or Democrats who were thinking about that, I would have done everything to shut it down."

The Executive has power to shut down a legislative committee?

Under whose constitution??

Is a candidate who says that or even thinks that way qualified to be President?

Hillary was asked (on NBC), "if the tables were turned and it was Dick Cheney or Karl Rove who had a private email account and a private server on which they conducted all their government business, would you be as understanding?"

Well... ?
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Milton Friedman attacks Ben Carson and everyone else on Minimum Wage on: October 07, 2015, 09:32:25 AM
Usually we put this under 'famous people caught reading the forum', but in this case the chronology may be backwards...

From an interview in December 1975 with economist Milton Friedman on PBS’s “The Open Mind”:

Friedman: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart . . . I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately it very often extends to their head as well. Because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have. . . .

Take the minimum-wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors—there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors, there are the well-meaning sponsors, and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as frontmen. You almost always, when you have bad programs, have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interests. The minimum-wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions. The monopolistic craft trade unions in particular. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than two dollars an hour, or $2.50 an hour, or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. It is no accident that the teenage unemployment rate—the unemployment rate among teenagers in this country—is over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate.

Hat tip: wsj
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics: The Era of Kemp on: October 07, 2015, 09:28:01 AM
Some very interesting historical info here, nearly all pertinent today.  My recommendation, read this in its entirety!

Some many tidbits of fact in this piece:
Kemp challenged his economists to replicate the Kennedy tax cuts.
Kemp Roth tax rate cuts were introduced in 1977.
Kemp won reelection in 1978 (blue collar district?) with 95% of the vote.
Reagan was split between supply side and a more conservative approach, didn't propose anything like this in 1976, didn't endorse Kemp Roth until Jan 1980.
Kemp's 1980 convention breakout speech was canceled when Goldwater before him went on and on.  The woman at the podium introduced him anyway and Kemp came running back in and delivered it without the teleprompter.
Delays and compromises to get it passed caused an unnecessary, deep recession before the stimulative effects fully took effect.

32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Wesbury: Somebody is wrong. on: October 07, 2015, 09:12:49 AM
"The Bull Market Still Lives
Brian S. Wesbury,
...That still leaves several other 20% market declines in 1957, 1970, 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 1990, 2000-02, and 2007-09. But each of these was correlated with recession and a recession anytime soon is extremely unlikely.
We see no reason for a recession on the horizon..."

(WSJ Oct 3, 2015): 
It’s certainly hard to find much good news in the September numbers. Employers added 142,00 net new jobs, but only 118,000 in the private economy. Payrolls were revised lower by 59,000 for July and August, for a monthly average of only 167,000 in the third quarter. That’s down from a monthly average of 198,000 for all of 2015 so far, which is down from 260,000 a month in 2014.

Worse, the labor participation rate—a key measure of labor market health—fell to 62.4%, the lowest rate since 1977, when the economy was still recovering from the rough mid-1970s recession. Some 350,000 Americans left the labor force in September...

More people are leaving the workforce than taking new jobs by a ratio of 3:1 in the year after Obamacare kicked in.  Who could have possibly predicted this??

Wesbury is looking at these same numbers:  118,000 new jobs created while 350,000 left the workforce (in one month) is the new normal.  China is in possible freefall, Europe with zero growth is under invasion, the Middle East is headed into world war. 

What could possibly go wrong?

The good news according to Wesbury is that stocks look cheap.  Back up the truck...
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 05, 2015, 10:56:32 AM
Well. that has a way of clarifying things a bit!

Trump loses to Sanders by 16 points?!?  To Hillary by 10?!?  To Biden by 21?!?  Indeed ALL the Reps lose to Biden?!?

If all are losing, it may indicate sample error.  Best to look at relative strength.

Biden carries the sympathy of losing his son.  Check back after he defends the Obama record for a year.
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 04, 2015, 10:34:31 PM
I would love to see more emphasis on polls that pit each Rep vs. Hillary, each Rep vs. Biden, and each Rep vs. Sanders.

Of course I get the relevance of likely Rep primary voter polls, but we should remember to keep our eye on winning the White House.

I'm sure there will be more and more of them after the field gets narrowed a little.  Here is the most recent I have seen.  Doesn't cover everything but sheds some light.
monday Sept 28, 2015
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)   Poll   Results   Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 49, Trump 39   Clinton +10
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 44, Fiorina 45   Fiorina +1
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Clinton 45, Bush 44   Clinton +1
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Carson 46, Clinton 45   Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 56, Trump 35   Biden +21
General Election: Fiorina vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 47, Fiorina 41   Biden +6
General Election: Bush vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 48, Bush 40   Biden +8
General Election: Carson vs. Biden           NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Biden 49, Carson 41   Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders   NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   Sanders 52, Trump 36   Sanders +16
35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 04, 2015, 10:36:02 AM
Pretty good analysis here along the thought lines of this election having brackets with quarterfinals, semi-finals and finals.
(If you buy the idea that these candidates compete for the same space, it follows that one will emerge as the victor of that space.  It seems to me that Rubio passed up Bush and that Bush will drop if he doesn't gain traction.  Kasich is the McCain/Romney-like favorite of this cycle for all the media types that will turn on him in the general election anyway, and he also isn't catching on.  A lot of experience and wisdom there, but not much for message or delivery.  But I don't see him dropping if he thinks he can do well in NH.  I would think a Rubio nominee would pick a governor for a running mate - and not from his own state.  In that sense having Kasich stay in for vetting is a good thing for the ticket.)

Bush, Rubio and Kasich eye one another in the shadow of Trump
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush outlines his energy policy during a visit to Rice Energy, an oil and gas company based in Canonsburg, Pa. (Gene J. Puskar/AP)
By Dan Balz October 3 at 12:59 PM 
The Republican presidential contest is not, regardless of what it seems some days, all about Donald Trump. There’s another dynamic unfolding that has almost nothing to do with the businessman-politician currently atop the polls but that will have a major influence on who becomes the party’s nominee.

This other struggle involves the competition among former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. History suggests that whoever emerges triumphant in this three-way rivalry will be in a strong position to claim the nomination, though admittedly the past has been a poor predictor of events so far in this campaign.

Ever since Trump surged to the top of the polls, the other candidates have been trying to assess both his staying power and the cost-benefit analysis of engaging him. Trump and Bush have clashed almost from the start, with growing intensity. More recently, as Rubio has risen, Trump has taken aim at him, and Rubio has responded in kind.

None of the other candidates has a clear strategy for taking down Trump. But they all think he will look like a different candidate — and in their assessments, a less formidable candidate — once the field narrows to three or four finalists after the voting begins. So they are beginning to focus on one another as much as they are worrying about him.

With the first contests still months away, none of the three yet looks like a front-runner. In the average of recent national polls, Rubio and Bush run fourth and fifth behind Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. Neither Bush nor Rubio breaks double digits. Kasich doesn’t even break 5 percent.

  Marco Rubio speaks during a meet-and-greet event Friday in Iowa. (Jessica Reilly/AP)
National polls at this stage are less meaningful than state polls. In Iowa, where the first caucus will take place in early February, Trump and Carson lead, with Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) currently third. Bush and Rubio trail the first three, and Kasich is even deeper in the pack. In New Hampshire, Trump also has a big lead, but Kasich is jockeying with Fiorina for second, with Carson and Bush next and Rubio farther back.

In recent days, Bush, Rubio and Kasich have shown how much they’re worrying about one another. They’ve been sniping at each other and making other moves that underscore the significance of their competition.

Rubio has long emphasized that the party needs a fresh candidate, not one tied to the past, an implicit criticism of his fellow Floridian who is part of an American political dynasty. Bush, a two-term former governor, has belittled Rubio’s experience, or lack thereof. Kasich, a two-term governor and longtime House member, has claimed that his experience and record are unmatched by any of the other candidates.

Advisers to the three anticipate more attacks ahead. “The Bush campaign is feverishly doing their opposition research on Governor Kasich and Senator Rubio,” said John Weaver, Kasich’s chief strategist. “An empire like that is not going to go quietly into the night. We’re expecting pretty sharp elbows to be thrown. We’re going to handle it head on.”

Past Republican nomination contests often have devolved into competition between a candidate from the center-right or mainstream conservative wing of the party and a candidate from the hard right or populist conservative wing. Most times, the candidate from the mainstream conservative wing becomes the nominee.

This year, the race is more scrambled because of the added factor of the apparent desire by many Republicans for an outsider or non-politician. That has elevated Trump, Carson and Fiorina and has forced the others to adapt. Rubio has been stressing that, despite being in the Senate, he’s really not of Washington.

Instead of establishment vs. tea party, one GOP strategist describes the race this time as a competition between those in the anger, or anti-Washington, lane, vs. those in the aspirational lane. Bush, Rubio and Kasich all fall more into the aspirational lane.

What will make the difference? Based on how the three candidates are running, it’s clear that they see the path ahead in slightly different ways, though each has handicaps he must overcome to win.

Bush has repeatedly pushed back at Trump by arguing that anger and insults cannot win the presidency. He seeks to be the aspirational candidate, conservative enough because of his record in Florida to be acceptable to a conservative party, while offering a positive and inclusive message that reaches beyond the GOP coalition.

But many Republicans see Bush as least able to appeal across the entire party — not much more able to appeal to the hard right than Cruz would be able to attract mainstream conservatives.

Lodged firmly in the establishment wing as the son and brother of former presidents, he faces resistance on the far right and among those yearning for an outsider. His hope is that he can change perceptions of himself, outlast his rivals with superior resources and persuade Republicans that he’s their best hope to win a general election.

Sally Bradshaw, Bush’s senior adviser, said the key remains what it has been from the start of the campaign: to portray Bush as a conservative reformer by stressing what he did in Florida. “People don’t know that yet,” she said. “When that message burns in, his numbers are going to change. That’s his

Kasich is looking to the traditional model. He is the compassionate conservative of 2016 who hopes to strike first in New Hampshire and build from there. His advisers believe that, eventually, he can reach across the divide in the party to become the nominee.

But the party has not only moved right in the past decade, it also has developed a harder edge than when George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative in 2000. Kasich’s support for expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act is just one example of a position that will not sit well with many conservatives.

Rubio’s team sees crosscutting appeal as vital, a race that will favor a candidate who can best unite a fractured party. The senator’s goal is to demonstrate skills as a communicator, to show depth on the issues, to turn his personal story into a positive message for the party, to make as few errors as possible and over time generate enthusiasm across the GOP coalition.

Rubio, too, has vulnerabilities. His past support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, from which he has backed away, remains an obstacle in his path. So too does his personal profile, that of a youthful first-term senator with limited experience trying to become president — a profile not unlike that of President Obama when he first ran eight years ago.

David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist in both campaigns, often has said that voters look for a replacement rather than a replica in picking a new president. The adviser to one of Rubio’s rivals put it this way: “When was the last time this country elected two presidents with similar attributes?” Rubio will be trying to dissuade his fellow Republicans that he isn’t another Obama.

There are wild cards in the calculations of all three camps. Maybe New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who occupies similar space, will catch fire in New Hampshire and elsewhere, although the resistance to him within the party is significant. Fiorina has demonstrated fearlessness that has jarred even Trump and can appeal across the party. Carson remains a candidate of unknown potential.

Last, there is the Trump factor and what his support represents. For now, he remains the dominant force in the GOP race. But the advisers to Bush, Rubio and Kasich see a turn in the campaign heading into the final months of the year, one that will heighten the competition among them with significant consequences for their party.
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 04, 2015, 10:20:04 AM
Ryan Crocker on Fox News Sunday described Russia, Iran and the Assad Syrian regime as one alliance - not aligned with us.  Russia started by taking out US backed rebels instead of attacking ISIS.  We can check transcript when it comes out to see if I heard that right:

Among US options mentioned is a No-Fly-Zone which a) requires credibility we don't have, b) should have been done earlier and c) sets up a superpower confrontation.

Another thing we could try is an Obama red line.  Don't cross THIS, or else...

Crocker also said, if I heard him right, that ISIS is fighting in 7 other countries beyond Iraq and Syria. 
Looking for that I list, I found:
Iraq, Syria.  Militia allies in Pakistan, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, Philippines, Jordan and Gaza/Israel have all announced some sort of cooperation with the Islamic State and al-Baghdadi. Many of these organizations were recently affiliated with Al Qaeda and have since switched to ISIS allegiances over the summer and into the fall.

An aside for another thread, Rand Paul's bet that this would not be a foreign policy election is disappearing - because of the failure of the non-policies that he advocates.  Maybe if we cover our eyes and ears and hum something pleasant this will all go away.
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Dr. Ben on bringing in Syrian refugees; hiring Trump on: October 04, 2015, 10:00:00 AM

Dr. Ben is starting to look Presidential.  Great, thoughtful answer on the mass murders.

Outlier perhaps, but Carson leads Trump in the latest IBD/TIPP poll by 7:
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bill Whittle on a rampage on: October 04, 2015, 09:43:58 AM

Excellent presentation of the data.  Bill Whittle is a very persuasive speaker.  Over 1 million views for that video.
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 02, 2015, 04:53:50 PM
Trump's money allows him to jet anywhere he wants, anytime he wants, a luxury people like Walker, Pawlenty, santorum don't have.  Mostly, though, he has used the threat of using his money to give him credibility.  So far, it was his name, reputation, skills and message that he used to make the entry that an average outsider could never make.

The roadmap pp points to will be crucial soon and they need to be planning for it now.  It will take big money to have a serious presence everywhere at once when we get to the primaries.  All the low drawing candidates will have to decide whether to spend their donors' last dollar, take on bad debt and lose, or drop out sooner.  That is when this thins out quickly and the real fight for the nomination begins.

I think both Trump and Bush will leave this race for other reasons.  Bush because he is just not catching on.  Trump will leave the race IF he sees his numbers are about to slide.  Easy exit, Trump says, 'I made my point, now others can do it.  I have a business to run.'

The money concern for Trump is different.  I doubt he plans to spend a billion of his own money.  I also doubt that he can.  He is building up his brand as long as he is seen as a winner.  He gives that away if he fights to the end while losing.  Also, WAAAAY too much ego there to leave seen as a loser.  Instead, his exit will come as a surprise.  He must see this campaign as a distraction costing him a fortune in terms of being away from his business, and worth nothing if it isn't building his brand any further.

Also possible with Trump is that he wanted to prove he could win the election.  He may not really want the day to day duties AND SCRUTINY of the job.  He has a pretty good life already!

The latest poll pp shows puts Rubio in first of the so-called politicians which I think is a great position for him - even at 8%.  It is the first time I've seen Fiorina fall back.  I don't expect Carson to hold up as we get closer. I don't know what his end game is, maybe just step up his game and win!
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 02, 2015, 01:56:48 PM
Why are most candidates on the GOP side calling for intervention in this mess? Why put limited ground troops in to go after both ISIS and Assad? What happens if Assad is overthrown? The whole place turns into another mess worse than now with Hezbollah taking full control.

Great question!

The short answer is that it is not okay for terror groups to become nation-state size or caliphate and keep expanding without resistance.  It is not okay for them to hold major territory, host training camps, take in oil revenues, buy arms, recruit around the world, and obtain nuclear weapons, all of which is happening on the current course.

Separate from the threats to us is that the genocide and rape and breeding a region and culture with this level of evil isn't acceptable.  There HAS to be a plan, a coalition and a response to it.  Trusting it to Putin only invites new problems.

I like seeing terror groups kill each other.  Like see Iran fight Saddam Hussein, I am tempted to like seeing the US sit this one out - and hope the problems will take care of themselves.  But that is a historically challenged thought.

This one isn't our fight, like it wan't ours or Britain's or France's when Mussolini took Ethiopia (1936) or when Hitler took Austria (1938), Czeckoslovakia, Poland (1939), etc.  Or was it the west's fight earlier than we thought?

In the vacuum left by the US absence, we can watch Putin/Russia/new-Soviets flounder, make enemies and fail instead of us.  But we also see this KGB trained force expanding its own control and influence over a strategically important region.  That also can't end well.

There are no easy or painless solutions.  Step one would have been to keep and hold the peace in Iraq when we had it.
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: GOPe, Chamber of Commerce & Primary Manipulation on: October 02, 2015, 01:08:31 PM
I will be interested in seeing what you think of my last post where I show how Rubio or Jeb will win the nomination. It is pre-ordained.

Jeb has been saying that he is unconcerned about the primaries and his support levels. He goes on to say that he will be the nominee. The strategy I outline will win him the nomination.........if he can win 8 primaries.

I can't follow you on the details of the primaries and vote allotments except to note that you have studied far more than anyone I know.

Jeb's problem is that people already know him and he is drawing single digits with a declining trend.  I want Rubio to win, yet I have a couple of the same concerns that you do about him.  I don't think there was any coordinated effort to get so many candidates in.  It didn't help any of the organized candidates, especially Bush.  Bush tried to pre-empt Rubio (and Romney and others) by jumping in earlier than everyone thought he would.  Had he performed well, he would be about where Trump is now.  Trump is the only one who benefited from the over-supply of similar candidates and he didn't coordinate this.  He has a talent that everyone else underestimated.

Rubio won't win because it is pre-ordained.  IF he wins, it will be because  people gradually came to see him as the best communicator, telling the best story, presenting the best face and reaches the most people with conservatism, and is seen as the most electable.  He has his own blind spots to overcome.

Less than 24 hours before Walker dropped out I heard him interviewed on Sean Hannity (sp?) radio.  He sounded like a fireball, energetic and motivated like he was about to do whatever it takes to win - then dropped out that night or the next morning.  Jeb sounds like that now.  He doesn't like this.  He doesn't need this, and there are more shoes to drop on him.

To the extent there is GOPe force, it is failing.   Jeb sees that failing in his own numbers and fund raising, and sees it failing as Cantor is gone, Boehner is resigning, and people who never governed anything lead him by multiples.

The voters are the force.  At this point it is the poll takers.  (Maybe I should quit hanging up on them!)

The main (only?) motivation of the wishy washy Republicans that you call GOPe is to gain and hold power.  The way I see it, they will jump on board with conservative leadership as long as it is winning.  Rubio will lead them- if he wins.  It won't be them controlling him.  The same goes for at least some of the others, Trump, Carson, Cruz, etc.
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) on: October 02, 2015, 12:43:58 PM
You can ensure that your daughter is trained and carrying concealed.

I can't even ensure she won't lean to the liberal side of thinking.  (   Time will tell.
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: October 02, 2015, 12:41:18 PM
From abortion thread, this crosses many topics.
I love this:

"As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them.  Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says.  The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly.  States then will choose different levels of restrictions.  The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.

Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition.  At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win.  If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done.  If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that.  If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there.  For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same.  If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are."

Rather an optimist aren't you? Does the name Souter or Kennedy mean anything? They were thought to be conservative. And as to the Pubbies, they don't care about the base. Look at Boehner and McConnell, plus all the others. Look how they treat the Tea Party and Ted Cruz.

Not an optimist, just choosing between fighting on or quitting.

Souter was a mistake made by HW Bush who was not a conservative in the first place.  I supported Jack Kemp as the rightful heir to the Reagan legacy but Kemp didn't rise well enough as a candidate and people didn't make the right choice in the primaries.  So we keep engaging and fighting on, earlier and earlier in the process.

Kennedy was Reagan's (third) choice after the media and the public allowed Bork to be Borked.  That said, Justice Anthony Kennedy is to the right of Trump - I digress.  Back to that winning elections thing, Dems had a 55-45 majority during that appointment-confirmation fiasco.  Controlling the Judicial Committee process was ...  Joe Biden.

In the first two years of Obama, some here admitted this disaster needed a two election cycle fix, and if we fail, it might be too late to ever save this country.  (We failed and it might be too late to save the country - I hate being right.)  The table was set to re-take the House and the Senate in 2010 and we needed a real President to win in 2012.  Of that, we only took the House, screwed up the Senate for two more cycles and then allowed Obama be the worst President ever reelected.

Now, again, we fight on or give up.  We finally won majorities in the House and Senate, but the majority within the majority of the House is not very principled and control of the Senate requires 60 votes, not 54.  (R's also lead Dems 31-18 with Governorships and hold 70% of state legislative bodies.)

In 2016, best case, we elect a good President, hold the House and barely hold the Senate.  It will still be hard or impossible to enact real change.  The leaders we elect need to be as conservative, as charismatic and as persuasive as possible.  Getting angry white men angrier and motivated alone will never work again.  Soccer moms, yoga moms, wishy washy suburban men like my non-political friends, young Hispanic families, college grads in their 20s, along with all the traditional conservative voters all need to hear our message and start considering it.  We need to chip some liberal vote momentum away from inner city blacks, Jewish vote and gays.  Even women, did I already mention them? 

We also will need win the attention of all Dem (and moderate R) Senators who hold seats in Republican states, like Reagan did with Democrat Blue Dog House members.

On the Presidential side, it comes down to who can best sell our message.  We have to win the election AND win the agenda, not just point to personal flaws in the opponents.  Even then, there is far more work to do than to pick one good leader.

Mentioned elsewhere, the squishy Republican congress people in the middle like my Representative will vote for whatever power base will win and keep them in power, whether that is a new, Reagan-like movement or a Boehner/JEB one.  We need to build our own power base up.  We don't need to tear theirs down; they did it for us.

44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: October 02, 2015, 11:58:46 AM
On abortion I would concede that laws won't be changed radically anytime soon.  First you charge hearts and change minds which takes time and requires taking an honest look at the facts.  It isn't murder with criminal intent if people don't even know they are doing something wrong.  My intent with many posts here is to draw attention and logic to what is happening and see if people can see that convenience abortions (98% of abortions) are wrong.

Planned Parenthood proved my point by selling body parts.

Women already have control over their own bodies, except in the context of rape.
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: GOPe, Chamber of Commerce & Primary Manipulation on: October 02, 2015, 11:45:20 AM
I'm not pro-GOPe and don't fully believe there is one, but if there is, the center of there universe must be the House of Representatives led by John Boehner that golf with Obama (once) and seem to fund everything Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted.

That said, Federal Spending under the Republican House dropped from 24% of GDP to 20% of GDP in 5 years.
(Hypocrisy alert, I also plan to rip Republicans over spending in a different thread.  Still they are spending less than Dems would.)

I don't support establishment Republicans or moderate Republicans, and when they screwup they give our side a bad name...  I don't believe they are the same as having Democrats in those positions.

For my elected federal officials I have US Senators Amy Klobuchar ( a Hillary Clinton clone) and Al Franken (needs no explanation.  In the executive branch I have the same as everyone, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the corrupt cabinet (IRS scandal, Eric Holder style Justice Dept etc.) that comes with them.  In the House I have moderate, Boehner-appeasing Republican Erik Paulsen out of Eden Prairie, MN.  Of the bunch of them, all of my angry letters have been aimed at Paulsen, for funding Obamacare etc.  But don't tell me they are all the same.  There are somewhere in between.  This wishy washy Republican would lean to the power base of the conservatives to keep his Ways and Means assignment if the conservatives ever took power.  Obama, Klobuchar and Franken never will.

We need to win more primaries and win more elections.
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff ) Oregon Shooting on: October 02, 2015, 11:33:33 AM
I hate to comment before I know facts (so please correct me), but...
1) Once again, shooter chooses a gun free zone.
2) Shooter is a Muslim extremist.  Based on another discussion, that should be listed ahead of paranoid schizophrenia as a disqualifier for owning a gun.
3) Oregon already has the law that Obama wants passed.  (Go figure.)
4) Gun violence down overall, but up where we have the most restrictions.  (cf. Chicago)
5) If a shooting comes to my daughter's college, I hope the Prof in her classroom and the kid next to her are both law abiding concealed carry holders.
6) How many other wrongful and violent deaths were there in America and the world yesterday.  The media fixates on this one type, and - voilà - we keep getting more of them.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Where's Hillary and Bill's missing $50M? on: October 01, 2015, 01:38:09 PM

Amazing story.  The IRS is usually looking for the opposite, having more money left over than was reported for income.  Where did all this Clinton money go?  "Professional journalists" will get to the bottom of this...

We will see if $50 million of purchased friends is enough for her to stay out of jail.  That only buys the $100,000 of freezer cash (Rep. Jefferson D-LA) 500 times over.
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: October 01, 2015, 01:27:37 PM
"I am just looking at all of this from a pragmatic view. What can or could be accomplished? I don't see anything coming soon either way since the will in DC does not exist."

As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them.  Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says.  The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly.  States then will choose different levels of restrictions.  The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.

Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition.  At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win.  If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done.  If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that.  If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there.  For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same.  If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are.

Pro-life is not a losing issue.  Gallup says 54% want abortion either banned completely or banned in all but a few circumstances (generally understood to mean rape, incest and life of the mother).  29% want abortion legal in all circumstances.  Most notably, only 2% don't have an opinion!  (The remainder want looser restrictions.)
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: October 01, 2015, 11:22:16 AM
This nation is crumbling before us. The embrace of evil by mainstream society shocks me.

They would have us believe it is not a living thing at the front door while selling body parts from it out the back door.

It's not only legal; it's taxpayer funded - even while they run it at a profit and give money back to the politicians who support them.

What could be more evil and corrupt?

55,772,015  57,762,169  slaughtered since 1973.  You should be able to watch the number going up just like the debt clock.

PP: "you made a wise decision."

    - No.  Men have no say in it whatsoever.  Nor does the life to be 'terminated' and sold off for parts.

"What defines life? When does it begin? When the egg is fertilized, when it attaches to the wall, at a specific time period of development, or when it becomes a viable living entity outside of the womb? "

   - The closer science looks at it, the closer to conception we get with that answer.  Certainly all honest observers can agree that by the time that the 'body parts' are removable and marketable, there is a separate and distinct human being involved.  Thinking life begins at birth is sun-revolves-around-the-earth era science.  It just isn't so.

Even if it isn't one conservative's issue, Reagan understood it is part of the winning coalition.  There is plenty of room to narrow the legality in terms of states and stage of development. 

Roe v Wade has no foundation in the constitution.  What's wrong with having the regulation and political debate of this go back to the states and have the federal work on things like the powers granted to it in the constitution?

The issue doesn't go away by funding it.  And the issue doesn't go away by selling off the useful parts.

50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: September 30, 2015, 10:35:26 PM
Yes GM, an innocent life is involved.  My personal stories on abortion in case anyone wants to hear them:

At my first political convention I sat next to a guy and at one point asked him about this abortion thing.  He told me that when his wife got pregnant a decade earlier, they weren't ready to have children and so she planned to have an abortion.  But they didn't and now he has this wonderful daughter.  Abortion would have taken her life, but he didn't know that then because he didn't know her.  To me, a 32 year old bachelor at the time, that story flew mostly over my head, just words from a guy telling his story sitting next to me.  Then just a bit later his wife and daughter walked in and this beautiful little girl ran past me, leaped up and gave her daddy big hug and I melted as his story came to life.  That wasn't a growth on the mother; it was a kid!

My own daughter Maya was scheduled to be an abortion statistic.  We were unmarried, her mom suffered from ... difficulties, and at one point she was scheduled to be terminated. Had she been terminated my life changing problem of telling my family about an 'illegitimate' child (oxymoron) would have instantly gone away.  Instead a baby was born, I won custody, both families came together and 21 years later she has already achieved amazing things, a concert viola player, singing in weddings, straight A student, math major, all conference college tennis player, a truly wonderful and loving, great kid. 

My point is that with a little personal experience you can easily know this isn't some convenience issue for the mother the left would have you believe.  A life is involved.  If you let the life live you will find out that out.  The mom who would kill off her own for convenience isn't the more valuable of the two IMHO.

Maya and I in Ireland a year ago:

Now that we know she was alive, human and had separate DNA from the mother and father (didn't we know that then?), is it right or wrong to abort?

Whether or not the issue has touched you, rest assured it has touched a million families a year since 1973.  Maybe the ones who survived can tell the story.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 137
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!