Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 12, 2016, 06:39:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92687 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 151
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Jan 2016 on: January 21, 2016, 11:21:29 AM
Trump has a huge GOP lead in Florida among many other places. (Mentioned in the Rubio thread)

Cruz is having problems gaining traction on Trump but has solidified second place.  The strange birther charge slowed him and Trump's Sarah Palin endorsement cuts right into Cruz's presumed strength.  (There is no prize for second place.)

Rubio is still 3rd nationally, not gaining at all, staying relevant but ONLY if he can make a move up at some point, meaning soon.

Rubio still has the best general election matchup numbers of any of them.  
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Why does that not seem to matter to anyone / everyone conservative who wants to win?  I don't know.  Hard to say it is still too early for polls to matter.

Trump trails commie-socialist Sanders by 15 points!  http://www.scribd.com/doc/295919133/NBC-WSJ-January-Poll  So stay on the current path and we can say about the leftist Obama years, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Bush, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina have GOP still polling nationally at 2.4 - 4.8%.  Huckabee, Paul and Santorum even less. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html  
Make a plan to win (and you didn't), so get out of the way.  Now!  Each one hates the idea of a Trump nomination or Presidency and yet everything they are doing is helping him by diluting the rest of the field.  If this race comes down to Trump, Cruz, Rubio, let's clear the field and see how that goes.

My advice to Trump supporters.  Stay with him right up until voting time if you believe he is the one with the strength to make a difference and make America great again.  But if you don't see him as the general election winner at primary voting time, jump ship or cause the end of this once great nation under Bernie the Socialist or equivalent.

My advice to Cruz supporters, I hear you.  Show your support now for the most conservative candidate running, but at voting time switch to the most conservative candidate who can win.  If that is Cruz, fine.  But as I questioned yesterday, when was the last time a candidate ran on a platform of conservative purity and won, never?

The question is not who is most conservative, the question for conservatives is, who can bring the most people over to our side?

Or else, everybody, just hold your stubborn positions and watch America elect and spiral down European failed socialism or worse!  Conservative and Republican voters aren't known for being either great strategists or communicators against their leftist rivals.  Note who has been winning and which direction we have been heading for most of the last half century.

My two cents.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bernie Sanders: "I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.” on: January 21, 2016, 10:36:04 AM

Important read.  Don't anyone assume this guy is harmless, especially when he leads Hillary in the first two contests and leads the R frontrunner by 15 points!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/295919133/NBC-WSJ-January-Poll
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: January 20, 2016, 08:01:54 PM
"Seems like Marco Rubio has collapsed in the polls.  I am not clear why.  I thought he did very well in the last debate.
I do notice Bush attacks adds making Rubio look like a flip flopper"

It's tough to win if you're not anyone's first choice.  Also hard to win without a region of strength.   Maybe people don't see in Rubio what I see.   He has matched up best against both Hillary and Bernie for about as long as Trump has led in the GOP or longer.  It will be interesting to see if that is still true, and if it matters.  At the moment Hillary and Bernie look so bad that IMHO Trump and Cruz supporters are overconfident to think they can win with Trump's negatives or with Cruz's perceived conservative purity. 

When was the last time conservative purity won?  Never?  Reagan didn't run with any conservative purity; he talked about finding someone you agree with 80% of the time.   He picked moderate to liberal Republican for VP in 1976 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Schweiker)and moderate HW Bush in 1980, he compromised, made deals, etc. especially on domestic policy.  W Bush didn't run or win with any conservative purity.  Trump doesn't have any purity and is leading...

Rubio needs to stay relevant and he needs to score better than expected in the early contests, (as does whoever wants to win).  Also, whoever is competing in his so-called lane and doing worse than him needs to get out.  But instead of getting out, people like Bush Christie and Kasich sabotage one of their own.  I say Rubio survives this and wins but my certainty level is zero.

Iowa is not a primary.  This gets serious starting in NH and SC, one month out.
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 20, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
ccp:  ... psychopaths.  One trait they have is they lie without any conscience and are perfectly comfortable lying even when everyone in the room knows they are lying and they know everyone knows they are lying.  They just will not stop.  This is her.


That is why I cringed when there was talk by the Benghazi victims' families that she should take a lie detector test about what she said / didn't say to them.  I don't think psychopaths or pathological liars are affected by lying.  To them it's just breathing.
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics, Income of the top 1% drops every year on: January 18, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
Anything factual and economic posted here could also go under Cognitive Dissonance of the Left.  Did Bernie ever mention this, that the income of the top 1% goes down every year if you hold the members in that group constant and study them.  Try this study for an example:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

The income of the top 1% in 1996 fell 25% within 10 years.  50% of the lower quintile earners moved up out of that category in 10 years and 75% of the top 1% moved down from that designation in just one decade.  Who knew?  Not one person attending a Dem debate.

For political expedience the Left likes to ignore income mobility>  They point to a different group each tax year and calling them the top 1 %, inferring it is the same group as a year ago or a decade ago but it isn't.

In a global economy, the new rich can make more money than the successful people who preceded them because they are able to sell their inventions and innovations into a larger global market.  The way to stop that is to ban commerce or to lead the global market into stagnation and decline, both leading ideas of the current administration and the left.

What this country needs is more people getting rich, not fewer.  Not for what we see as the outward signs of prosperity, jetting around or spending wildly, but for the economically essential core activities that consistently produce wealth under the conducive conditions, investment, innovation, wise risk taking, profit seeking, addressing market needs with vision, hard work, persistence, adaptability, etc.

In political micro-economics, each voter needs to compare their income this regime and these policies with their own past and their own potential income under better policies, not look to what someone else is making with different talents, different backgrounds and different energy levels.  Stopping or limiting the success of others limits your own income, even if you can't or won't see the connection.

Where is the JFK in today's Democratic primary and debate touting that a rising tide lifts all boats.  They have recently shifted focus to stopping anyone (except from core left constituencies) from rising, especially the tide that affects all boats.
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 17, 2016, 10:46:27 PM
I have been traveling, crossed paths with DT in IA, now at the Top of the Rockies mostly out of my internet range.  Meanwhile you guys went all Cruz on me...

These were some comments I typed after the debate, a lttle dated at this point:

I listened to most of it.  A good night for each in his own way.  (Some of Crafty's comments helped fill the gaps of what I missed at the beginning.)

First, I still see Kasich, Fiorina and Carson as good potential VP picks.  

It seems to me that Christie's pretend tough guy demeanor is a space already occupied by Trump.  Christie would need Rick Perry's economic record to match his big talk, and he doesn't have that.

The top 3 all did what they needed to stay top 3 in that order, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, for now, though seeds are planted already that we may notice later if/when things begin shifting.

Cruz looked good, a lot of conservatives think he won.

Cruz has answered the million dollar loan question from Goldman Sachs question perfectly but he is losing at any moment where that is the topic.  Most of us don't have an open million in a stock account or make a million combined a year.  

Trump was masterful with his defense of the people during 9/11 - but that wasn't the question.  Collectively NY politics is far left.  The easy turnaround by Trump  exposes something in Cruz; he has a sort of code speech to conservatives similar to what liberals have talking to their own.  He says to a SC crowd, you know what I mean by NY politics.  They do and I know what he means, but that is code aimed at conservatives.  Same with his attack Rubio by linking him over and over with Schumer.  That rings the bell for hard core conservatives, but they already know that about Rubio and it doesn't reach any further to people want one side to try to reach agreements with the other side.  What is missing is to fully explain why our way is better, not just to point out the divide. 

Cruz's short history of standing alone on principle displays some good character qualities, but not leadership when the other lawmakers don't follow.

The VAT tax argument is important to me.  Rubio asked my question about it.  What is it that stops some future leftist President of Congress (certain to eventually follow) from raising the VAT tax rate way up in the future once it is in place?  The answer is nothing stops them and they will do exactly that for sure.   Look at their history; look at their intentions. Cruz could not and did not answer that (so now I pass it to Crafty).  Rubio effectively invoked Pres Reagan for opposing the VAT along with his reasons to oppose it.  Cruz noted that Art Laffer endorses it.  Laffer is right; this would be great for growth if it were enacted, but that is not to say that it is politically realistic, or if it was, wise to do knowing your opponents will most certainly raise the rates up in the future.  Cruz's plan as it sits raises too little revenue even under dynamic scoring to get passed the deficit hawks, without an equally bold set of spending cuts.  Gutting defense doesn't get you there either.  Liberals aren't going to go along with repealing those other taxes.  What is it in our politics that makes people think we are about to lower the top marginal income tax rate to 10% and let people making a billion a year keep 90%.  This isn't the time in the political process to pose wouldn't it be great ideas.  We are about to make a decision that affects us for the rest of our lives.  What have we seen in politics that makes us think if Ted Cruz proposes even R's will get behind.  What bill of his has he had a moderate sign on with that makes us think this is possible?  I haven't seen it.  Instead the table is set for Hillary or the Dem nominee to correctly point out huge tax cuts for the rich. I don't mind that criticism if he is going to win the argument but nothing in recent political history indicates that is the case.
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 14, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
With Iran seizing and humiliating our sailors, tonight could be a perfect moment for Rubio to hit Cruz with a full broadside on his repeated votes against increasing military spending.

For good measure he could go after Trump for his open sympathy to the Russian-Iranian axis.

Interesting, or at least he may go after them in counterattack.

George Will and Nate Silver were beating up on Rubio today in different ways.  The Will peice is all over the map, never stopping to complete a full point, immigration, Libya, sugar and something else.  Sugar is one case of Rubio failing a purity test.  Libya is more complicated than that.  Immigration on Rubio has already been beaten to death; he would probably have a 75% market share with that, and I didn't follow his last complaint, but it wasn't the parking tickets. The Nate Silver piece is more about how every other candidate still sees Rubio as their main threat.  Hard to say that is a negative on Rubio.  Rubio at some point and timing is everything, silver argues, Rubio will have to make a show of strength.  The word is that Bush and Christie will gang up on Rubio giving him more time and attention to make his case and make all these questions fully vetted.  Trump and Cruz are expected fight and each other.  Rubio may be the one who is not seen as attack his own challengers, hopefully just making his own case to be President.  In all cases it will be important to see how each is able to stand their ground on the mostly predictable challenges they face.

Rush today lamented how hard Republicans are taking down one of their own (Rubio).  I think it is too soon to write his 2016 political obituary.  So far he always seems to hold his own in debates.

I wonder if a questioner will try to expose limits on the front runner's knowledge.

Ben Carson says he will push harder to get his own message out.

http://www.unionleader.com/George-Will-Rubios-record-of-misjudgment
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-week/?#livepress-update-23079219

Take a look at Nate Silver's ideology map. (Who is most electable?)
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/silver-gop-five-ring-circus-jan141.png
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: To guru Crafty on: January 13, 2016, 01:34:48 PM
Crafty,
A little late for New Year but I would like to thank you for keeping this forum going for so long.
I really enjoy it, learn from it, and appreciate all your hard work that goes into it.

Happy New Year to you and all those who participate who make this a great hobby, sounding board, and social event for me.

Hear, hear!  Best host-moderator on the world wide web!

I have seen comment boards on left wing, right wing and centrist sites and they are almost always destructive and horrible.  Crafty sets a tone and enforces it.  That isn't easy and I think we all appreciate it.  I might not appreciate it as it happens but what I like best about this format is being corrected quickly when wrong and knowing the weaknesses of my own arguments.
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 13, 2016, 01:20:30 PM
ccp:  ...to not get our hopes up that she will get indicted.  Yet my hopes are.   Which means I lose a bet but the country wins big.
Of course more than half the (c)rats do not think she should drop out even if indicted!   angry@##$%^&*()


I don't know how this comes down but I think they only charge or indict her in the context of a simultaneous pardon or plea bargain so she is left in the race with the same scar she has now, just a little more formalized, and will say lesson learned let's move on.  Like you say, Dems and voters will just have to deal with that, like Bill impeached, disbarred, it isn't a big concern to her core group and Republicans (either way) will have to offer a more compelling alternative to win the middle and the persuadable.

In the end, if Republicans play every card right they may win 40-45 states but every decision we make right now needs to be approached with the conventional wisdom that Dems already hold about 255 of the 270 electoral votes needed and we need to run the table on all the squishy swing states.
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 13, 2016, 01:12:38 PM
Question for Doug (or anyone)

What is your take on a Rubio Cruz or Cruz Rubio ticket?

Is that tenable?

You wouldn't know it by hearing them but they are too much alike in terms of strengths and weaknesses to pick each other.

Ben Carson might be an idea for either of them, make other demographic groups take notice.  More likely they pick a woman.  I think that is why Nikki Haley is being auditioned, also other moderates like Kelly Ayotte, but they need her seat in the NH Senate.  Also Carly Fiorina for either one of them.

Rubio doesn't need Cruz to carry Texas or any red state assuming he consolidates the support of all these conservatives.

Rubio might have been the VP pick if one of the governors was the nominee.  I think he turned Romney down.  Now the Govs are down to Christy who is not a very good match with Rubio.  Christy also could pick a woman.

Maybe Trump picks Cruz, otherwise any conservative nominee should appoint Cruz to the Court.

I wonder who Cruz's runningmate should be.  I do not yet see Cruz as a general election candidate.  Maybe pick Kasich for his experience and grounding and influence in one key state.  For the most part they should be using this 17 person contest for the vetting that is already done.

Hillary allegedly picks Castro from Houston. (?)   I think Bernie should pick Joe Biden.  8 years experience.
111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Empress Dowager on White Terrorism on: January 13, 2016, 11:59:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ8T_sCIauw

Remember this gents the next time you advocate a more powerful surveillance state , , ,

For the record, I don't advocate a more powerful surveillance state. 

To Hillary,  Opposing overreach of government is not to hate government.  I favor government the way our founders set it up. To speak out strongly against abuse is not to cause the bombing of a daycare in a federal building.  The way her husband blamed that on talk radio and Rush Limbaugh was shameless, it's own example of hate speech same as this Hillary talk.

On Oklahoma City, note that banning all guns wouldn't make fertilizer explosions, pipe bombs and IEDs go away.

If we applied the liberal logic of how they real threats and terrorism, they should be appeasing right wing extremists, not speaking ill of them.
112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 12, 2016, 01:28:49 PM
3 scenarios for the GOP, none seem very likely but one will happen:

1)  Trump's vote comes out as strong as his polling numbers or better.  He wins Iowa, wins by more in NH, continues to grow, wins SC, FL, etc. and truly becomes the front runner.

2)  Cruz wins Iowa by more than expected, wins southern states and places better than expected elsewhere like NH.  Becomes the darling of the conservative movement and a real contender.  Knocks out or knocks down Trump with his strength.

3)  Cruz beats Trump in Iowa.  Rubio or could be someone else places third in Iowa, much closer to the top two than expected, takes first or second in NH, better than expected and starts to become the story.

My bet in order of likelihood is 3)  Rubio or someone else, 2) Cruz, and then 1) Trump, meaning this race right now is exactly backwards.  I also have money on Hillary not being the Dem nominee...

Next debate is this Thursday.  Some of the questions each have to address are obvious (like are you eligible to President).  How well they handle them the obvious important.  Who will rise above the pettiness?  Who will look and sound the most Presidential?  Who will send us chasing shiny objects?  We are still looking for a blunder or a gaffe (or scandal).  I don't expect one.  Will one of the questioners become the story (again)?  Everything until now was pre-game.  The image they leave going forward combined with how the early state results start coming in will determine the outcome.
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Jeb Bush on: January 12, 2016, 01:05:22 PM
Jeb is in 8th place in Iowa, 8th place in NH (?).  Trump supposedly leads Rubio by 42 to 10, so JEB runs ads against Rubio, the candidate he is most likely to endorse.  What a moron.

And what is his criticism now of Rubio?  Amnesty and gang of 8.  Jeb wouldn't have been in the centrist gang of 8; he would have been all the way over with Obama.

What an unfortunate trainwreck his candidacy has become.  Some of us know we can help the country more by letting someone else be the candidate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/bush-super-pac-slams-rubio-on-illegal-immigration-amnesty.html

This is a PAC completely outside of Bush's control...  right.  He could affect their advertising strategy by dropping out like all the other irrelevant candidates are doing.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 12, 2016, 12:49:14 PM
Obama as President was NOT okay by me - for reasons of his ideology.

Proposing to break up the country is another way to keep losing elections, though fun to ponder on a forum. 

Our ideas are better.  Why don't we try persuading people of that?  Their ideas result in failure and that has never been easier to prove.

Who communicates our ideas best, to the widest audience?
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Rand Paul (and dad Ron Paul) on: January 12, 2016, 11:56:16 AM
I'm very glad he is in the Senate and sincerely hope he wins re-election there.

Some of his criticisms of our ME policy have considerable merit.  In practice arming and training this group and that, which we often do when we don't want to do something serious, often means we wind up fighting those guns and that training.  This is worthy of serious consideration IMHO.

Agree.  In that sense he is like Trump, great at pointing out what has gone wrong and a bit lacking on coming up with the solutions.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 12, 2016, 11:54:28 AM
ccp,  It seems to me that a natural born citizen is a person who doesn't have to go through some process other than being born to become a citizen.

The idea that both parents need to be American is interesting but not written in the constitution nor did it become the law of the land later that I know of.  The constitution is a document written in plain English for all to understand, not just Supreme Court Justices.  The idea that a candidate could have an American mother and a foreign father and still be President was 'adjudicated' by the American people in 2008 and 2012.  There were plenty of challenges to that and it went nowhere in the courts.  The idea that an American mother cannot travel outside the US while pregnant because of risk of losing citizenship for her newborn is not the case anyone is arguing. On the flip side, the idea that these foreign travel babies with no citizenship claim other than being born here is absurd and not what the 14th amendment says or means.  Where does it say that birth location divides a family?

OTOH, the master of controlling the news cycle has everyone talking about this instead of everything we should be addressing at this critical juncture.  Like playing with a lead in football, sit on the ball and run the clock out.
117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen. Rand Paul leaving the stage on: January 12, 2016, 11:11:33 AM
Rand is out of the next main stage debate and thinks the undercard is beneath him.  He is polling 7th in Iowa and 7th in NH.

It's time to ask what went wrong.  He squandered his opportunity; what does that tell us?

He started with his Dad's base of a small number of really energized activists.  He went mainstream with it,  winning a US Senate seat and buddying up with Mitch McConnell to have some voice in important matters.  He looked to become a real force in the campaign and became more of an annoyance.

In the Senate he laid it all on the line for boogieman libertarian issues and never effectively made the case for the real ones, from my point of view.  He took his strongest stand against government drones targeting innocent US citizens on American soil.  I don't know what to think about that question except to say it isn't among my top one thousand concerns about liberties lost.  I don't want to be gunned down in my yard by an American government drone but see it as far less likely than being hit by a tornado.  More importantly I've lost other liberties that hurt me every minute of the day.

Rand Paul was leader of the movement for opposing so called 'metadata', a fight he won, but ending that 'threat' didn't get our privacy or liberties back, didn't make us safer and didn't win him anything with the electorate.

Rand Paul stood up with a Republican alternative foreign policy to the left of Barack Obama.  He removed some of the nuttiness from his Dad's positions, didn't rule out all interventions or conceivable foreign wars, but was by far the most anti-interventionist on the stage.  That did not connect with GOP voters.  When you combine it with cutting domestic spending by a trillion, it doesn't bring in crossover votes either.  Americans don't want another Iraq war but we also know that a world not led by America is a world headed to disaster.  Cutting defense spending isn't how you respond to ia world of increasing threats either.  Nor is arguing that those threats are way over there.

Cutting social spending is great but it isn't realistic unless you grow the economy first and grow it so widely and vigorously in a sustained way that people see that government is not their best engine of economic security.  Many things go into growing the economy, all starting with winning elections by spreading the message of economic liberty and growth.  Rand Paul's 17% flat tax might have been the best plan for economic growth, but had no chance of winning and you heard him promote it when?  He didn't have the focus to win.  Also, we have never grown the economy by neglecting national security.  The threats we ignore keep coming back to bite us.

Credit is due to Rand for attacking Trump on takings, and credit is due to our Pat for knowing that isn't enough to derail Trump.

Choose your battles.  Drone attacks weren't it, nor was the fight against metadata.   I've already ranted on my view of liberties lost.  But at this point it is more likely a Democrat who will connect with voters on some of those issues.  It will sadly become a case for the government interventionists to put limits the capture and storage of our personal data.  If Apple and Google weren't such reliable leftist supporters, the left would already be all over this.  Every app you download wants access to your contacts and everything else.

Obamacare became a word that we fight instead of the real invasion that it is.  So many things went wrong with it that we lost our focus on why the concept is so fundamentally wrong, the government knowing and controlling your most personal decisions.  Wickard Filburn comes to mind, where the government prosecuted the man for growing food for his own animals on his own property and the government locked in the authority to control everything else since then.  Like Kelo, that is too obscure for prime time perhaps but somewhere in there is a fight that Rand Paul and others lost sight of in the clash of the personalities of all the people who want to be President.
118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: January 11, 2016, 11:57:39 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/rubio-proposes-constitutional-amendment-to-invalidate-obamacare-individual.html
119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: January 11, 2016, 11:53:29 PM
Cruz clearly is positioning himself to pick up the Trump vote should Trump falter.  

   - Why would Trump falter when the second place challenger won't point out anything wrong with him?

[Cruz] has been willing to vote against metadata and stand by it in the heat of Rubio's attacks for having done so.

   - We get no privacy back as any clerk at Sprint or Verizon can pull up the same information on us, and now the people paid to track down terror connections who weren't even looking for the needle in a haystack no longer have access to the haystack.

All you would need to show probable cause to get the data to prevent the towers from coming down is to show the judge the link you don't have along with evidence that the towers in fact did come down.
120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: January 11, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
Thank you Doug.

This is what caught my attention:

BEGIN
"We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.

Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.

And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.

And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.

Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."

END

Zero expression of awareness about our 4th Amendment rights and our 9th Amendment right of privacy.


I believe he is referring to the 'authority' granted in the patriot act and related legislations that followed it.  I believe these laws have been upheld as constitutional meaning they fall within someone's definitions of the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9th (unenumerated rights).  That said,  I agree your concerns are valid.

I am a huge supporter of REAL privacy - the right to be left alone and for them to not know any more than they absolutely have to know about any of us.  The government should not only not dictate my healthcare arrangements, it should not even have a right to know them.  I have posted my concerns with Google as an Android user and same goes for Apple for i- users.  They know virtually everything about us and their systems have breaches and potential for worse.  As I have argued before (unsuccessfully), this 'metadata' showing just connection not content, used only (supposedly) when a terror connection is found and having no allegations (yet) of abuse is an emergency tool we are told by security experts is crucial.  Ending it, from my point of view addresses none of the problems noted above - that almost everybody who wants to has almost everything they want on me and you.  I mentioned trying to comply with O'care before a year end deadline.  I can't believe how many people including receptionists at multiple offices of multiple agencies freely asked for (demanded) my full legal name and date of birth just to open a file to leave a message that no one will return.  I didn't have to provide any of it unless I wanted the subsidy that I don't want but now need after THEY caused my healthcare cost to go up by 20-fold.  So we on the libertarian side fight to weaken our security tools but if we succeed in that we still have absolutely no privacy.  On the local side we can't so much as add a bathroom or move a wall without registering it with the city and county and inviting them in to our home or lose your occupancy permit and face condemnation.  If there is someone running for President and mounting a serious challenge to fix all of this, I haven't heard it.  Certainly not the takings guy.  Ron Paul and Rand Paul are riddled with their own problems.  Surrendering to our enemies doesn't bring my privacy back either.

If Cruz is so strong on the 4th, (5th) and 9th, where is his attack on Trump for his private takings?  How is that for privacy in your own home and with phone records when they can take possession of your property and tear your home down with your phone and records in it?  If Cruz's attack is coming, it is 7 months too late to be taken seriously.  You can check the record.   While I was attacking Trump on that, Trump and Cruz were talking about mutual admiration.  Where's the outrage?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/19/ted-cruz-s-secret-trump-strategy.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/08/hot-air-exclusive-rubio-speaks-out-against-abuse-of-eminent-domain/

But if it involves weakening national security, libertarian leaders are ready to lead the charge.  (Stepping down off my soapbox now.)
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rubio on a Sunday show on: January 11, 2016, 12:05:48 PM
Caught Rubio on one of the talk shows this morning.  He was OK but I confess to not really caring for the way he lacks concern for Big Brother surveillance issues.

Posting the transcript below of what I think Crafty refers to.  This was Stephie Stephanopoulus grilling and interrupting Rubio.  Every question was an attack question pretending to be relevant because it was a charge someone had made against Rubio, starting with: Chris Christie thinks you are a wimp and that Hillary Clinton will cut your heart out, how do you respond to that, are you really a wimp and how easily would she cut you up, you wimp, in a general election?

Rubio used strong language in an ad to distinguish his approach from Cruz.  Context (IMO) is that Cruz attacked first and Rubio is drawing his distinctions back on Cruz.  These are two nearly identical Senators who both have great intentions.  Rubio is saying that IF ISIS had a lobbyist, they would have wanted the NSA metadata authorization to go away.  That is kind of an obvious point, and the other side of it is valid too, the federal government has too much information already on all of us.  Cruz argues they passed new tools that go further, classified issues prevent us from knowing all the details.  Rubio argues we need the old tools and the new tools.  [Doug argues that after just personally going through a MNsure (Obamacare) application, recently filing two years tax returns along with everything of mine the IRS will see if I am audited including every payment in and out from everyone, and also the recent extra-constitutional 21 page Census anal exam, that this ability of them to connect telephone numbers with telephone numbers and email addresses with email addresses, all without content, is of no use or significant further encroachment of our already non-existent privacy.  I understand the other side of that argument is valid too and so did Rubio, see bold, that every encroachment is a fighting point for liberty.]  The Cruz and Rand Paul side says while they had this capability they didn't catch Boston and San B bombers, but I say they had this capability and perhaps could have caught them and disrupted these attacks.  Cruz and Steph. make a good point in rebuttal that plenty of Rubio supporters and other good people are on the Cruz side of this issue.  That doesn't change the fact that this is a point of distinction between the two while everyone is asking how do you two differ.  Plenty of national security types are strongly on Rubio's side of this as well saying this tool is essential to hunt down terror connections.

The rest is below but first this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: That language about lobbyists for ISIS is pretty tough, but the bill was also supported by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte and almost 2 dozen members of Congress who support you.  Are they all in league with lobbyists for ISIS?

RUBIO: No, but they’re named for two things: the names you just mentioned supported it not because they thought it was a good idea but because if nothing passed, it would’ve expired.
And second, they’re not running for president. We’re running for commander in chief here.
And, no, we should not have a commander in chief that wants to weaken our intelligence programs.
But my quarrel with Ted on these issues of national security are not limited just to the intelligence bill. If it was just that, you can have an honest disagreement. We are already cutting military spending --

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that language?  The lobbyists for ISIS?

RUBIO: Absolutely. There is no doubt that groups like ISIS will benefit from us having a diminished intelligence capacity.
We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.
-----------------------

Great answer BTW on the comparison of Rubiowith Obama, being just a Senator.  He has 7 years experience as President now and still is a failed leader.  The problem wasn't his Senate experience, it is his failed ideology.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-sen-marco-rubio-sen-bernie-sanders/story?id=36187173
Let’s take this now to Senator Marco Rubio, who joins us from Miami this morning.

You saw those projections right there, Senator Rubio.

Thank you for joining us.

What do you make of them?

And what do you need to do to overtake Donald Trump and Ted Cruz?

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing now. Look, there’s a lot of voters in these early states, particularly in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, that are going to make their decisions very late. They’re still shopping. You can see it. You can sense it in your conversations.

We’ve gotten some people that are starting to make firm commitments, but there are others that are still looking.

Look, three weeks for an Iowa caucus-goer is a long time. And they’re going to be very careful about making their choice. They have only one vote. They know the important role they play. And we feel very, very confident about where we stand and where we’re going to be when this is over.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard those Iowa voters. Some concerns about your experience, one voter calling you Obama II. And that attack has been picked up by Chris Christie, Governor Christie, who’s also hitting on your experience.

He’s made a point about you in a pretty graphic way this week.

Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This guy’s been spoon-fed every victory he’s ever had in his life.

Is that the kind of person that we want to put on the stage against Hillary Clinton?

I don’t think so. She'll pat him on the head and then cut his heart out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Cut your heart out.

What do you make of that?

RUBIO: Well, look, Chris doesn’t want to have a debate about his record. I -- you know, it’s not personal, but Chris’s record, for a Republican, is what we not need. He’s a supporter of common core. He’s personally given a donation to Planned Parenthood. He’s a supporter of gun rights. That’s why -- gun control. That’s why he got into office to begin with, was to run for gun control.

I mean, the last thing we need in our Republican nominee is someone who agrees with Obama and Hillary Clinton on many of the key issues before this country.

So he doesn’t want to have a debate on those issues, so he says these sorts of things...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you -- what do you make about that?

RUBIO: The bottom of line is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What do you make about that experience that you're coming...

RUBIO: Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- coming -- coming from the voters, worried that you don’t have the experience, or that you could be another Obama?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, Obama’s not a failure because he was a senator. Obama’s a failure but he’s had seven years of presidential experience and he’s still making enormous mistakes. So clearly it wasn’t experience. It was his ideas and his ideologies are flawed.

But the broader point is it is true there are people running for president that have lived longer than I have. But there is no one running as a Republican for president who has more experience, has shown better judgment or has better understanding of our national security issues than I do.

And that’s the number one job of a president, is to be the commander in chief. And none of these other people running have more experience on that issue or have shown better judgment, especially over the last five years, than I have.

And so I’m confident that, as we continue to make that argument, the people who are troubled by that will move on and come to support us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re getting hit pretty hard by Ted Cruz on the issue of immigration, taking on your support of that bipartisan Gang of Eight compromise in the Senate.

And this week, a new issue cropped up, an article in "The Daily Beast." And here’s the headline.

It says "Marco Rubio in 2004: Cheap College for Undocumented Immigrants."

They’re talking about in the Florida statehouse, you co-sponsored legislation to provide in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.

What was your thinking then?

And do you -- do you stand behind that position now?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, a lot of these attacks are exaggerated. I don’t support amnesty. I think there has to be real consequences for violating our laws.

I continue to support and have supported and sponsored the largest border surge in American history, 20,000 new border agents, 700 miles of fencing and walls, a mandatory e-verify system, entry-exit tracking system to prevent visa overstays.

On the bill you talked about, it was a very narrowly drafted bill. You had to have a certain GPA, you had to live in the U.S. a long time, you had to graduate from a Florida high school.

It was very narrowly tailored to high-performing students who found themselves in a situation where they were brought here by their parents when they were 5, didn’t even speak another language except English and therefore couldn’t attend college because they were being charged like they were from out of state.

They still had to pay for college but they paid for what people paid when they lived in Florida.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that --

RUBIO: They had to be high school graduates of Florida.

Yes, of a narrowly tailored bill like that, absolutely. In fact, the Florida legislature came back years later, after I had left the legislature and passed it with a vast majorities of Republicans voting for it and a Republican governor signed it. That’s different -- we didn’t legalize anybody. That’s the issue here.

And the truth is, when it comes to Ted, he has changed his position on immigration all over the place. I mean, he used to be against birthright citizens -- or he used to be for birthright citizenship; now he says he’s against it.

He used to be for legalizing people that were here illegally. Now he says he’s against it.

He used to be for 200 percent increases in green cards, doubling them; now he says he wants none.

And he said he used to be for a 500 percent increase in guest workers. And now he says he wants zero.

So this is not consistency; this is calculation, as he’s changed this position on these issues as we get closer to Election Day.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve also engaged in the national security debate with Mr. Cruz, saying the USA Freedom Act reforming America’s surveillance capabilities, that he supported, is going to make it harder to protect the homeland. Here’s what you said this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: If ISIS had lobbyists in Washington, they would’ve spent millions to support the anti-intelligence law that was just passed with the help of some Republicans now running for president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That language about lobbyists for ISIS is pretty tough, but the bill was also supported by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte and almost 2 dozen members of Congress who support you.

Are they all in league with lobbyists for ISIS?

RUBIO: No, but they’re named for two things: the names you just mentioned supported it not because they thought it was a good idea but because if nothing passed, it would’ve expired.

And second, they’re not running for president. We’re running for commander in chief here.

And, no, we should not have a commander in chief that wants to weaken our intelligence programs.

But my quarrel with Ted on these issues of national security are not limited just to the intelligence bill. If it was just that, you can have an honest disagreement. We are already cutting military spending --

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand behind that language?

The lobbyists for ISIS?

RUBIO: Absolutely. There is no doubt that groups like ISIS will benefit from us having a diminished intelligence capacity.

We are now at a moment in this country where we don’t just need to keep the authorities we already have, we need to add to these programs.

Look at what happened in Philadelphia on Friday. That was a terrorist attack. The White House refuses to call it a terrorist attack. The attacker says I did this for ISIS. I’ve been inspired by ISIS.

And we have a White House that refuses to acknowledge it as a terror attack. It was a terror attack. And this is the kind of threat we now face in this country. We need additional tools for intelligence.

And my last point I want to make about this: I never believed Edward Snowden was a good public servant the way that Ted Cruz once said, that he had done a public service for America.

Edward Snowden is a traitor. He’s a -- he took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander in chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama made a brand new bid for background checks on gun sales this week. And one of your recent ads said that President Obama’s plan would take away our guns. The president took on this argument this week. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The conversation has to be based on facts and truth and what we’re actually proposing, not some, you know, imaginary fiction in which Obama’s trying to take away your guns.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Fact checkers have called you out on that as well.

Where has the president called proposals for taking away guns?

He has not done that.

RUBIO: Well, his proposal for everything is to -- is to infringe on the Second Amendment. There’s a terrorist attack in San Bernardino; before even the facts are known, he immediately jumps and says, we need gun control.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But take away our guns?

RUBIO: This is what he always resorts to.

Well, if he could he would. Obviously he knows he’s constrained by the Second Amendment so what he tries to do is chip away at it every chance he gets.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you can see --

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: -- he wants this debate to be about -- George, if he could he would. And let me tell you what he’s trying to do. He is trying to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens by continuing to put new restrictions on our gun rights.

Let me give you an example. He says he wants -- Barack Obama says he wants this debate to be about fact and truth. Good. Let’s have it about fact and truth.

Here’s the fact and here’s the truth: none of the attacks that he is talking about, none of these horrible, horrifying tragedies that have occurred that he cites as the rationale for these measures that he’s taking, not a single one of them would have been prevented by anything he’s proposing.

And the reason why is because killers and criminals do not care what the gun laws are. They are not going to go to someone that conducts background checks. They will continue to get their guns the way they have always gotten their guns: from the black markets, stolen guns, et cetera.

So this is absurd. And the only people that are going to follow this law are law-abiding people. This is nothing but an effort from the Left to continue to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Senator, we heard this news overnight that Sean Penn, the actor, interviewed the Mexican drug leader, El Chapo, a few months back and had follow -- several follow-ups, interviews. The Mexican authorities are now investigating.

Do you have any problem with what he did?

RUBIO: Yes, I’m not -- look, I think Sean Penn is not someone I spend a lot of time thinking about. I didn’t even know he was still around. I think he made movies a long time ago or something.

I don’t -- he interviewed El Chapo, we, I’ll guess, use the interview that he had in order to find him. That’s -- the Mexicans did, that’s fantastic. I hope they extradite El Chapo to the United States.

And, you know, if one of these American actors, who have benefited from the greatness of this country, who have made money from our free enterprise system, want to go fawn all over a criminal and a drug trafficker in their interviews, they have a constitutional right to do it. I find it grotesque.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Rubio, thanks for joining us this morning.

RUBIO: Thank you.
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 10, 2016, 05:09:20 PM
A no-win situation.


If Cruz is the nominee, I won't have to hold my nose to vote.  But I will have to hold my breath for the results.
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 05:07:41 PM
If you haven't watched the movie "Idocracy", you really need to. It was supposed to be set far in the future, but everyday it's looking more and more like a documentary.

Like you say, I think I am watching it.  (   

Also, both the Obama and Trump campaigns remind me of the Pat Paulson campaign, if anyone is old enough to remember that.  The campaigns follow that as closely as they do that military strategy theory.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pat_paulsen.html
https://books.google.com/books/about/How_to_wage_a_successful_campaign_for_th.html?id=q50bAQAAIAAJ

Bill Clinton, 1996, Let's build a bridge to the 21st century.
Pat Paulsen, 1968, As I have always said, the future lies ahead.
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz to DACA girl: "Yes I would deport you" on: January 10, 2016, 04:48:58 PM


1.  He did a great job of explaining it, something the big tough bully frontrunner has never done.

2.  Is this policy position electable?  (How is Pete Wilson's party doing in California?)
125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 04:36:57 PM
For us it means we're screwed. (Trump policies)

Yes he might beat Hillary, on her way to prison.  And yes he is better than Hillary.  What I mean is, conservatives who think his policies will be conservative are screwed if he wins.

On the forum, we read, dig deep, find sources, study facts, solutions and alternatives on a whole range of topics for the entire term between elections and then some reality tv guy that doesn't give a rat's ass about policy details, rights or the constitution, facts or unintended consequences, doesn't know a minority in Iraq from a ruling party in Iran, nor a nuclear triad, walks in and takes it all.  If this happens, like 8 years under Obama and the rest of it, we deserve what is coming.

8 years of George Bush and 8 years of Obama.  8 years of Bill Clinton before that.  This is not a proud period in this country.  We defeated Hitler and the Soviet Union.  We build the strongest and most prosperous country is earth's history, we had the world turning toward freedom and we squander it by turning against everything that made it great.  And now for what little we have learned we about to leap for another big government solution, a candidate who never said he was conservative, against everything we have learned.  We really do have an opportunity to make America Great Again and Trump isn't it.
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 04:09:16 PM
Doug,
PS ,  at least the Vikings did better than the Giants this year. 

Ouch.
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: One possible response to the Nork Nukes on: January 10, 2016, 04:02:01 PM
I forget where I saw this idea recently, but the suggestion was that the Chinese are the ones in the best position to pressure the Norks about their nukes and that the way to pressure the Chinese to do so was to threaten to help/encourage the Japanese to go nuke and develop their military.
At this point, both Japan and Taiwan would be best served by going nuclear. Another Obama legacy!

Yes, he is the President who ended non-proliferation.  Legitimized NK and paved Iran's path, what could possibly go wrong?  Everyone goes nuclear but the worst countries have no fear of (mutually) assured destruction.

For one thing, if Iran destroyed Israel tomorrow or if NK landed a bomb on Los Angeles, Secretary Kerry would immediately accerate diplomatic efforts with them.  Perhaps require more self inspection.  No one would expect him to strike back. 

And Trump would threaten a trade war.
128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: May Allah forbid! on: January 10, 2016, 03:52:33 PM

Wouldn't that be funny, elect Obama UN Secretary General the same year that President Cruz or Rubio pulls the US out of the sham organization and puts the NY property up for sale to recover our lost dues.   )
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul Ryan on: January 10, 2016, 03:47:15 PM
For what (little) it is worth... I agree with Crafty on Paul Ryan.  If you want to pull him further to the right, elect a majority within the majority to do that.  Win 60 in the Senate.  And prove we are still competitive in Presidential elections.  In the meantime, he is a skilled and knowledgeable spokesman on a lot of economic issues so use him.

In the current interview, he was presenting a positive case for private sector growth economics to people who are not normally inclined to vote that way.  It's about time someone did that - especially at the national leadership level!

In the horrible budget deal, Ryan was dealt a hand that would not have beaten the President.  The previous cavings had lasting consequences.  He didn't bother to blame it all on his predecessors, and his wimpy fellow Republican representatives so he took al the arrows.  Now we have to win hearts and minds to move forward.  Deal Paul Ryan a better hand or replace him from a position of conservative strength  if you think he is too moderate or too RINO.

Instead of developing a conservative consensus from the ground up to make sure this never happens again, most of us keep falling for shiny objects and deck chair arrangement debates along the path of creeping liberalism on the way to the precipice. 

Elect a conservative who can win - for President, for congress in your district and in the Senate races.
130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 03:22:20 PM
 "not to lay out solutions" is...a big advantage at this stage."

   - It is a political advantage for him to not layout solutions.  For us it means we're screwed.  Policy details are gotcha questions, off limits.  Too soon, not relevant.  It will be great, trust me.  It makes him the same as Hillary or Bernie, he's going to make everybody so prosperous, just watch, blah, blah.

How about if the candidates tell us what their policies will be and we'll tell them how great we think the results will be.  But no, we just change the names of who telling us what the shiny objects of news will be while none of our questions get asked or answered.

On immigration for example he is going to be tough, tough, tough and then the details are the same as Cruz and Rubio, just sound tougher.

On government takings, no problem.  What is the limiting principle of that?  Huh?  Constitutional rights?  It depends on which ones.  On judicial nominees, no clue.  On tax policy, no indication he has read his own, latest proposal.  Just a published paper to look serious.  On limiting or shrinking government?  Not a word.  On willingness to govern by executive order?  Sounds good.  Middle East?  Let Russia take care of it.  N.K., let China take care of it.  Israel?  Mexico, trade war.  China, trade war.  Nuclear Triad?  Never heard of it.

How can we tell conservatives they are crazy to support this guy?  Nobody likes the person who tells them their crazy.  Especially when it's true.

Trump showed amazing political skill to be questioned heavily by two show hosts on two networks as the lead interview every hour and never have any of this come up, just go on and on about how bad everyone else is and how great it will be when he is in charge.  Great.  Really great - with gallows sarcasm.

Life is way too short to go another 4 or 8 years being ruled by more BS, and the way he tells us he will win is by not telling us the details, just making the case that everyone else is unworthy.  

We go way too long between great Presidents.
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 10, 2016, 12:33:40 PM
Bill Clinton in NH: 

“I think this election is about restoring broadly shared prosperity, rebuilding the middle class, giving kids the American Dream back.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429425/obama-economics-recession-recovery-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton

Who is he supporting again?  An agent of change?  Whose record is he railing against?

What worked for him, welfare reform, free trade, capital gains tax rate cuts, mandatory criminal sentencing?

What is she running to do?  Expand social spending, undo trade agreements, raise tax rates and set criminals free?

To whom does this make sense?  Someone who kept their healthcare and thinks we did everything we could to secure Benghazi?
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 12:20:08 PM
I watched DT on the shows this morning and need to concede (again) that anyone who (still) underestimates his political skills does so to their own peril.  I agreed with him about 90% of the time in the Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press interviews.  Like Perot, his strength is to point out what is wrong, not to lay out solutions.  The Iran deal, terrible, for example.  He is far more gifted than Perot or anyone else at doing that and the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton record give him never-ending material to keep doing that.

OTOH, His attacks on GOPers have tended to be personal and petty, he welcomes the precedent set by Obama to govern by executive order, and his views on Russia, Syria, China and North Korea seem largely naive and ill conceived to me.
133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 10, 2016, 11:59:50 AM
"If he insults some in the international community - so what?"

It isn't that I care what they think.  It is more like I don't care what they say as long as we are in the right and they are in the wrong.  With a lot of Trump's boorish statements, he is in the wrong.

There is a difference between, oh that is just Trump being Trump and that statement coming from an American President, blood coming out of her whatever, etc.  As you said with W and most certainly true with Reagan, there is something to the fact that a person winning the election and rising up with humility to serve in the institution of the Presidency.  Clinton and Obama degraded the Presidency in different ways.  Everyone brings in their own personality.  Trump has shown very little ability to grow in that regard as he gets closer to the prize.

As you say with high risk, if it comes down to me voting for him, it will only be out of disdain for the alternatives.  Returning the Clintons to the White House is unthinkable and extending the Obama policies through any like-minded successor would be catastrophic to the country.
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Jeb Bush on: January 10, 2016, 11:38:03 AM
ccp, right.  Both Bushes were good men.  Both had great moments; neither was a great President.

If not entitled, Jeb has a false sense of himself.  The more people have seen and heard him, the less they like him.  I have been saying from the outset that we need not just leaders with the right policies but leaders on our side who can make the case WHY these are the right policies.  Through all this, JEB has not ever shown himself to be smarter or more charismatic than DT.  In fact we discovered the opposite.  Both Jeb and DT have tax plans well crafted by aides and consultants.  Neither has told us how or why this will turn the economy around.  If you never heard an opposing view, Bernie Sanders is more convincing than either of these people.

Peggy Noonan was asked earlier about the observation that Bush has all this experience and it doesn't seem to matter to voters.  She pointed out it was his responsibility to persuade voters as to why that experience matters.

Noonan also wrote the famous line, 'Read my Lips No New Taxes'.  Having great aides and staff does not equal great leadership.
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Pepper Spray in Europe on: January 10, 2016, 11:21:10 AM
Pepper Spray:  “We are completely sold out. We sold our last pepper spray on Wednesday. We order new supplies every day, but we always exceed the supply… mostly it is women demanding the products. They buy them for themselves, or for their daughters or girlfriends.”

http://www.express.de/koeln/enorme-nachfrage-pfeffersprays-sind-in-koeln-ausverkauft-23403854
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: January 10, 2016, 11:11:56 AM
The Rape Epidemic by ‘Refugees’ in Finland Has Reached the Point Where Fins have Given Up…
http://conservativepost.com/the-rape-epidemic-by-refugees-in-finland-has-reached-the-point-where-fins-have-given-up/



Finland, now, has become “one of the least safe countries in Europe for women,” according to Finland’s leading newspaper, “all because of the Muslim influx.”
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy, Is it time for a big fleet of small ships? on: January 10, 2016, 11:04:27 AM
Political leaders must consider whether big ships, small fleet strategy will protect U.S. given new security threats.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/06/us-navy-fleet-ship-size-aircraft-carriers-pournelle-column/78238004/
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-07/deadly-future-littoral-sea-control

Or would people rather ponder Ted Cruz's mother's birth certificate and DT's tariffs this direction changing, national security election.
138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US-Russia alliance of convenience? on: January 10, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
Trump has, in his usual inimitable and inchoate way, raised the possibility of a US-Russia alliance of convenience.
IMHO the notion is not completely devoid of its logic but presents some devilish problems in its details , , ,
Discuss?

Iran is now (allegedly) returning Uranium to Russia.  Even if that were true, someone please explain how that makes us safer.
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump - Walmart voters on: January 10, 2016, 10:45:06 AM
I heard today that Trump is registering blue collar voters in the parking lots of Walmarts.

Opponents might want to go there and test poll the idea of a 45% Trump Tariff price increase.

We are going to address the nuclear threat of NK by starting (or threatening) a trade war with China.

Interestingly, Walmart is the Dow stock least hurt by the Obama income squeeze.  With healthcare costs up another 70% and incomes up by zero, more and more people feel the squeeze of their plowhorse load pulling paycheck, at least who aren't already among the 100 million adults not working at all.  The part time, mostly immigrant, Obama economy new hires aren't flocking to Macy's.  Trump's tariffs would reduce Walmart to a failed chain of chain of designer boutiques and leave Goodwill to bid up what is left of the consumer goods economy.
--------------------

Trump today:  "The economy, that's my thing.  It will be great!"  Following by no supporting argument.
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 10, 2016, 10:13:00 AM
Who is Sid Blumenthal's source?  Did they divulge classified information to a Clintonite in exchange for millions in Clinton Crime Family cash.  Someone at the other end of this is in trouble too.

The backfiring of the Clinton server and the bad advice she got from her most trusted political adviser (Bill):  She wrote things she wouldn't have put in writing if she thought these would be read and distributed in public later.

The worst emails will come out last if ever.

Joe Biden says he regrets his decision not to run "everyday".  If I were the Dem party, I would re-open all ballots to all comers in all states until the printing deadline maybe 72 hours before each contest. 

Unless Bernie is the beneficiary of the Hillary mess, it seems to me that a write in candidate could conceivably win the Dem nomination.  Liberalism aside, you have to have blinders and sound blockers around the clock on to believe Hillary doesn't face a massive set of self made problems.
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gov. Jeb Bush - helping Trump on: January 10, 2016, 09:53:42 AM
Funny that as we head into the heat of this contest, our Jeb thread hasn't earned a post since last October.

Even this one is only about the money of his surrogates.  'Right to Rise' is running its anti-Rubio ad nartionwide now, including a spot on Fox News Sunday this morning.  Rubio missed (meaningless) votes in Washington - OMG!  Some of those missed votes were from before he announced his run for President.  None of Jeb's complaints about missed votes however were from before Rubio announced his competing run for President.  Trump leads Rubio by something like 40-15%.  What a coward Jeb is at this point to cast petty stones at the candidate he finds most similar to himself, instead of at his real adversary.  Do they think Rubio is about to get out of the race while he has led Bush in nearly every poll in every state?  Everyone knows it's Bush that should get out if a non-Trumper is going to consolidate.  Who embodies the ideals of 'right to rise' better than Rubio?  So that's a phony front.  As Pat says, they want their power back more than they care about the right of struggling Americans to rise.

Jeb accumulated his $16 million selling his influence after leaving office, I would allege, unless you believe he had intimate knowledge of the investment banking business.  How good was the advice he gave to Lehman Brothers and how is that going now?

Jeb earned $29 million since leaving public office.  That is a lot of people telling you how great you are without facing a contested election in 20 years.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/30/418895297/jeb-bushs-wealth-skyrocketed-after-leaving-governors-office

F.Y.I. to J.E.B.:  Marco Rubio's missing votes in Washington DC is not among the things that have gone wrong with this country.  The US Senate has not held a vote over that time that would fix what has gone wrong. Whose policies are blocking the people's right to rise?  Why not put the attention there?

G M was right in October, "Jeb is done".  But he still has money at his disposal to exit in his own, scorched earth manner.
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: January 09, 2016, 11:43:18 AM
Further prognostication but I am imagining Rubio behind the scenes scrambling to NOT get the endorsements of John McCain and Lindsey Graham at this point in the contest.  Same for the endorsement of Jeb when he finally leaves.  People, just leave quietly and let the voters sort it out.  Just what we need in the year of the outsider is for a bunch of Washington career insiders and perceived establishment types try to tell us how we need to vote.  It can only backfire.
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: January 09, 2016, 11:39:08 AM
It's hard to imagine a scenario where Trump loses the nomination.  But people keep trying:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/campaign-stops/how-donald-trump-loses.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fross-douthat&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1

Cruz consolidates Iowa, knocks out Huck, Carson, Santorum and beats Trump in the south.  That takes away Trump magic and inevitability, makes him one of the pack.

But in New Hampshire, the people who seem to hate Trump the most, Kasich and JEB, stay in, split potential Rubio vote and enable a Trump win.  If Rubio edges them out he takes second or third, Trump gets a win, but then they drop and other states and other regions like mountains and west come into play.

If Kasich can win Ohio and have other midwest strength, that continues the vote split an Rubio never emerges.

I don't know what Pat was saying about so many candidates being an establishment conspiracy.  The split of support clearly favors Trump.
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, Latest Fox poll on: January 09, 2016, 11:12:44 AM
In the GOP contest, it is the same 1,2,3, Trump, Cruz, Rubio.

Trump has improved in the general election matchup with Hillary because she is down, Cruz has improved, but Rubio still matches up the best.

Take the one of these three who matches up the best.  Otherwise take one of the two plus term Governors to know they are ready to govern, manage bureaucracy and so on - but not Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Chris Christie.
-------------------------------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
RCP Average   12/16 - 1/7   --   --    Clinton 44.6   Trump 42.6   Clinton +2.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#polls
RCP Average   11/16 - 12/20   --   --   Sanders 44.3   Trump 42.3   Sanders +2.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html
RCP Average   12/16 - 1/7   --   --   Rubio 46.5   Clinton 43.5   Rubio +3.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_sanders-5564.html
RCP Average   10/29 - 12/20   --   --   Rubio 44.0   Sanders 43.0   Rubio +1.0

In 2012 the 'experts' told us we were fools for not believing the polls.

And don't be surprised if Sanders is the Dem nominee.  He also matches up best.
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: January 09, 2016, 10:50:28 AM
Interesting theory on Trump pointing out Cruz birther issue:  Trump doesn't have the staff to vet his VP picks so he's having the media do it.

My theory is the shiny object explanation.  He's got the whole world chasing the shiny object while he sits on his lead and no one else can get traction.
--------------------------------

Trump's attacks on the Clintons is his way of beating them.  Isn't that great (with sarcasm).  People hate politics and our sides strategy is going to be to nominate the guy with the highest negatives and have him win by driving up the negatives of the other side who is also picking the candidate with the highest negatives.

(How about picking someone who can connect and lead in a positive direction.)
146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: January 08, 2016, 06:59:14 PM
Westbury says our exports to China are $100 billion.  If those suddenly went to zero, it would cut only one half of 1% from our growth.  

One half of 1% is our growth.

Missed in that is what if our imports from China went to zero - our standard of living would collapse.
147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 08, 2016, 06:54:09 PM
Looks like the latest batch of emails has yet another smoking gun against Hillary:  By her own hand she advises an underling how to remove Secret header and then send the contents to her private server.

Chuck Todd of Meet the Press called it smoking circumstantial evidence.  The campaign argues she was ordering them to cut classified emails out of what was sent.
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Betting sites more accurate than polls on: January 08, 2016, 03:46:45 PM

Rubio is the GOP betting favorite still.  Trump leads Rubio in some polls by 41 to about 10.  Hillary is flawed.  11 cents buys a dollar of a President Trump.  A tenth of a cent buys a dollar of Fiorina payout.  Our Trump supporter predicts Rubio over Trump but then Hillary over Rubio.  This is better than sports betting.

Cruz fell below Trump since the posting.  There is quite a bit of game left to be played - or whatever Yogi Berra used to say.
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: January 08, 2016, 03:30:37 PM
BD: 
That looks to be a really excellent article on TC's eligibility AND it's really long grin  Would you be so kind as to give us a summary?
What I found in a glance:  "Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president"  ...  but could be made so if province of Alberta were "to secede from Canada and be admitted as a state of the U.S. before the term of presidency would begin [and] for the duration of the term in office."

I am okay with that.  We could trade them NY or CA.

This looks like an opinion piece written by someone opposing Pres. Obama's eligibility, although I thought constitution.org is a definitive site.  I wonder what BD's personal/professional judgement of the Cruz question is...

The author(s) here make a complete distinction between citizen when born and natural born.  I don't believe the constitution does.
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: EuRAPEia on: January 08, 2016, 02:57:28 PM

Just orphans and widows, nothing to fear...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 151
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!