Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 31, 2015, 10:26:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84571 Posts in 2264 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 16109 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #150 on: December 25, 2014, 12:12:20 AM »

Crafty:
"I'm sure we here have noticed the dust up between Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio over Baraq's move with Cuba.  IMHO the implications run deep and go to the point I have been making here on this forum about the absence of a guiding paradigm for US foreign policy for several years now.

The implications for the 2016 race of the Paul-Rubio dust up are deep.

Does not Paul come closer to the current mood than Rubio?  Does he not score a telling point when he accuses Rubio of backing Hillary's policies with regard to Libya, the MB in Egypt and so forth?  The implications here for a Paul-Hillary match-up are quite intriguing.  Do any of us here want to follow Hillary in foreign affairs?  I surely would not want my son serving her in harm's way-- how can I ask such of others as she empathizes with evil-doers, and, with Huma Abedin at her elbow, supports the MB?  Do any of us trust any of the people under consideration to effectively act in the Middle East?

Pair this with Paul's clarion call against the Orwellian State that is taking form as we watch and for a return to the Rule of Law and Freem Inds and Free Markets, and we may see many assumptions about political coalitions shatter."
------------------------------

Very odd dust up indeed.  Too bad to see otherwise allies bloodying each other.  Paul called Rubio an isolationist.  An odd bit of flippant humor applied to a pretty serious situation.  Rubio is anything but isolationist. 

I agree that the current mood is tempted to follow the Rand Paul / Barack Obama foreign policy (as Rubio called it) which is a mix of a little talk with doing mostly nothing.  People seem to know this is not working, and current mood doesn't mean that the right answer.  That is why we hopefully have leaders.  What is happening around the world?  Russia-Ukraine, Iran going nuclear, North Korea running the US, China doing an accelerated build on their Navy and passing us economically, Europe imploding to Islamists, and worst of all I think, Islamic State is consolidating its gains by exterminating all opposition.  Cuba is harmless to us?  I don't think so.  No, it is a communist dictatorship.  All tourist revenue goes to the regime, and from there to carry out oppression.  They are friend to all our enemies.  They are the third largest spying regime against the US.  They are still allies of powerful adversaries in a very dangerous world.

Maybe this will help clarify Rubio's view, a 14 minute interview with John Hinderaker yesterday:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/marco-rubio-on-cuba.php

Rubio is FOR the opening up to Cuba.  He is for linking it to them taking steps forward toward democratization.  The Castro brothers are old and will die.  There is going to be a transition.  We would like to see it go toward freedom and self determination.  Normalization is what they want.  It is our only policy lever.  Obama gave it away and got nothing in return for it.  Now he won't ever again hold that lever.  Rand Paul supports all that.  His reason is because that might open up freedom in Cuba?  But how?  The money goes to the regime.  Didn't every other country already do that and it didn't work?  Haven't we done that since 1972 with China.  But China has a transition process.  Cuba doesn't.

Rubio previously on Cuba and Venezuela:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_wKhXurFyI

A Cuban exile writes in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/22/as-a-cuban-exile-i-feel-betrayed-by-president-obama/

Recent News:  Cuban Government Sinks Boat Carrying 32 Refugees, Including Children
The boat, said González, was carrying 32 people, including seven women and two children. One of the two children was her 8-year-old son.  Her husband is still missing.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article4711515.html
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/23/cuban-government-sinks-boat-carrying-32-refugees-including-children/
Did anyone see that story?

When Marco Rubio speaks passionately and in great detail about just how awful the Cuban regime is, is anyone saying that any of it is not true??

No.  We are just tired of taking a stand. 

Free trade is something you do with free people.  Enriching enemies of the United States with either money or technology was illegal when I was in the export business.  I fully support free trade but understand that caveat.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #151 on: December 25, 2014, 01:08:44 PM »

Doug:  Some excellent sources there-- please post them on the Cuba thread as well.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2014, 09:13:07 PM »

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-jeb-bush-is-choice-of-conservatives-romney-is-establishment-pick/article/2557867?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Top%205%20PMI&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Top%205%20PMI%20-%2012/25/14&utm_medium=email
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 144


« Reply #153 on: January 05, 2015, 01:07:00 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLUE2Xe8N0

I posted it here, because to me, it should influence who we all vote for.
Logged

Singing in the rain...
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #154 on: January 05, 2015, 10:55:52 AM »

Two hours and forty minutes?

That is one helluva a time investment.  How about a decent outline of what it is saying to help determine whether one should watch?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #155 on: January 07, 2015, 04:59:16 PM »

Chris Christy has taken a number of hits lately.  Today's news says that more people are leaving NJ than any other state.  Comments from our man on the scene?

http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-09/news/36239709_1_migration-study-michael-stoll-keystone-state
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-fleeing-new-jersey-2014-1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #156 on: January 08, 2015, 11:55:13 AM »

From Jeb Bush thread:
I am so sick of the republican structure pushing democrat-lite candidates. I will not vote for them again. I will worry about local issues and ignore the national goat rope.

If we want to compete with Rinos on the Republican side who are already charging forward, we will have to do that same work on our side too.  The establishment has donors and networks.  Where are ours?  Our side better get started, organize, choose a leader and raise money.  It is time to start naming names.  Too often we sit back and take defeat by default. 

To everyone, unless you want lousy choices handed to you later, pick a leader.  Go to Youtube, search their name, hear them speak.  Read the backgrounds, find their positions.  There are 17-20 Republican choices available:

Jeb Bush -  Too Rino?
Chris Christie -  Too Rino? or whatever else?
Mitt Romney - Too Rino, blew it last time, can't articulate certain things, and will never escape Romneycare.

Marco Rubio - Too young?  Too new?  (Looks good to me.)
Ben Carson -  No political experience? But raising grass roots money. (Worth a try?)
Ted Cruz - Too divisive?  (or just what is needed?)
Bobby Jindal - Not exciting?  (So what.)
Rand Paul - Wrong on foreign policy? 
Rick Perry - Blew it last time.  3 term governor of the largest, Republican-led state.
Rick Santorum - Unelectable.
Mike Pence -  Has both congressional and executive experience.  (The adult in the room?)
Scott Walker - Questionable national appeal?  (Or maybe just right.)

Carly Fiorina - Too Rino, no political experience.
Mike Huckabee - No.
Kelly Ayotte -  Too new, too Rino?
Susana Martinez - Not yet on the national stage.
Nikki Haley -   same?
Who did I miss -  ?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #157 on: January 08, 2015, 04:18:50 PM »




Jeb Bush -  Too Rino?

I'm hearing good things about his record in FL, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Let's find out more.

Chris Christie -  Too Rino? or whatever else?

Ego maniac, half the streets in town are named after him "One Way".  Remember his speech nominating Romney at the convention?  It was all about himself.  Remember his betrayal of Romney by sucking up to Obama at Sandy Hook's aftermath?  Recent record in NJ is not too good, and lots of people are now leaving NY.  We know NOTHING of his instincts on foreign affairs.  Plus he could keel over with a heart attack.

Mitt Romney - Too Rino, blew it last time, can't articulate certain things, and will never escape Romneycare.

Fair enough, but I think the man has deepened from his reflections on his loss and what has happened since then.  He has earned a credibility and a respect that he did not have before due to his various prescient calls.

Marco Rubio - Too young?  Too new?  (Looks good to me.)

Good man in many ways, but too young, NO executive experience, good call for VP

Ben Carson -  No political experience? But raising grass roots money. (Worth a try?)

Ultimately his lack of ANY experience in ANY aspect of governance is a huge gap, but I hope he garners much attention in the early campaign.  He is a very good man with much to offer-- and a temperament that will resonate very well with many.  He should be the one leading the charge on Obamacare and should we win, should become Sec. of HHS.

Ted Cruz - Too divisive?  (or just what is needed?)

All intellect, his entire life has been the law.   Fg tone deaf to human emotion.  As a candidate he would be a disaster. 

Bobby Jindal - Not exciting?  (So what.)

How would he give women a reason to vote against Hillary?  No track record on foreign affairs.

Rand Paul - Wrong on foreign policy?

Well, he's wrong in some ways, and quite right in others.  Which candidate would you trust to be your son's commander in chief while serving in the middle east?  Guys, we need to remember that the country as a whole is quite distrustful AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO of our government's competence in this regard.   A decent case can be made for regrouping.  Rand truly stands for many superb things on the domestic front when it comes to economic and personal freedom and cutting the government.  He also appears to have a genuine feeling for redefining to which groups the Reps appeal.   Don't write him off yet.

Rick Perry - Blew it last time.  3 term governor of the largest, Republican-led state.

Will always be seen as a Dan Quayle.  That he is very good on Tenth Amendment issues is a very good thing, but that is FAR FAR FAR from being a campaign.

Rick Santorum - Unelectable.

Quite good on Obamacare but Libs already razz him for being the only candidate with a plank in his platform about anal sex.  He will always be portrayed as a sexual busybody. 

Mike Pence -  Has both congressional and executive experience.  (The adult in the room?)

Boring white guy.

Scott Walker - Questionable national appeal?  (Or maybe just right.)

Boring white guy.

Carly Fiorina - Too Rino, no political experience.

And ran a crummy campaign for Senate here in CA.  Run her against Hillary?  Pathetic.

Mike Huckabee - No.

There is much I like about the man and he has a good temperament, but too many doubts about his record in AK.  I'm willing to give a listen, but at the moment I don't think it will go much further than that.

Kelly Ayotte -  Too new, too Rino?

Seems like a decent Senator, but other than that , , , so what? 

Susana Martinez - Not yet on the national stage.

Exactly.

Nikki Haley -   same?

Yep.

Who did I miss -  ?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #158 on: January 08, 2015, 06:56:14 PM »

Thanks for the detailed response. 

Romney has learned a lot I'm sure.  I agree he earned credibility on calling some things right, that his economic plan would have worked and the people wish he had won last time in hindsight.  But some of the key part I think we need is not in him.  In a nutshell, he opposed Reagan, expanded government when he had the chance, and couldn't defend capitalism or his own work in the free enterprise system when pressed.  I will vote for him again if that's all there is, but he is not the leader that will change minds of millions or bring a new generation over to our side.  I will not forget that he choked and backed off when Candy Crowley (wrongfully) stepped into the debate.   Why was he making that (valid) accusation against the President of the United States in a scheduled debate if he was ready, willing and able to back it up?  He lacked the fire in the belly then and is likely to have even less now.  Speaking of Christy at the convention, what happened to Romney there?  They had a week of free media and gained nothing from it.  He mostly played defense.  He is a good man.  Too bad he didn't step up when he had the chance.

Rand Paul.  "Which candidate would you trust to be your son's commander in chief while serving in the middle east?"  - I would trust him to have the least casualties in foreign lands, but also to make us the least secure at home.  ISIS has captured strategic territory, revenue sources, weapons, and is breeding a new generation of terrorists through gender slavery and rape.  Time for us take a little breather?

Does boring white guy (Pence, Walker) mean ruled out because they are unelectable? 

I didn't know white male was a disqualifier. wink  And aren't they all boring to the general electorate when they talk about key issues, taxes, spending, entitlements, regulations, budgets, security, foreign entanglements, monetary policy, judiciary philosophy, etc.  That's why they turn to boxers, briefs and what's in your playlist.  For Obama, it was Greek columns and speeches full of nothingness.   If we don't choose Carson, Bachmann, Fiorina, or Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Ayotte, Haley... then might we have to get behind a boring white guy??

One other observation.  No names were added to the list (so far).  With almost all ruled out, we are down to very few good choices.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #159 on: January 08, 2015, 10:39:37 PM »

"and couldn't defend capitalism or his own work in the free enterprise system when pressed."

That is a zinger!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12281


« Reply #160 on: January 09, 2015, 08:07:56 AM »

Ted Cruz or bust.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #161 on: January 09, 2015, 10:06:46 AM »

I am quite glad he is in the Senate, but as a Presidential candidate he would suck and our next President will be Hillary.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #162 on: January 09, 2015, 11:50:09 AM »

GM: "Ted Cruz or bust."
Crafty: "as a Presidential candidate he would suck and our next President will be Hillary."

And I was hoping we would reach consensus by now.  smiley

My view on Cruz is in between these two.  He is a high risk choice, but maybe one worth taking.  Like Gingrich last time, he is one guy you wish was there on the stage when our candidate has no answer to lying liberalism.

Ted Cruz will be accused of shutting the government down.  17% of it for 16 days.  But, on the ticket and in the media, he can answer that.  He didn't shut it down, Barack Obama and Harry Reid did.  The Republican budget funded everything except the exact part they were sent there to stop. 

He will be accused of being the far, extreme right.  But is he also the guy that makes sense of those conservative positions to the persuadable?  Hillary, if she runs and is nominated, will be candidate of the status quo.  Cruz would be new guy on the stage arguing for change.  That said, I don't think he can win the nomination.

Waiting to hear from obj, ccp, and others!

We want someone a) who can win, and b) who can turn this country around.  If you can't win, you can't turn the country around.  If you win but govern Dem-lite and can't defend good policies, then you set the stage for failure, like last time.

One of these people, we hope and pray, is the next leader who can connect, persuade, move the debate and the people.  Who is that?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #163 on: January 09, 2015, 02:03:15 PM »

I lived in Florida while Jeb was governor.  However I don't follow politics a lot at the state level.  I don't recall any particular criticisms about him overall.   He is definitely an appeaser though.

I enjoyed going to a rally In Orlando when his brother W was running for President.   We got to see him and his brother and even more importantly Bo Derek.

Now I am in NJ.  Christy did take on the teachers unions which is no less of a big deal here as it is in Wisconsin with what Walker did.  Yet I don't see much else happening here in NJ that gives us much relief. 

We still are at the top of all lists for taxes in the nation.   Pension plans are still out of control.  The government employees unlike historically are now doing better than the majority of private sector workers.

I cannot say Christy's personality is not a problem.  He turns me off as well as my conservative Republican sister who as a teacher *was* very supportive of him (unlike all the other "let the rich pay for it crowd of Democrat teachers).   We don't like narcissists. 

I have a nephew who is chief of staff for Bobby Jindal.  I like him a lot.  He is a genius I here and always several thoughts ahead of everyone around him as well as a true type A workaholic.   And a genuine *nice" guy.  My sister had several personally guided tours at the Loiusianna "white house".

None of the candidates are ideal at this point in time for me personally as well as  haveinga great shot at appealing to the "masses".

There is a growing problem of entitlement mentality in the US as well Europe.  We all know this.

Perhaps it is good to have everyone jump in and let the best man (no woman yet) win.   

I am quite pessimistic that we will get one who is a great conservative with a great mouthpiece have a good shot to win a national election. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #164 on: January 10, 2015, 08:35:45 PM »

We must be talking big business which is absolutely booming near me.  Endless popular chain restaurants, Dunkin Donuts, Walmarts.   I don't know too many small business people who are thrilled.    The big businesses have the ability to pay people to figure out all the regulations, IT requirements, and lobby.    This is how it is occurring in health care.   Wall Street has taken over just as much as government.   

57% (who was surveyed I am not sure)  of businesses approve of CC:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/12/25/survey-says-new-jersey-business-is-big-on-governor-christie/

Yet most people otherwise give him a so so rating and most in the State do not even consider him a good candidate for President as per one survey.

For many of us his fanship of the NY Giants arch enemy Dallas Cowboys is enough to warrant removal from office.  Could anyone imagine Rick Perry saying his favorite team is the NY Giants?   I mean common really!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #165 on: January 11, 2015, 12:16:17 PM »

Great comments by ccp.  Jeb did a good job with Florida as Governor.  He had good circumstances, Republican legislature, Marco Rubio Speaker, no income tax etc.  He wasn't run by his father or big brother, was his own man.  He has a couple of issue problems to resolve if he wants conservative support and he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Like Walker,  Chris Christie stood up to unions.  Unlike Walker, he didn't turn the rest of the problems in the state around. Maybe couldn't have because it is a Dem state, but didn't.  NJ is not either his fault nor his accomplishment.  He has a medium record, upset a lot of R's with his 2012 Obama embrace, has a controversial personality and like most governors has no real record on foreign policy.

With Jeb and Mitt maybe in, Chris Christie is one more Rino to split the moderate-establishment wing vote, so we should hope all of those get in - and lose.    smiley
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #166 on: January 11, 2015, 08:31:59 PM »

"With Jeb and Mitt maybe in, Chris Christie is one more Rino to split the moderate-establishment wing vote, so we should hope all of those get in - and lose"

Pleasant thought.  Would be nice. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #167 on: January 13, 2015, 07:48:56 PM »

Paul Ryan is out.

Romney is in.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30799373

Elizabeth Warren now says she will not run.  (Assuming Hillary is in.)

This is starting up early!

Stealing the photo from Crafty's post, how do we compete with the accomplishments, good looks and charisma of this woman?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #168 on: January 16, 2015, 12:37:30 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-beat-bush-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #169 on: January 22, 2015, 07:13:28 AM »

Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush to Meet, Raising Speculation on Presidential Race
Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are scheduled to meet privately in Utah this week, raising the possibility that the two former governors will find a way to avoid competing presidential campaigns that would split the Republican establishment next year, two prominent party members said Wednesday night.
The meeting was planned before Mr. Romney’s surprise announcement two weeks ago to donors in New York that he was considering a third run at the White House.
Mr. Bush initiated the meeting, according to one of the party members familiar with the planning.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/politics/romney-and-jeb-bush-to-meet-raising-speculation-on-presidential-race.html?emc=edit_na_20150121

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #170 on: January 22, 2015, 09:29:23 AM »

I wouldn't necessarily believe a Wash Post ABC poll since the people running are most likely connected to the Clinton machine complex but she will come out of the gate with a huge lead and she will be shoved through like no tomorrow.   Her focus on the middle class is interesting as is the Republicans new finding that this is the golden key to power.

I've posted for years that no one was really addressing this especially the right.  Well now they are.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/in_2016_face-off_clinton_handily_defeats_christie.html?from_TBM_site=Lead
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12281


« Reply #171 on: January 26, 2015, 05:31:11 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/26/hillary-clintons-numbers-quietly-crumble/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #172 on: January 27, 2015, 10:25:58 AM »

Crafty, previously:  "She was distinctly unimpressive when she ran here in CA"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This speech was perhaps the biggest surprise in the recent event in Iowa - the contest to selected as Rubio's running mate.   wink

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/26/carly_fiorina_to_hillary_clinton_flying_is_an_activity_not_an_accomplishment.html

It is possible that she choked in her recent Senate race because she knew these views did not fit with that audience, the California electorate.  Still she only lost 52-42 in a far left state.

She makes very powerful and persuasive points about government getting too big.  For wherever her candidacy leads, it is a very positive thing for the process to have a sharp and experienced woman up on the stage making the conservative case.

She has met Putin, knows Netanyahu, understand cyber-warfare and the Chinese policy supporting theft of our technology.  She explained beautifully how big businesses can hire lawyers to deal with over-regulation while small businesses cannot.

And she didn't wear a pant suit.

Fiorina has degrees from Stanford and MIT.  Breast cancer survivor.  Worked as a secretary out of college, worked her way up at AT&T/Lucent.  She was named Fortune magazine's most powerful woman in business prior to being chosen CEO at HP.  She led the world's largest technology company 5 years through troubled times with mixed results.  

She was quite comfortable taking on Hillary Clinton directly.  Took a jab at the Putin reset button, said I'll tell you what difference it makes regarding Benghazi, and asserted that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 10:30:10 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4296


« Reply #173 on: January 27, 2015, 11:25:41 AM »

"Doug's prediction looking better everyday"

Well she is clearly not the BS mouthpiece Bubba is yet I still say never underestimate the depravity of the Clinton machine.
The entire left will rally behind her and be quite happy to fill in for her personal and policy deficits with fanciful story lines galore.


So far no Republican clearly has what it takes at this time (IMHO).   I liked some of Bush's rant on Drudge but his take on illegals which is essentially to pardon 15 or 20 million of them and thus more will come till be have 75 million in the US (California whose population has exploded was reported to be well over 50% Latin - not all illegal of course but a substantial portion yes) does not sit well with me.  I don't care if the illegal is from Israel.  Go back to your country and apply through legal channels.

He has clearly done a mea culpa and seems to think we can win their hearts and minds over while the left stuffs stolen money into their pockets.   Good luck with that.

While I rather agree with Jindal's religious morality ideals I don't think that would be a big seller outside the Christian right.

Sure I like Rubio but I am not sure if he has already peaked.   Not sure.

Paul is out for me.  He is just not appealing.   Too analytical.

Walker I don't know if he has the charisma.

Romney we know has no charisma.

Christi's policies are suspect and I just don't really like him personally.

We will see.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #174 on: January 27, 2015, 04:06:37 PM »

ccp:  "Sure I like Rubio but I am not sure if he has already peaked.   Not sure."

Look at the skill he exhibits in his first sentence in the Megan Kelly interview on broken families that Crafty posted (Rubio thread):

"So let's be clear from the beginning, there are courageous single parents out there that are raising their children in less than ideal settings, and they're doing a great job and those kids are going to succeed.  But statistically speaking..., (we know, that children that are raised in a home with two parents do better)."  

This is without notes, teleprompters or handlers as far as I can tell.  His is prepared and knows what he wants to say.  He presents core conservative ideas and principles in a non-threatening way, intelligently and intuitively, and with passion!  Compare that with Romney 2012 (or whoever).  When Romney was caught in his 47% comment, he couldn't find the words to defuse that in days that followed, while Rubio has defused potentially similar criticisms of single families in his prefacing remark.

Any one of them might implode at anytime, but he has already gone out there and exposed himself on all the key issues, and always seems ready for the reaction he gets from his detractors.

Immigration is supposedly the one thing he can't overcome, except that:  he sees both sides of the issue, he truly favors a secure border, he has already tried engaging up close and personal with the duplicitous left on this and failed.  He is less threatening to independent voters who have a friends or relatives living "in the shadows" than the rest of would be, and he is more likely to get a good outcome on immigration than a perfectly conservative position that would not win in a general election.

You don't think he would look good, look sharp, hold his ground standing next to Hillary and offer a better alternative, a better future that people in the middle and non-political can relate to?  Appeal to young voters, women voters, Hispanics, even gain ground with blacks?  Without losing ground with the base, conservatives, whites and males?  I do.

The Rubio agenda reads something like the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom where we now rank out of the top ten, behind New Zealand, Estonia and Mauritius, among others.  I ought to be a no-brainer to support moving up on this list - in the direction of restoring our freedoms, but most can't or won't articulate that.

It is the Governors who have the executive experience.  But they will be tripped up when they can't name the leaders of India, China, Japan and the UK, etc.  Hillary is loving the idea of telling us about her last dinner with each of them (while Bill was at the camp for old timers and underage nubiles).  Mike Pence has both congressional and executive experience.  But will he create this kind of excitement?  Do people want to hear about the business successes in Indiana (Orville Redenbacher is what he came up with)?  Probably not.  They want to hear about the shining city on the hill and visualize their families doing well there.  Otherwise they will take whoever offers them the biggest safety net.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 04:26:25 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #175 on: January 27, 2015, 04:06:54 PM »

I am pretty excited about the run to Iowa and NH, for both parties. For real.

Bigdog, You are missed here!  Your thoughts on the current scene?  Let me know if you wold like to meet up at an Iowa political event.  
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12281


« Reply #176 on: January 27, 2015, 04:09:53 PM »

I could go for Rubio as vp. Cruz/Rubio could work.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #177 on: January 27, 2015, 05:03:39 PM »

Reflect upon this:

Hillary's running mate will be Bill Clinton.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12281


« Reply #178 on: January 27, 2015, 05:06:28 PM »

http://io9.com/80-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-cont-1680277802?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Why bother?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #179 on: January 28, 2015, 12:19:38 AM »


Yes, and the dangers mentioned of di-hydrogen monoxide.  People immersed in it are dying, yet no one will ban it.  http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 02:08:12 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #180 on: January 30, 2015, 09:29:20 AM »

from another forum:

"I'm all-in for Rand Paul and think he's got what it takes to win the general vs. Hillary in a LANDSLIDE. He actually is better than Hillary on a lot of issues that matter to people on the left and independents with issues like war policy, drug policy, privacy, etc... but yet he's still awesomely pro-gun, pro-life, small government. But most importantly we're headed into major financial trouble with our debt/deficits and I think he's the best person to correctly articulate how out of control our spending is across the board and how corrupt our government is, and apply the correct remedies. Who is talking about the Federal Reserve bank and monetary policy right now? Only him. Rand is like the best parts of his dad, minus the crazy parts. I'm going to support Rand 100% during Primary season and encourage you all to take a hard look at him."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #181 on: January 30, 2015, 10:31:01 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html?emc=edit_na_20150130&nlid=49641193&_r=0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2015, 11:52:19 AM »

Yes, Romney is out.  Now I like him again, a politician listening to his constituents!

ccp who lives in NJ nailed it on Chris Christie.  His ratio of popularity to name recognition is lousy.  (Same with Palin.)  See the 538 site.  He lacks the story of a turnaround in his state compared with his potential contenders, Walker, Kasich, Jindal, Jeb, Rick Perry, etc.  I don't think many people even want to hear about a good story of a turnaround in a different state.

Huck is aiming only at southerners, having some fun with the process, and not running to win.

Nice post below by a Rand Paul supporter: "he's got what it takes to win the general vs. Hillary in a LANDSLIDE. He actually is better than Hillary on a lot of issues that matter to people on the left and independents with issues like war policy, drug policy, privacy, etc... but yet he's still awesomely pro-gun, pro-life, small government."

But that doesn't make any sense.  Hillary will win the liberal vote unless she is challenged from the left.  What part of the fact they don't want small government, pro-life, pro-gun does he not understand?  He may win over some people previously non-political, but not a liberal.  This will be a landslide only if one contender falls on his or her face, not because we (or they) are that good.

Rand's problem is that his foreign policy views do not fit the timing of accelerating threats around the globe.  He will run a good, grass roots race but not win the nomination.

Pundits and professional journalists are calling Rubio's book tour "well-timed".  Rubio allegedly getting early donor support:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html  The book is also well-named, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone.  I also like the name of Jeb's campaign, Right to Rise.  Same theme: let's expand upward mobility.

I heard Krauthammer clarify his bet on Marco Rubio.  The question, he said, was how would he bet $100 if he was in Vegas today.  He went the highest on Rubio because of having the best chance of winning relative to his longshot odds, not because of having the highest likelihood of winning.

Ruthless assessment by Jay Cost in the Weekly Standard today of the Democratic field.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-bench-shockingly-weak_830664.html
The Democrats appear institutionally incapable of offering more than one person worthy of consideration.
 
Hillary is reportedly delaying her launch to July while hired aides work on a message for her.  Good grief.  That gives me a little more time to save up for the nice dinner I will owe ccp.

More dropouts expected as potential candidates see how hard this is.  Donors don't give up money easily and delegates don't commit support easily.  Some like Santorum won't care and will fight anyway.  Many surprises to come.  I'm still waiting to hear from Hickenlooper!  Warren is in the moment Hillary admits she isn't.  Besides me, Obama, Warren and Clinton may already know that.  See Wash Post:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/




Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #183 on: January 30, 2015, 12:20:42 PM »

75 minutes if you can find the video.  I plan to read this fairly long transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-freedom-partners-forum-ted-cruz-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

Rand Paul supports Obama's approach on Iran. 
Marco Rubio says the threat of a nuclear Iran is so great that no option should be off the table.  (Read at the link to find out Ted Cruz' views...)

In a straw poll of attendees, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida came out ahead of four other would-be GOP presidential candidates who had been invited.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html#ixzz3QKX74q2T
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32288


« Reply #184 on: January 30, 2015, 02:04:15 PM »

Thanks for the URL of the transcript Doug.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6249


« Reply #185 on: Today at 01:43:29 AM »

Thanks for the URL of the transcript Doug.
Again, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-freedom-partners-forum-ted-cruz-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

You're welcome.  Sorry I don't have the video link.  Transcripts from voice recognition make some errors so it took some effort to go through it. 

The discussion was mostly on economic policy, then drifted into some foreign policy.  On the economic side the debate was the 'mainstream' questioner versus the three of them.  Each had a turn saying they disagreed with the false premise of the question.  The contest between the three I think was to see who could express our principles best.

I selectively cut and pasted some here, shortened and chopped.  The full transcript is much longer.
------------------------
Jonathon Karl, ABC:  7 million new jobs, oil prices down... why should voters ever trust Republicans again

Ted Cruz:  The top 1% earn a higher share of our income nationally than any year since 1928. The simple truth is with big government those with resources are doing well.  We have today the lowest labor force participation since 1978. Ninety-two million Americans aren't working. And you wanna talk about what's making life hard for working men and women, wage stagnation. Median wages today are equal to what they were in 1996, for 20 years.

Rand Paul: the reason I would say the economy's getting better is despite the president and despite the president's policies. One of the things that has led the resurgence is oil and gas boom. The oil and gas boom's being done on private land, not public land. We're not allowed to drill on public land. This president should take no credit for any kind of recovery we have.

Marco Rubio:  One of the significant reasons why the unemployment rate has gotten lower is 'cause less people are looking for work. ... this is not a cyclical downturn that we went through simply. It is a massive structural change in the very nature of the economy. ... we are increasingly less globally competitive for investment and for innovation because of taxes, because of regulation. And quite frankly, because of anti-business rhetoric from Washington. ... There are better jobs that could potentially take their place. But they're either not being created in this country because of tax policy, regulatory policy, the national debt, Obamacare, or too many of our people don't have the 21st century skills they need for that. ... wage stagnation is happening at a time when the cost of everything is going up dramatically.

Karl: ...increasing gap between rich and poor, is it the job of government to try to lessen that gap?

Cruz:  We should be fighting for the little guy who has dreams and hopes and desires.  ...   in the last six years that income mobility has gotten harder and harder for people to achieve.

Rubio:   income inequality is a symptom of a bigger problem. Opportunity inequality. ... we have safety net programs that don't cure poverty. ... if you are a major corporation or a very wealthy multi-national company you might not like big government but you can afford to deal with it.  If you're trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you can't do any of that.

Rand Paul:  income inequality, Interestingly, worse in states led by Democrats, in cities led by Democrats and in countries led by Democrats. ...   if you're an ordinary person in our country and you're trying to save to get ahead you put your money in the bank and it gets zero.  It's because of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rate low. Why do we keep it low? Because we have this massive debt that we've gotta pay off with new money, with cheap money. And so it's all intertwined. And it's-- income inequality is indirectly, if not directly, related to big government.

Cruz:  government has two important levers to facilitate job creation and create an environment where the private sector can create jobs. And those two levers are tax reform and regulatory reform. And every single time in our history that we have simplified taxes, reduced the burden, reduced the compliance cost, simplified regulation so that small businesses which create two-thirds of all new jobs can do that. We've seen an economic boom, we've seen people climb out of poverty into prosperity. That was true in the 1920s, it was true in the 1960s, it was true in the 1980s. We know how to fix this.

Paul:  government has a role and a safety net but it needs to be transitory and it needs to be a step towards a job. ...  We have to have government for certain things that the private world can't do. But we should minimize what government does, maximize the productive sector. And you'll get more jobs created.

Minimum Wage

Cruz:  I gave a floor speech on the Senate floor with three simple charts, $10.10, the proposed Obama minimum wage. And then the next chart Marco just referenced was $0.00 which is the real Obama minimum wage because when you have the lowest labor force participation since 1978 to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs under the Obama economy that's their minimum wage.  And then let me tell you the third number I had up there was $46.98. $46.98 is the average hourly wage of an oil and gas worker in North Dakota. And what I wanna see is an awful lot more people making $40 and $50 and $60 an hour and an awful lot less people making zero dollars a week. ...let me give you an example of this increase to $10.10 that Obama was urging. The Congressional budget office estimated up to one million people would lose their jobs. And the people who would lose their jobs are low-income,

PAUL: The minimum wage is only harmful when it's above the market wage. Okay, so when it's above the market wage it causes unemployment.

RUBIO: I'm not calling to repeal the minimum wage. I'm not saying to get rid of it as a practical matter. I think it is what it is and we don't-- that's a disruption that we don't need with all so many other disruptions happening.   ...all this focus that the president has on the minimum wage is a cure-all for the, you know, the problems being faced by working Americans is not only a waste of time, I think it shows how un-serious he really is about dealing with the challenges of our time.

Karl:  Paul Ryan had put out this plan as you all know to address the issue of poverty. And what he has proposed is an expansion of the earned income tax credit financed by closing tax loopholes. And he has specifically mentioned-- closing, you know, ending tax benefits to the oil and gas industry. And using the revenue saved there, estimates are $4 billion to $7 billion a year-- to pay for an expansion of the earned income tax credit.  do you agree with that principle of expanding federal spending on anti-poverty programs but doing them Ryan would say in a smarter way using it by closing some tax loopholes.

PAUL: When you look at the earned income tax credit, it has about a 25% fraud rate. We're looking at $20 billion to $30 billion. ... If you want to help people who are of lower wage income, working class folks, I think the better way, rather than giving something that's refundable is to give them a deducting against their social security tax so they're working and you get the deduction for work.

I'm for 100% expensing in the first year of everything you spend on your business because then you spend more and you'd buy more and your business would grow.

Rubio:  I've worked with, for example, scholars at American Enterprise Institute on a concept called wage enhancement.  It would replace the earned income tax credit instead with something called a wage enhancement, people between $15,000 and $40,000 a year... And here's why that's better. First it's tied to your paycheck as opposed to simply your tax return. As Rand just alluded to a moment ago there was significant amount of fraud in the earned income tax credit program because people will file on the return, claim that they are supporting children, some of which sometimes don't even live in the United States, some of which are not their children, they're nephews and nieces and cousins.And there is significant fraud in the EITC program. A wage enhancement would be directly tied to what you're making.  it's the same funds but you're delivering it through a different mechanism tied directly to work.

CRUZ: [Tax Reform] Yes, even revenue neutral. Though I'll tell you the fixation on revenue neutral is somewhat misguided in Washington because at least up 'till now they've used static scoring instead of dynamic scoring. So they don't look at the growth effects.

But the benefits of tax reform, if you're number one, simplifying the tax code, you reduce the compliance that cost the hundreds of billions of dollars of deadweight loss that is lost every year in tax compliance. Number two, if you do that, if you broaden the base and lower the rates, the top marginal rate is what affects the next marginal action.

But number three, look, the biggest value of tax reform is it disempowers politicians.

Cruz:  Since World War II our economy has averaged 3.3% growth.  There were only two four-year periods where growth was less than 1%, 1979 to 1982, coming out of Jimmy Carter, and 2008 to 2012. You want to turn around the deficits and debt. Let's get back to historic levels of 3%, 4%, 5% growth. That's how you turn around the deficit and debt.

Defense budget

Rubio:  every time you cut research and development in the military are eliminated options for a future commander in chief in the battlefield. We can never lose the technological edge.

Cuba

Cruz:  my aunt, my father's kid sister, was thrown in jail and tortured by Castro's goons. The human rights abuses there--it is a cruel, horrible, totalitarian regime.

When Soviet Union collapsed Venezuela stepped in as the benefactor keeping the Castros in power. right now oil prices have collapsed, Venezuela's economy is in free-fall. And at the exact moment when Cuba is reeling, this administration steps in with an economic lifeline.

In Cuba every foreign investment goes through the government, every foreign currency goes directly to the government. They pay the Cubans in pesos which means this will result in billions of dollars more for the Castro regime.   this deal will keep the Castros in power and it makes it less likely that when Fidel and Raul die they will move to a free society.

Iran: 

Rubio:  let me just add this on Iran, I think there's a distinction between Russia and Iran, The Soviet Union was terrible. It was a communist government. But it was a traditional nation state that made decisions on the cost benefit analysis of the nation state. Iran is run by radical Shia cleric who doesn't view himself as the leader of Iran. He views himself as the leader of global Islam. And he views it as his obligation to bring the whole world under the flag of Islam.

Paul:  ... try the diplomatic option as long as we can.

Cruz:  I think the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability is the single greatest national security threat facing the United States today I believe we are repeating the mistakes of the Clinton administration in the 1990s with respect to North Korea.

when you have religious leaders who glorify death or suicide, ordinary cost benefit doesn't work. Cost benefit prevents a lot of people from wrapping dynamite around their chest and walking into a mall. But the problem is if Iran ever acquired nuclear weapons I think the odds are unacceptably high that it would use those nuclear weapons

Paul:  Are you ready to send ground troops in Iran? Are you ready to bomb 'em? Are you ready to send 100,000 troops? Are you ready to send them into Iraq? Do you want 'em in Syria? Do you want 'em in Libya?

Rubio:  let me tell you about negotiations, it is a tactic that Iran is using and here's why, in 2003 the world told Iran, "You cannot have any enrichment capability." Then it became, "Okay, you can enrich but only up to 20%."

Then it became, "Okay, you can enrich over 20% but you have to ship it overseas." Now it's, "Okay, you can enrich it 20% but you can only use it to a research reactor." At this pace in five years we're gonna build the bomb for them. I mean, that's the direction this is going. They use negotiations as a tactic. And they are trying to buy as much time as possible to acquire the capability of being able to build a weapon. And once they do, they don't even have to build a weapon. They just have to prove that they have a delivery system, which they're continuing to develop, unabated and untouched by the sanctions, a weapon design that they can easily buy from multiple people around the world and the last is the enrichment capability. And if you can enrich at 3%, you can enrich at weapon grade. It's the same equipment, it just takes a little longer.

JONATHAN KARL: But Senator Paul, ask the question, so what do you want, you wanna bomb Iran?

RUBIO: I think there's a risk of a nuclear Iran is so high that nothing should ever be off the table.

Cruz:  ... Either they will cease or we will stop them.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!