2016 Presidential Candidate

[regulator]

While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population.  Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote.  I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.

This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(

Which is why I vote in national elections because I view it as a duty of citizenship, but I really only care about local and maybe state ballots.  How delicious it was to vote down the ability of the town council to set up redevelopment districts (AKA hand my money to sleazy developers) in a special ballot where the outside dirty money was roughly 15 to 1 vs. the grass roots opposition!

[MoonShadow]

While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population.  Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.

Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones.  Worse than already occurs.  Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.

[sol]

Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones.  Worse than already occurs.  Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.

You say all of that as if you believe that representing states is more important than representing the people who live in them.

By that logic, can I please divide my state up into 50 new states (each about the size of Rhode Island) so that we can have a greater voice in congress?  Seems just as fair as what we currently have, with one corner of the country full of tiny states and one full of big ones.  Why should artificially drawn state sizes give more power to people who drew their lines around smaller areas?

What kind of democracy is that?  And don't go telling me about the house of representatives, it's ALSO horribly lopsided in favor of small states.  Just count up the number of reps per capita in California vs Rhode Island or Wyoming.

[MoonShadow]

Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones.  Worse than already occurs.  Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.

You say all of that as if you believe that representing states is more important than representing the people who live in them.

By that logic, can I please divide my state up into 50 new states (each about the size of Rhode Island) so that we can have a greater voice in congress?

You could until the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 forced Congress to a fixed number of representatives, instead of the number of representatives being decided by population.  I'd have no problem with it, myself

What kind of democracy is that? 

The US is a representative republic, not a democracy.  Proportional representation is a characteristic of a representative democracy, as such is common in European parlimentary systems.  The US was never (originally) intended to be a democracy, either; although there have been amendments specificly written to increase our similarity to a democracy, such as the Seventeenth Amendment.  Whether or not this is a good thing is another conversation.

And don't go telling me about the house of representatives, it's ALSO horribly lopsided in favor of small states.  Just count up the number of reps per capita in California vs Rhode Island or Wyoming.

That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.

[sol]

That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.

I wasn't arguing the reasons behind it, merely highlighting that both houses of congress give more voting power to the people in small states than in large ones.  And then commenting that this seems somewhat unfair.

[MoonShadow]

That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.

I want arguing the reasons behind it, merely highlighting that both houses of congress give more voting power to the people in small states than in large ones.  And then commenting that this seems somewhat unfair.

This doesn't really parse, Sol.  But if you are trying to argue that the imbalances of 'voter influence' is unfair, I do not disagree.  However, coming from the perspective of a realist, fairness is irrelevant to the law.  We have had this particular discussion before.  I'm not talking about what should be, only what actually is.  Likewise, any new change to how the electoral process works will benefit some people and harm others.  Even fairness is relative to the observer.

[infogoon]

Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones.  Worse than already occurs.  Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.

That's the effect here in New York; statewide elections are decided entirely by New York City, owing to the gigantic population differential between that area and the rest of the state. Take a look at the last gubernatorial election. Governor Cuomo only won a handful of counties, but they were the ones with cities in them.

[brooklynguy]

That's the effect here in New York; statewide elections are decided entirely by New York City, owing to the gigantic population differential between that area and the rest of the state. Take a look at the last gubernatorial election. Governor Cuomo only won a handful of counties, but they were the ones with cities in them.

New York State government is a microcosm of the same issue sol is complaining about at the national level.  If anything, NYC's population is even more disproportionately underrepresented in the NY state legislature than populous states are in the federal legislature.  That explains why NYC receives less than its pro rata share of state funding based on its share of the state's population (and staggeringly less based on its share of the state's revenue-generation).

[forummm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/politics/christie-proposes-immigrant-tracker-similar-to-fedex.html

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Saturday that if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.

...he would ask the chief executive of FedEx, Frederick W. Smith, to devise the tracking system.

“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”

I guess we could give them all ankle bracelets like felons on parole. Or dog collars maybe. Or maybe tag their ears like we do with animals. And we could install a huge network of receptors around the country to track where people were. But of course, the person could just remove the tracking device somehow. So we'd probably want to make it explode instantly if it's removed. Just to be safe.

[midweststache]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/politics/christie-proposes-immigrant-tracker-similar-to-fedex.html

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Saturday that if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.

...he would ask the chief executive of FedEx, Frederick W. Smith, to devise the tracking system.

“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”

I guess we could give them all ankle bracelets like felons on parole. Or dog collars maybe. Or maybe tag their ears like we do with animals. And we could install a huge network of receptors around the country to track where people were. But of course, the person could just remove the tracking device somehow. So we'd probably want to make it explode instantly if it's removed. Just to be safe.

*sigh* Battle Royale is such a great movie.

[Vertical Mode]

While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population.  Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote.  I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.

This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(

I think Gary Johnson is planning to run again for the Libertarian party, I'm pretty sure his views align with almost all of the positions you've indicated, with the added benefit (IMO) of generally adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy (since "blowback" is a bitch). Not sure where he would stand on an environmental impact tax, but I like the idea in principle.

While I'm thinking about it, conservatives (well, Republicans at least) get bad optics for supporting policies that don't seem like good stewardship of our environment, in the name of laissez-faire economics. The "impact tax" mentioned above seems like a simple way to counteract the "tragedy of the commons" that deregulated markets might create for the environment; are there other ways that conservatives might address this without more of that pesky burdensome regulation industry detests?

In general, I think there ought to be a little more "conserve" in "conservative". IIRC, Republicans had a substantial role in creating our National Parks as we know them, and we find ourselves now in a time when that same party wants to drill for oil in them.

[Malaysia41]

So, I bit.  FB friend posted his support for BS with an instanet meme, and one of his friends replied with some Ayn Rand aphorisms.  I've grown weary of these abstracted idealogical torpedos, so what'd I do?  I proposed we go blow by blow through BS's platform.  I entered each topic in FB replies, then for each proposed action, I nested comments with my thoughts.   I'd wanted to cull through his proposals anyway, so thought why not? 

In the end, I was surprised to find I agreed with BS more than I disagreed.  Some examples:

YES!  stop for-private prisons, end war on drugs, invest in infrastructure, regulation of derivatives markets, etc.

"MEH / Maybes":  estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!).  Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects.  I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.

NOs: $15 nationwide min wage, banning big bonuses, capping cc interest at 15%.   I sympathize with the intentions here, but pushing on the market in one place just bulges it out in another. 

Those are some example points I posted.  The response?  Crickets chirping.  Even the orig poster slowly backed away.  Was it TMI?  Was I being 'crazy FB friend'?   In any case, I have a much better idea of what BS will try to do if put in office.  Not that he'll be able to do any of it. 

Wow, politics SUCKS.  At least in the US it's mostly lying, pandering, behind the scenes deals, conflicts of interest or something with a cigar and blue dress in an office with curved walls, I don't know the details.  Here in Malaysia, the opposition leader is in jail on sodomy charges, entire web news sites have been banned, accidental deaths occur on occasion, and $700M was found to have been transferred to the PM's personal account from a development fund.   This weekend, the government has gone so far as to ban yellow t-shirts with the words Bersih-4 (it's the protest slogan for cleaning up gov't). 

So, uh, you/me, we got it good kids. 

[forummm]

"MEH / Maybes":  estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!).  Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects.  I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.

The exemption is currently about $11 million for a couple ($5.43 million per spouse) and adjusted for inflation each year. And then the tax is only applied to the amount over that threshold. So if your estate was $12 million, the tax would be on the $1.14 portion. What do you think the right exemption level should be?

[Malaysia41]

"MEH / Maybes":  estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!).  Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects.  I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.

The exemption is currently about $11 million for a couple ($5.43 million per spouse) and adjusted for inflation each year. And then the tax is only applied to the amount over that threshold. So if your estate was $12 million, the tax would be on the $1.14 portion. What do you think the right exemption level should be?

I'm fine with the current levels.   Bernie Sanders proposes $3.5M.   Although, now that I'm re-reading it, it may not be an estate tax on all inheritances.  Here is the language on his website: "He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million."   I'm not sure how .3% is calculated - by wealth or by income.

[Malaysia41]

Now I'm wondering where I am on that spectrum.  By either method, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the .3%.

[yuka]

Now I'm wondering where I am on that spectrum.  By either method, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the .3%.

The 0.3% is almost certainly a rhetorical flourish to point out how they're only targeting a small minority of people for the tax increase. Certainly the size of the inheritance, and not the exclusivity of one's home yacht club, would be the determining factor. Though of course I've severely exaggerated the spending power of $3.5million, or I just think you'd have to be crazy to put any of that money in the direction of a yacht, when $3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.

[MoonShadow]

$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.

And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!

[Malaysia41]

$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.

And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!

I couldn't agree more.  I'd much rather take my dad's Walker Bay dinghy out for a sail in Roche Harbor (It's maybe 12' long) than own AND MAINTAIN a 200' yacht.

The .3% might be a rhetorical flourish, and that's annoying.  As someone who has read more than her fair share of IRS.gov, I can tell you that flowery language in proposed legislation is not appreciated.

Using http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth, er, uh. Wealthometer.org - er uh,  I esp like how that site ends on a page that shows what our 'wealth tax' would be if we supported adding such a thing.  Uh, no thanks?

Anyway, back to presidential elections: Scott Walker's Terrible Personal Financial Management .  source: samusuguru posted in Antimustachian Hall of Shame and Comedy.

[Bob W]

This just in Ben Carson ties Trump in Iowa poll.   

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Monmouth-University-Monmouth-Poll/2015/08/31/id/672824/

Those freaking racist Republicans are up to it again!  lol

   

[Chris22]

$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.

And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!

Exactly, it IS an adventure, which is great IF that's what you're looking for.  It's hard to just cruise around an relax sailing a small boat, you're constantly doing something, because any body of water large enough to have decent wind is also going to have chop, etc.  On a larger boat you are more able to sit back and relax, if that's what you want. 

-Guy who likes sailing all sorts of stuff, and has sailed everything from 10' sunfish to 80'+ yachts, but the only thing I owned was a 14' Hobie Cat

[Jeremy E.]

$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.

And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!

Exactly, it IS an adventure, which is great IF that's what you're looking for.  It's hard to just cruise around an relax sailing a small boat, you're constantly doing something, because any body of water large enough to have decent wind is also going to have chop, etc.  On a larger boat you are more able to sit back and relax, if that's what you want. 

-Guy who likes sailing all sorts of stuff, and has sailed everything from 10' sunfish to 80'+ yachts, but the only thing I owned was a 14' Hobie Cat

I like jet boats, and yes I know it's unmustachian

[by_1008]

While I'm thinking about it, conservatives (well, Republicans at least) get bad optics for supporting policies that don't seem like good stewardship of our environment, in the name of laissez-faire economics. The "impact tax" mentioned above seems like a simple way to counteract the "tragedy of the commons" that deregulated markets might create for the environment; are there other ways that conservatives might address this without more of that pesky burdensome regulation industry detests?

In general, I think there ought to be a little more "conserve" in "conservative". IIRC, Republicans had a substantial role in creating our National Parks as we know them, and we find ourselves now in a time when that same party wants to drill for oil in them.

When you say get bad optics, are you suggesting that it is not a fair accusation (that current republicans/republican leadership tend not to be good stewards of the environment)? A lot of environmental problems stem from the fact that they are externalities. So by definition, a "free market" won't account for them and we end up with an inefficient allocation of goods. Interestingly though, we are seeing more and more businesses take a proactive step towards some of these environmental issues that we might not have seen 10-20 years ago. There is a growing consensus among a significant number of business leaders that a carbon pricing mechanism is needed, for instance.

Regarding your point about the conserve in conservative, I agree. I am also often surprised that the environmental movement is not stronger among religious communities, though maybe this has started to shift some (especially with Pope Francis)

[forummm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/nyregion/condemned-and-praised-by-trump.html

Recount of something 18 years ago where Trump did some Trump-like stuff visiting an NYC school. He called the author a "proven loser" publicly and then privately told him he was "the best". The phrases he uses and mannerisms sound exactly like today.

[Malaysia41]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/nyregion/condemned-and-praised-by-trump.html

Recount of something 18 years ago where Trump did some Trump-like stuff visiting an NYC school. He called the author a "proven loser" publicly and then privately told him he was "the best". The phrases he uses and mannerisms sound exactly like today.

Trump's very in-the-moment. So much so that previous moments have no bearing on current behavior. He's a zen master!

[Bob W]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him? 

[Gin1984]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such. 

[Bob W]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.

Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well.  As I assume all the Republicans are?   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time?    I mean how can anyone defend that shit?  Makes them look bat shit crazy. 

Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda.  They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.

Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says --   "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build,  I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible."     If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history.    Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.

Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner,  the earth has been hot before man was here"

[Chris22]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.

Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well.  As I assume all the Republicans are?   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time?    I mean how can anyone defend that shit?  Makes them look bat shit crazy. 

Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda.  They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.

Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says --   "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build,  I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible."     If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history.    Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.

Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner,  the earth has been hot before man was here"

Part of the climate change issue is that Dems usually fall into one of two camps, either they already live the way they want others to live (in densely populated areas, little driving, lots of reliance on public transportation, etc) or they are rich and live lavishly and want to tell OTHERS to live in densely populated areas with little driving, etc etc (see Gore and other Limousine Liberals).  Most people on the right don't want to live that way, so they don't want to hear others tell them to.

[Gin1984]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.

Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well.  As I assume all the Republicans are?   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time?    I mean how can anyone defend that shit?  Makes them look bat shit crazy. 

Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda.  They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.

Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says --   "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build,  I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible."     If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history.    Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.

Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner,  the earth has been hot before man was here"

Um, that throws out their playbook then.  They would be joining the dems.  How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress?  What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years?  Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget. 

[Bob W]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.

Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well.  As I assume all the Republicans are?   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time?    I mean how can anyone defend that shit?  Makes them look bat shit crazy. 

Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda.  They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.

Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says --   "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build,  I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible."     If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history.    Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.

Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner,  the earth has been hot before man was here"

Um, that throws out their playbook then.  They would be joining the dems.  How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress?  What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years?  Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget.

quote from the net ----
"The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
 - Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
 - There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
 - Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
 - Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate."

So it hasn't been 20 years but  14.   It was the Bush congress tax cuts that totally fucked us.   The Republicans should get total credit for the surplus years because they controlled the Senate and House of Reps and Gingrich fought like an SOB to roll Clinton over.  Those bodies hold the purse strings and submit the budget.  Not the President.  The Pubs should also have 78% credit for screwing us the last 14 years and continuing to redistribute money from the working class to the capitol class.   

Imagine how different the country would be had we continued on the balanced budget path?   The US debt would be something like 3T instead of close to 20T.  That would mean we could borrow 10T in the next 4 years to completely build out a total solar/wind/electric car paradigm,  end carbon emissions and employ 6 million in clean energy fields.    Net worth disparity would be much closer and the economy would be humming along with lots of money moving around the US and not being exported via Exxon Mobile to foreign countries. 

That could be our future in another 15 years if we can get our shit together.   I'm beginning to think the Elon Musk matters way more than the President at this point.   He is not only changing our energy policy before our very eyes he is actually able to launch people into space (something the US can't do) and envisioning sending people to live on Mars. 

Musk+Uber+Google=Energy Independence+great economy

[Jeremy E.]

Let's talk Ben Carson ----   I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party.   It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time.   I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.

So yeah,  Carson  --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?

One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist.  Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school. 
I just go with some people just separate their lives.  Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.

Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well.  As I assume all the Republicans are?   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time?    I mean how can anyone defend that shit?  Makes them look bat shit crazy. 

Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda.  They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.

Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says --   "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build,  I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible."     If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history.    Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.

Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner,  the earth has been hot before man was here"

Um, that throws out their playbook then.  They would be joining the dems.  How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress?  What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years?  Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget.

quote from the net ----
"The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
 - Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
 - There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
 - Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
 - Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate."

So it hasn't been 20 years but  14.   It was the Bush congress tax cuts that totally fucked us.   The Republicans should get total credit for the surplus years because they controlled the Senate and House of Reps and Gingrich fought like an SOB to roll Clinton over.  Those bodies hold the purse strings and submit the budget.  Not the President.  The Pubs should also have 78% credit for screwing us the last 14 years and continuing to redistribute money from the working class to the capitol class.   

Imagine how different the country would be had we continued on the balanced budget path?   The US debt would be something like 3T instead of close to 20T.  That would mean we could borrow 10T in the next 4 years to completely build out a total solar/wind/electric car paradigm,  end carbon emissions and employ 6 million in clean energy fields.    Net worth disparity would be much closer and the economy would be humming along with lots of money moving around the US and not being exported via Exxon Mobile to foreign countries. 

That could be our future in another 15 years if we can get our shit together.   I'm beginning to think the Elon Musk matters way more than the President at this point.   He is not only changing our energy policy before our very eyes he is actually able to launch people into space (something the US can't do) and envisioning sending people to live on Mars. 

Musk+Uber+Google=Energy Independence+great economy

Clintons budget request was a deficit, the house budget committee headed by John Kasich(the chief architect) did a massive overhaul and balanced the budget, Clinton merely signed it. I don't understand why you would want to get a 10T loan to pay for our energy infrastructure? We would then have to pay interest on that loan. It's no different than a person that's got a 10k car loan out but then decides, I think i'll take out a 30k personal loan to buy solar panels. Also, Wind Energy is shit. It's all about Nuclear and Solar. Of course retaining/maintaining what wind/hydro power we have is good too though, but not building any new wind.

[Bob W]

Well you take out the loan because A.  the US literally prints money  B.  you have to pay for the sustainable infrastructure somehow.  C. You immediately cut your trade deficit to near zero (without energy imports and exporting shit loads of oil) and your dollar suddenly becomes more valuable.   Probably  costs way more than 10t though.   

Your correct about Clinton.   He rolled over on the budget.   The balanced budget was a Republican thing right up until they fucked us with the Bush tax cuts.    They are wily bastards and you got to watch them.   JK did a great job by the way and I would actually consider voting for him.  He'd make a great VP and Trump would definitely carry Ohio with him on board.   

[forummm]

The late 90s balanced budget was a combo of Clinton, Congress, and an insanely overinflated asset bubble that drenched the budget in CG taxes.

[Jeremy E.]

ya the economy was definitely doing good in the late 90's before the tech bubble bursted, I'm sure that helped a lot, but the economy is doing pretty good today as well, I think we can balance the budget again

[Jeremy E.]

Ha-ha, so true

[infogoon]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

[Chris22]

The late 90s balanced budget was a combo of Clinton, Congress, and an insanely overinflated asset bubble that drenched the budget in CG taxes.

And shell games with the SS general fund.

[Bob W]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

.   Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama.  He states he was born in Hawaii.  While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents,  neither north or south.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii   People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America.   People think all sorts if things about Obama,  like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend.  Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.

[Glenstache]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

.   Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama.  He states he was born in Hawaii.  While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents,  neither north or south.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii   People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America.   People think all sorts if things about Obama,  like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend.  Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.

Bob, that is a willful misreading of the question and replies. The text of the question asked is

(Republicans) Do you think Barack Obama
was born in the United States?

The follow up questions indicate that the persons polled have a factual misunderstanding of the president. We can argue about if the poll is representative/accurate, but let's at least keep it on track. Here's the info on how the poll was conducted:

Public Policy Polling surveyed 572 usual Republi
can primary voters and 545 usual Democratic
primary voters from August 28
th
 to 30th. The margin of error
for the Republicans is +/-4.1% and
for the Democrats it’s +/-4.2%. 80% of partic
ipants responded via the phone, while 20% of
respondents who did not have landlines c
onducted the survey over the internet.

[beltim]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

This is a fascinating poll.  My favorite tidbit - only 3% of Tea Party supporters believe Obama is Christian, while 73% believe Obama is Muslim.

That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.

[forummm]

Makes not sense whatsoever.  Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans.   I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense.   Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack.    I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria. 

I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf

This is a fascinating poll.  My favorite tidbit - only 3% of Tea Party supporters believe Obama is Christian, while 73% believe Obama is Muslim.

That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.

And the power of the various media outlets they listen to.

[GuitarStv]

That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.

It's not exactly hard to find these indications.

[Chris22]

I'm not sure what's dumber, believing Obama was born outside the US, or continuing the fight into the end of his 7th year as President.  Come on guys, let it go. 

[infogoon]

I'm not sure what's dumber, believing Obama was born outside the US, or continuing the fight into the end of his 7th year as President.  Come on guys, let it go.

I always wonder what the plan is. Like, if a week or two into 2017 the President goes on TV and says "You're right, I was born in Kenya, peace out!", what are the birthers going to do about it?

[Drew664]

Listened to Hanity today, and while he was out, a guest speaker had Cruze on, and he was talking normal speak until he decided to bring up that judge lady who went to jail for not doing her job. Cruze was defending her solely due to religion,  which reaks of a blind, close minded leader to me, especially when she was in the wrong.

[MoonShadow]

If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?

The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue.  Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter.  His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen.  That fact, alone, is enough.  There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth.   Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that.  McCain was born in Panama.  Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed.  Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently.  It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.

IANAL

[GuitarStv]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

[Gin1984]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....

[Chris22]

While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz.  Sorry US.  We dropped the ball on that one.  Thanks for taking them off our hands.

Don't forget Celine Dion.

[forummm]

Listened to Hanity today

Well there's your problem.

If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.

If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?

The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue.  Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter.  His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen.  That fact, alone, is enough.  There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth.   Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that.  McCain was born in Panama.  Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed.  Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently.  It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.

IANAL

When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that

John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.

Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...