As a voting Christian...

[psalms 91]

Unless Rubio gets it Sanders is my guy

 

[Highlander]

Sorry to see that the Republican side is unelectable (imo) this time around. I had really wished that Romney had his ship set on a better course last time around. A moderate Republican (socially and fiscally) would do well, but it seems that the Republicans haven't learned that. If I was still able to vote, I would either sit this one out, or see what platform Sanders was running on, and just vote in the State/Local ballots.

I do not agree with you at all, ImaginaryDay. It is the Democrat side that is unelectable. Americans are not so far gone as to vote for either a socialist (which is how Sanders describes himself) or a communist, which essentially is what Hillary is.

Sanders has virtually no chance to be elected, even if he should get the nomination. And Hillary is even worse. Her criminal activity has made many people, include a good number of Democrats, despise her. She is perhaps the most unqualified AND unelectable candidate in American history.

On the other hand, Trump would seem to be on the verge of running away with the nomination as his campaign is fueled by the American voters' exploding anger at the "politics as usual" being played in D.C. by BOTH parties. It has been estimated that Trump could draw as many as 20% of the Democrats in the general election as the "Reagan Democrats" reform to bring in a president who will kick rear ends all over D.C. and try to bring an end to the ineffective way our federal government has been operating.

Those defecting Democrats, combined with a vast majority of the swing voters -- and an energized Republican base eager to get to the voting booths -- suggests that Trump would win the presidency by a wild landslide.

I read how the Repub establishment wants to try and cheat Trump out of the nomination (assuming he is well on the way to earning it) and drag Mitt Romney out of mothballs to replace him. Only desperate fools like the Repub system men would try to win by using a proven loser. Romney was nothing more than another John McCain and Bob Dole -- very lame and uninspiring candidates who caused many millions of Repub voters to stay home on election day.

But, with Trump, those voters are eager to launch themselves into those booths and get him into the white house, where he will hopefully end "business as usual" and start governing for the benefit of the American people.

People are sick and tired of having Barney Fife in the oval office and want to replace him with Harry Callahan.

And I'll put my money on Callahan.

 

[Josiah]

For whatever polls are worth,


Rubio BEATS Clinton: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html


Trump LOSES to Clinton: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html


Cruz and Clinton are tied: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html



I'm a Republican but I won't vote for Trump (or Clinton).... so I may have to just "pass" on the top of the ticket. I could vote for Cruz. Of the men left, I prefer Rubio.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder if electing a candidate (for the republicans) who isn't fabulously rich is even possible now? It seems that the default headline for republican nominees is "Republicans elect Rich Dude as presidential nominee" and that can't be good for a party that wants to appeal to enough people to win the presidency.

 

[Josiah]

I wonder if electing a candidate (for the republicans) who isn't fabulously rich is even possible now? It seems that the default headline for republican nominees is "Republicans elect Rich Dude as presidential nominee" and that can't be good for a party that wants to appeal to enough people to win the presidency.

While there's much truth in what you say, on a NATIONAL level (just not in my state), a candidate who is truly Republican and is seen as potentially winnable can get LOTS of contributions - as much as the Democrats. I don't think mega funding is as important as it use to be but it certainly helps.

The problem is two fold:

1. All the money in the world can't make up for celebrity status. Trump caughts and he gets ALL the air time and attention he wants. For free.
2. The "alternative" are all split up. Actually, Jeb Bush was by far the #1 money guy in the race. Rubio and Cruz have both done very well.... but add it all up, and it's not significant to any ONE candidate.

I am trumped as to the appeal of Trump. It actually concerns me that about one-third of Republicans (and roughly one-third of Americans) are infatuated with him. It no doubt says something very disconcerning about American culture just now. I don't know what.



My only hope is....

1. If Cruz and Rubio both stay in, this could to to the convention, where I don't think Trump has a chance. Of course, I think he'll then run as an Independent and INSURE Hillary is our next president.
2. If Trump gets the nomination, I can't believe he'll get elected. And while I'm a conservative, pro-life, pro-family Republican, I fear Hillary far less than I fear the Donald.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know this may sound pious and a little trite but do not place your hope (or trust) in party nominees and presidents. Place your hope in God both for this world and the next.

 

[psalms 91]

Yup and why find it strange that the Republicans nominate rich people after all the money goes where the person wiull protect their interests. Thus why I am a Democrat, while I cant handle a lot of their views I also dont want someone who will make the rich richer which is what has been happening thus the bir disconnect between the top half and the lower half

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yup and why find it strange that the Republicans nominate rich people after all the money goes where the person will protect their interests. Thus why I am a Democrat, while I cant handle a lot of their views I also don't want someone who will make the rich richer which is what has been happening thus the bir disconnect between the top half and the lower half

Some economists here (in Australia) say that USA salary and wages have been essentially stagnant for at least a couple of decades (except for a few in-high-demand occupations) while in Australia our 'real wages' (mean wages after inflation is taken into account) has increased quite a lot. I can't help but think that the "Rich Dude become President" headlines have contributed to that.

 

[Josiah]

I know this may sound pious and a little trite but do not place your hope (or trust) in party nominees and presidents. Place your hope in God both for this world and the next.

I don't mean to sound impious or unbelieving, but God sometimes allows us to reap what we sow. Hitler was duly elected. There is a long, long line of kings among the Hebrews who were TERRIBLE men. I'm not sure I think it wise to just sit back..... passively.... and believe that whoever is elected is who is best. God may PERMIT wrong to happen (for his own reasons) but that doesn't make the wrong, right.

But we digress. Probably a discussion for another day.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't mean to sound impious or unbelieving, but God sometimes allows us to reap what we sow. Hitler was duly elected. There is a long, long line of kings among the Hebrews who were TERRIBLE men. I'm not sure I think it wise to just sit back..... passively.... and believe that whoever is elected is who is best. God may PERMIT wrong to happen (for his own reasons) but that doesn't make the wrong, right.

But we digress. Probably a discussion for another day.

Yes, Adolph Hitler's party was elected in some senses and the results were tragic yet I wonder what those events say about God and humanity.

 

[Josiah]

RICHEST and POOREST Presidents of the USA.....


Richest Presidents in US History

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Andrew Jackson
5. John Kennedy

NOTE: # 1 and #2 had wealth in property and personally did not have much expendalbe income. Jefferson died nearly penniless. If we eliminated land wealth from the formula, JFK would be beat all 4 above him - combined.

NOTE: Trump would trump JFK by about 5 fold.


POOREST PRESIDENTS in US History


1, James Buchanon
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Andrew Johnson
4. Ulysses Grant
5. James Garfield

NOTE: The last president to not be super rich was Harry Truman, who left office over 60 years ago. He began president automatically at the death of FDR (the 9th Richest president in US history, btw)




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

RICHEST and POOREST Presidents of the USA.....


Richest Presidents in US History

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Andrew Jackson
5. John Kennedy

NOTE: # 1 and #2 had wealth in property and personally did not have much expendable income. Jefferson died nearly penniless. If we eliminated land wealth from the formula, JFK would be beat all 4 above him - combined.

NOTE: Trump would trump JFK by about 5 fold.


POOREST PRESIDENTS in US History


1, James Buchanon
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Andrew Johnson
4. Ulysses Grant
5. James Garfield

NOTE: The last president to not be super rich was Harry Truman, who left office over 60 years ago. He began president automatically at the death of FDR (the 9th Richest president in US history, btw)

Goes to show how far removed from the voting public the USA presidents have become. Is it similar for the Congressmen and Senators?

 

[tango]

I do not agree with you at all, ImaginaryDay. It is the Democrat side that is unelectable. Americans are not so far gone as to vote for either a socialist (which is how Sanders describes himself) or a communist, which essentially is what Hillary is.

Sanders has virtually no chance to be elected, even if he should get the nomination. And Hillary is even worse. Her criminal activity has made many people, include a good number of Democrats, despise her. She is perhaps the most unqualified AND unelectable candidate in American history.

I hope you're right, but it seems to me there are enough tribal voters on both sides that you could put a turnip against a cherry pie and both would probably still attract 25-30% of the vote. And America did elect Obama twice - even if Romney wasn't the most inspiring of alternatives they obviously liked Obama enough and in enough numbers for him to get a second term.

Although I've seen a few articles describing how Sanders would fund his proposals it does seem like he is proposing a European style of socialism. If that's what people want it does have some merits but it also comes with a cost. In Europe it's very common (possibly universal, but not sure on that) to have a Value Added Tax instead of your existing sales tax. I'm aware of VAT varying between 19-25% across Europe (there may be outliers, that's just from what I've personally come across). I'm not sure how the average American would take to prices going up by nearly a quarter.

There do seem to be ongoing issues in the US, specifically with healthcare and education. From what I can see healthcare is an expensive proposition whichever way you look at it, where you get the choice between being slowly bled dry by insurance premiums or risk being bankrupted by Fate rolling bad dice your way. And student loans seem like an endless millstone around the necks of people trying to repay them. Arguably a lot of people going into higher education should maybe reconsider their plans, but it's easy to see why people look for radical solutions and worry about the fine detail later. That said a lot of people point at the National Health Service (NHS) that the UK has had for some decades now as if it were some kind of healthcare utopia when it is also a very mixed bag. It's great to know that if you have cancer and need $250,000 worth of chemotherapy this year you don't face the choice between selling everything you own or just dying quietly, but at the same time some of the stories of ineptitude from within the NHS are truly mindblowing (I've seen some first hand and others from reliable sources who I know personally).

What worries me about US politics in general is that I get the impression a lot of voters are so politically biased they won't consider that The Other Guy might have something worth listening to, or that Their Guy might be anything less than a shining beacon of virtue. Even looking at the assorted questions relating to Hillary that never seem to go away it seems that Republican-leaning voters regard it as evidence she is a crook and should be in jail rather than the White House, and Democrat-leaning voters regard it as evidence that the Republicans can't counter her policies so sling mud at her instead.

 

[tango]

Yup and why find it strange that the Republicans nominate rich people after all the money goes where the person wiull protect their interests.

The Democrats don't nominate rich people, right? I mean Hillary must be down to what, her last $25 million or so?

Thus why I am a Democrat, while I cant handle a lot of their views I also dont want someone who will make the rich richer which is what has been happening thus the bir disconnect between the top half and the lower half

The trouble with a lot of policies that notionally help the poor is that they often do anything but help them. A lot of welfare-type policies can create huge disincentives to work and it's hard to see much merit in a system that allows people to regard unemployment as a lifestyle choice. There's obviously far more to it than "welfare bad, work good" but some system that supports without enabling has to be better than merely throwing money at situations in the hope they will go away.

A fundamental problem with any centrally run welfare system is that the further removed the people claiming are from the people receiving and the people awarding, the more open to abuse the system is likely to be. If a system operates entirely on personal charity people can gain their own sense of need and (hopefully) meet it. If you live next to me, in the other half of a duplex, and learn that I lost my job and can't pay my mortgage or feed my children, you may take pity on me and give me some help. In return I may do something for you (perhaps wash your car, mow your grass, shovel snow from your driveway, whatever). I'm unlikely to repay your kindness by hosting loud parties into the night and if you notice that shortly after I gladly accept some of your money I'm unloading several cases of beer from my car you may decide that I'm not as needy as you first thought and reduce or stop the handouts. Once that link is broken and someone in central government (whether at state or federal level makes little difference) decides that, due to my circumstances, I am entitled to a certain amount of money that comes from your taxes, there's no sense of where the money flows. In my mind I'm not getting money from you, I'm getting money from the government, so I don't owe anything in return because the government doesn't make me do anything. There's no sense that I can do something in exchange for it, no sense of where the money comes from (other than the vague idea that "the rich" are taxed) and so I have no particular reason to care if my loud parties keep you up at night because you still have to pay the taxes that fund my welfare payments. And of course the people in central government who administer it all have to be paid, so more money is soaked up that way.

 

[psalms 91]

The Democrats don't nominate rich people, right? I mean Hillary must be down to what, her last $25 million or so?



The trouble with a lot of policies that notionally help the poor is that they often do anything but help them. A lot of welfare-type policies can create huge disincentives to work and it's hard to see much merit in a system that allows people to regard unemployment as a lifestyle choice. There's obviously far more to it than "welfare bad, work good" but some system that supports without enabling has to be better than merely throwing money at situations in the hope they will go away.

A fundamental problem with any centrally run welfare system is that the further removed the people claiming are from the people receiving and the people awarding, the more open to abuse the system is likely to be. If a system operates entirely on personal charity people can gain their own sense of need and (hopefully) meet it. If you live next to me, in the other half of a duplex, and learn that I lost my job and can't pay my mortgage or feed my children, you may take pity on me and give me some help. In return I may do something for you (perhaps wash your car, mow your grass, shovel snow from your driveway, whatever). I'm unlikely to repay your kindness by hosting loud parties into the night and if you notice that shortly after I gladly accept some of your money I'm unloading several cases of beer from my car you may decide that I'm not as needy as you first thought and reduce or stop the handouts. Once that link is broken and someone in central government (whether at state or federal level makes little difference) decides that, due to my circumstances, I am entitled to a certain amount of money that comes from your taxes, there's no sense of where the money flows. In my mind I'm not getting money from you, I'm getting money from the government, so I don't owe anything in return because the government doesn't make me do anything. There's no sense that I can do something in exchange for it, no sense of where the money comes from (other than the vague idea that "the rich" are taxed) and so I have no particular reason to care if my loud parties keep you up at night because you still have to pay the taxes that fund my welfare payments. And of course the people in central government who administer it all have to be paid, so more money is soaked up that way.

The fundamental problem with the Republicans is that they want to cut people who truly need help while making and protecting the rich. Who do you think Trump will help?

 

[tango]

The fundamental problem with the Republicans is that they want to cut people who truly need help while making and protecting the rich. Who do you think Trump will help?

I'm not doubting who Trump will help, I'm just not convinced that voting Democrat will actually make life any better for the poor in the long run. Making welfare systems more generous doesn't seem to do a whole lot to help the unemployed, it just seems to create a greater disincentive for people to bother with low paid work and ensures people are more likely to end up stuck on welfare for longer.

I do think the fundamental fabric needs to change but don't think that ever-more taxing and redistribution is the answer. What I think is needed is some means to encourage people to start working, accept they have to start at or near the bottom, and provide opportunities for people to work their way up. That will probably mean a reduction in personal welfare (which will upset some on the left), a reduction in corporate welfare (which will upset some on the right), lowering barriers to entry to business by reducing or eliminating regulations (which will upset some on both ends of the spectrum) and so on.

 

[Josiah]

Conservatism believes in HELPING those who NEED help ("teach a man how to fish, you've fed him for life")

Liberalism believes in making people dependent on government ("hand a man a fish, and you've fed him for a meal")

Liberalism believes that people are stupid, irresponsibile, incapable - and government has to take care of them. Conservatives believe that people responsible and want to pursue their dream - get out of the way, empower them.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Conservatism believes in HELPING those who NEED help ("teach a man how to fish, you've fed him for life")

Wasn't the saying "teach a man how to fish, you've fed him for life" from an English woman's book published some time around 1890? Anne Isabella Ritchie, the daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray, (who, if her photograph is any guide, was a studious young woman) wrote a story titled Mrs. Dymond, sometime in the 1880s and it includes this line.

"He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour; if you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."

I know this is a slight diversion from the specifics of voting in the 2106 USA primaries but I think that author of the saying was a liberal rather than a conservative.

Liberalism believes in making people dependent on government ("hand a man a fish, and you've fed him for a meal")

Liberalism believes that people are stupid, irresponsible, incapable - and government has to take care of them. Conservatives believe that people responsible and want to pursue their dream - get out of the way, empower them.

 

[tango]

Conservatism believes in HELPING those who NEED help ("teach a man how to fish, you've fed him for life")

Liberalism believes in making people dependent on government ("hand a man a fish, and you've fed him for a meal")

Liberalism believes that people are stupid, irresponsibile, incapable - and government has to take care of them. Conservatives believe that people responsible and want to pursue their dream - get out of the way, empower them.



.

Sure, but the people who don't want to make an effort would rather you just gave them a fish than expected them to learn how to fish for themselves.

I think a large part of the problem we have now is that free market capitalism has turned into crony capitalism where government is big enough in some areas to just make life difficult (but all under the guise of protecting consumers) and small enough in other areas that it doesn't do the things it might do well.

 

[Highlander]

I hope you're right, but it seems to me there are enough tribal voters on both sides that you could put a turnip against a cherry pie and both would probably still attract 25-30% of the vote. And America did elect Obama twice - even if Romney wasn't the most inspiring of alternatives they obviously liked Obama enough and in enough numbers for him to get a second term.

Although I've seen a few articles describing how Sanders would fund his proposals it does seem like he is proposing a European style of socialism. If that's what people want it does have some merits but it also comes with a cost. In Europe it's very common (possibly universal, but not sure on that) to have a Value Added Tax instead of your existing sales tax. I'm aware of VAT varying between 19-25% across Europe (there may be outliers, that's just from what I've personally come across). I'm not sure how the average American would take to prices going up by nearly a quarter.

There do seem to be ongoing issues in the US, specifically with healthcare and education. From what I can see healthcare is an expensive proposition whichever way you look at it, where you get the choice between being slowly bled dry by insurance premiums or risk being bankrupted by Fate rolling bad dice your way. And student loans seem like an endless millstone around the necks of people trying to repay them. Arguably a lot of people going into higher education should maybe reconsider their plans, but it's easy to see why people look for radical solutions and worry about the fine detail later. That said a lot of people point at the National Health Service (NHS) that the UK has had for some decades now as if it were some kind of healthcare utopia when it is also a very mixed bag. It's great to know that if you have cancer and need $250,000 worth of chemotherapy this year you don't face the choice between selling everything you own or just dying quietly, but at the same time some of the stories of ineptitude from within the NHS are truly mindblowing (I've seen some first hand and others from reliable sources who I know personally).

What worries me about US politics in general is that I get the impression a lot of voters are so politically biased they won't consider that The Other Guy might have something worth listening to, or that Their Guy might be anything less than a shining beacon of virtue. Even looking at the assorted questions relating to Hillary that never seem to go away it seems that Republican-leaning voters regard it as evidence she is a crook and should be in jail rather than the White House, and Democrat-leaning voters regard it as evidence that the Republicans can't counter her policies so sling mud at her instead.

Basically there are around 30% Demos, 30% Repubs and the rest are swing voters. Generally speaking, a candidate can count on the 30% from their party. The election results then depend on what the independent/swing voters do. In Romney's case, he was such a lackluster, lame candidate that over FOUR MILLION of that 30% Repub base refused to vote and, in effect, they gave Obama his second term. If the Repubs had fronted a better candidate, those 4 million voters would have went to the voting booths and Obama would have been a one-term president.

As for Sanders, I've heard it said that his socialist utopia would be funded with a NINETY-FIVE PERCENT tax rate which, of course, is not sustainable. These details would destroy him in a general presidential campaign.

Regarding healthcare, as Trump has said, he would "get rid of the lines." By this, he means state borders. He would erase the current rules that prohibit customers from seeking health policies from companies outside the borders (the "lines") of their own state. When this rule is erased, customers would be able to seek policies from companies in ANY state. It would open things up for customers to seek policies from companies all across the nation. It would open up the good ol' American spirit of competition -- which would probably lower the coverage costs by a dramatic amount. The companies would also have to accept all pre-existing conditions, which is one of the few virtues of ObamaCare.

As for Hillary? She is now infamously known to have allowed our people in Benghazi to be sacrificed on behalf of her and Obama's careers. She then began using that lie about an equally infamous -- and unseen -- video as the reason for the attacks -- when she knew it was a pre-planned terrorist attack. Then she repeated those lies to the faces of the grieving family members as they stood by the coffins. Her and Bill are now regularly confronted over this by angry voters. Hillary, by the last count, also had over 2,000 top secret security files on her private server -- catching her him in yet another lie as she has continued to insist that she never had any sensitive material on her server. This is a career criminal and time may be catching up to her.

Take care,
Chuck