2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NDVirginia19]

not sure if a trump or a cruz would let him off that easy in a debate.

oh geez, i literally just saw Christie say something to the effect: "it's time for the boy to come out of his bubble" referring to Rubio...and so it begins.

But what are they going to do? Ask him to be accountable for something that his wife's brother did, got caught for, and paid his debt to society for before he ever met him? I mean that's just weak

 

[kmoose]

The government shutting down is a good thing, especially when it's in opposition to destructive policies.

The government shutting down is NEVER a good thing. Our Republic works because, even though we may love to bitch about it, there is a trust between the people and the government. The government trusts that people will support the country, and the people trust that the government will provide certain goods and services. If the government shuts down and stops providing the goods and services that the people expect, then that erodes the people's basic trust. (I said "basic trust", so don't lecture me about how the government is untrustworthy because of stuff like the Steven Avery case, or the courts' tacit approval of police officers shooting young black men in the streets for sport, or the Flint Water Crisis. All of those things have merit, in terms of how far you trust the government, but they are immaterial to the trust I am talking about).

Your argument is that it's better to pass destructive legislation than to shut down the government to prevent destructive legislation.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never argued for capitulation and bad legislation. But, while we are on the subject: What destructive legislation did the 2013 shutdown prevent?

The Republicans won landslides in 2010 and 2014, and all we hear is how they're supposed to "reach across the aisle" and "work with the other side" to pass Obama's agenda. If the voters wanted Democrat policies and legislation, they would have elected Democrats.

So Republicans should reject every piece of legislation offered by the Democrats, regardless of merit? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense. And it certainly isn't thinking like that that has gotten us we are, now. right?

 

[phgreek]

Like when the Democrats crammed through the ACA along strictly partisan lines? Was that the bipartisan compromise you're looking for?



Here's an idea: how about we let the states largely govern their own affairs, instead of trying to impose imperial mandates on a nation compromised of 300 million people and covering 3.8 million square miles from Washington DC. Ya know, the sort of federated republic described in our constitution. If there's not a clear bipartisan consensus on an issue, that's a pretty strong indication that the Feds shouldn't be passing laws about it.

I could turn your post around and say, "This mentality is what I think is wrong with many Progressives. They act like they live in an empire instead of a federal republic, and they insist on inflicting their half-baked policy ideas on the entire country instead of appealing to their local legislators. They've got no right to vote on how people in neighboring states govern themselves, etc."

Federal Republic....Oh please! Don't you know the country has progressed beyond the need for any that...

Great post!

 

[drayer54]

Because he didn't campaign in Iowa.

I didn't get this. He is a governor of a cornfield state. He should of been able to compete and do well here. Iowans generally punish those who flee to NH early to avoid the embarrassment of losing and trying. He should bow out IMHO.

 

[ND NYC]

But what are they going to do? Ask him to be accountable for something that his wife's brother did, got caught for, and paid his debt to society for before he ever met him? I mean that's just weak

no it would be more subtle I think; they would just keep peppering him with stupid questions about it, show faux concern about it, get Rubio all rattled, aggravated that it's even being discussed...throw him off his script....all the while just making sure that the entire electorate would know that "our potential Cuban-American nominee has a brother in law who's a former Drug Kingpin of Miami".

I would bet 1M VBucks that, at a minimum, Trump brings it up.

 

[phgreek]

The government shutting down is NEVER a good thing. Our Republic works because, even though we may love to bitch about it, there is a trust between the people and the government. The government trusts that people will support the country, and the people trust that the government will provide certain goods and services. If the government shuts down and stops providing the goods and services that the people expect, then that erodes the people's basic trust. (I said "basic trust", so don't lecture me about how the government is untrustworthy because of stuff like the Steven Avery case, or the courts' tacit approval of police officers shooting young black men in the streets for sport, or the Flint Water Crisis. All of those things have merit, in terms of how far you trust the government, but they are immaterial to the trust I am talking about).



Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never argued for capitulation and bad legislation. But, while we are on the subject: What destructive legislation did the 2013 shutdown prevent?



So Republicans should reject every piece of legislation offered by the Democrats, regardless of merit? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense. And it certainly isn't thinking like that that has gotten us we are, now. right?

Oh come on...the people sent to DC were sent to stop/reverse some things. No secret there. However, no one precluded them from compromise on things outside their mandate, and I think the point being made is...when you are the party who invokes a mass movement against you...you might want to look inward and start the "reaching". The thing I love is that the white house has been completely devoid of reaching for anything but a pen and a cell phone...Mr. Obama is a recalcitrant ass...you know it...I know it...for Christ's sake it was pretty clear based on Bob Woodward's observations. And everyone can spare me the ....but they said their only goal was to make Mr. Obama a 1 term president...so THEY set the tone....well fucking WAAAAA. He should have been the man he said he was, and focused on uniting like he said he would. That starts with being ABOVE the BS...clearly he is/was not.

 

[GoldenDomer]

I didn't get this. He is a governor of a cornfield state. He should of been able to compete and do well here. Iowans generally punish those who flee to NH early to avoid the embarrassment of losing and trying. He should bow out IMHO.

I disagree.

"Joseph built the pyramids" should bow out.

The PTA mom should bow out.

The fat man and his favorite snack company, Little Jebbie, should bow out.

Kasich has a solid record, shown he can compromise, and is a 2 term governor of a major swing state. Why must this race be about who has the most far right policy?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The government shutting down is NEVER a good thing. Our Republic works because, even though we may love to bitch about it, there is a trust between the people and the government. The government trusts that people will support the country, and the people trust that the government will provide certain goods and services. If the government shuts down and stops providing the goods and services that the people expect, then that erodes the people's basic trust. (I said "basic trust", so don't lecture me about how the government is untrustworthy because of stuff like the Steven Avery case, or the courts' tacit approval of police officers shooting young black men in the streets for sport, or the Flint Water Crisis. All of those things have merit, in terms of how far you trust the government, but they are immaterial to the trust I am talking about).

Both Republican and Democratic pundits have commented on Congress' unprecedented level of dysfunction recently. I'd suggest there's a direct correlation between that dysfunction and the following: (1) the centralization of power in Washington, DC; (2) diminishing trust in government; and the (3) increasing polarization of our politics.

As John Adams said, "[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." As that moral and religious consensus has eroded, so too has our national cohesion.

So Republicans should reject every piece of legislation offered by the Democrats, regardless of merit? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense. And it certainly isn't thinking like that that has gotten us we are, now. right?

Congressional Republicans should reject every piece of legislation that is not in the best interests of their constituents, and congressional Democrats should do the same. If that means no legislation can be passed on certain polarizing issues, then you should either lobby your local government instead or find a compromise position that is acceptable to the representatives of the other party.

 

[drayer54]

I disagree.

"Joseph built the pyramids" should bow out.

The PTA mom should bow out.

The fat man and his favorite snack company, Little Jebbie, should bow out.

Agree

Kasich has a solid record, shown he can compromise, and is a 2 term governor of a major swing state. Why must this race be about who has the most far right policy?

It isn't about the most far right policy. I don't want that guy to win either. I think the race has been narrowed down to three and it is time for the "also rans" to go home.

 

[RDU Irish]

Like when the Democrats crammed through the ACA along strictly partisan lines? Was that the bipartisan compromise you're looking for?



Here's an idea: how about we let the states largely govern their own affairs, instead of trying to impose imperial mandates on a nation compromised of 300 million people and covering 3.8 million square miles from Washington DC. Ya know, the sort of federated republic described in our constitution. If there's not a clear bipartisan consensus on an issue, that's a pretty strong indication that the Feds shouldn't be passing laws about it.

I could turn your post around and say, "This mentality is what I think is wrong with many Progressives. They act like they live in an empire instead of a federal republic, and they insist on inflicting their half-baked policy ideas on the entire country instead of appealing to their local legislators. They've got no right to vote on how people in neighboring states govern themselves, etc."

In two paragraphs you have summed up my political philosophy. While a few of the governors will lament the Feds just screw things up for states, they turn around and quickly want to expand the size and scope of government every other turn. Rand Paul is the only one I have any confidence in governing with these premises driving all decisions, the rest is just a sh!tshow of differing stench and color.

 

[IrishLax]

How are those two positions mutually exclusive? Both major parties support amnesty/ open borders because it benefits their donor classes. Large portions of the base for both classes are harmed by that policy, but are overruled by their elites. Pointing out Rubio's support for that same policy isn't to prove that he's just like Bush, but that he's an Establishment candidate, who supports many of the same terrible policies both parties have inflicted on us for decades. So the claim that Rubio is a "true" conservative or some sort of outsider just isn't true. He's definitely electable, but people need to realize what they're voting for.

People share some policy positions... even people considered radically opposed. So it's flat out ridiculous to cast someone as "anti-establishment" just because they're self-declared "anti-establishment," and then pick and choose a couple policy positions where someone might share with a predecessor and say "because of these points, we can conclude that Rubio is going to have a Bush-esque presidency." It further becomes ridiculous when their positions aren't analogous, and it borders on true absurdity when the positions are shared with anti-establishment, anti-Bush candidates like Bernie Sanders.

If we're going to take an immigration position and say it benefits the "donor class" and "big business" and that it means he's an establishment/Bush Lackey... then what is the explanation for Sanders and other liberals having a position analogous to Rubio's? The distance between what Sanders/Rubio is smaller than Bush-enacted/Rubio-proposed.

Surprisingly, I don't see anyone using Sanders' position to draw the conclusion that he's Bush reincarnate. The reason why is that the entire line of reasoning that secure border/amnesty benefits donor class is wrong, and Rubio is not supporting an "open border." Believe it or not, our borders become increasingly secure each year and there's almost a negligible flow (for a lot of reasons) of illegal immigrants at this time. All amnesty does is provide rights/protections for workers that are here while also allowing them to be accounted for and appropriately taxed.

If I get into the foreign policy thing in this response, it'll get to long. I'll hop over to the other thread for that.

You've said that several times already, and yet you haven't been able to distinguish Rubio's policy positions from Bush's. And as I mentioned above, the point isn't to tarnish him by association with a toxic political dynasty, but the illustrate how little he differs from the GOP Establishment on almost every substantive policy area.

But I did. I explained how likening his immigration policy to anything close to Bush-esque is wrong. And to take it a step further, what Bush supported in 2006 is much closer to Trump than Rubio... he wanted to double the border patrol, deploy the national guard to the border, require immigrants learn English, etc. He did not support total amnesty. Ultimately, we ended up investing billions in border security and literally built fences in some areas (I saw them go up).

I shouldn't be in a position of having to do this, though. A professional writer should have the obligation to not-suck and provide specifics if they're going to make broad claims like that. And they didn't, so I don't have much patience for someone who claims Rubio's presidency will be a Bush 3rd term just because he has some similar policy positions in some areas. That's an obviously false premise.

 

[pkt77242]

Like when the Democrats crammed through the ACA along strictly partisan lines? Was that the bipartisan compromise you're looking for?

1. They Dems had the votes so didn't have to be bipartisan
2. The R's were against any meaningful reform because Obama was for it. Who knows what it would have looked like if it was undertaken bipartisanly but to just blame the Democrats when the Republicans had zero interest in working with Obama and Democrats. The truth is both sides failed not just one.

Here's an idea: how about we let the states largely govern their own affairs, instead of trying to impose imperial mandates on a nation compromised of 300 million people and covering 3.8 million square miles from Washington DC. Ya know, the sort of federated republic described in our constitution. If there's not a clear bipartisan consensus on an issue, that's a pretty strong indication that the Feds shouldn't be passing laws about it.

I could turn your post around and say, "This mentality is what I think is wrong with many Progressives. They act like they live in an empire instead of a federal republic, and they insist on inflicting their half-baked policy ideas on the entire country instead of appealing to their local legislators. They've got no right to vote on how people in neighboring states govern themselves, etc."

The problem with that is that states are interconnected more now than ever. If one state sucks at educating their population it will have an effect on the other states. If one state doesn't provide for their poor, those poor will go to another state that does. In the late 1700's and 1800's when travel was more difficult that made sense, now when the population moves so often, and travel is easy, I am not so sure. If we threw things back to the states, I think it would just become have states (Texas, CA, the NW, NY, FL and the NE along with a few Midwestern states) and the have nots (which would be most of the south, and Midwest, and a few other states). Not the most articulate ramble on my part but I need to get back to work.



I was going to originally post this but I rambled a little.
My problem with this is that you end up with have not states and have states. Lets say we throw things back to the states. Most red states will suffer drastically, while the many blue states would benefit. Do you really think it should matter if a person is born in rural Arkansas or NYC whether they have healthcare or not? Or whether they have the means to put food on the table? or if the school is remotely competent? Where do you draw the line? Interestingly enough the many of the states that are for cutting down the federal government, or for states rights are the same people who benefit the most from the federal government.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Here is a slightly different one from 2014:
Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

 

[pkt77242]

Agree



It isn't about the most far right policy. I don't want that guy to win either. I think the race has been narrowed down to three and it is time for the "also rans" to go home.

I think the real question is why can't Kasich get more support? He has executive leadership in a swing state, he has served in the house including as the chairman of the house budget committee. He in theory should be the type of person that many conservatives say that they want, except that no one will vote for him. Just boggles the mind.


Ok now back to work for me.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, because the Founding Fathers enshrined the liberty to bribe public officials, use poison in food production, and provide alcohol to all of the kids at your 7 year old's sleepover, into the Constitution!! Damn these tyrannical LAWMAKERS!

You're not an idiot, don't act like one. Obviously individual liberty only extends so far as to preclude you from doing harm unto others.

 

[IrishLax]

I think the real question is why can't Kasich get more support? He has executive leadership in a swing state, he has served in the house including as the chairman of the house budget committee. He in theory should be the type of person that many conservatives say that they want, except that no one will vote for him. Just boggles the mind.


Ok now back to work for me.

It's bothersome, and it's like asking "why couldn't we get more good Democrat candidates?"... does anyone really believe someone like Mark Warner isn't a borderline objectively better choice than either Sanders or Clinton?

The problem is "the machine"... on the Republican side, "the machine" is in such disarray and bad shape that they can't get together and put forth the most viable, reasonable candidates. They can't even get Kasich legitimate air time or press! You have to have the media do your dirty work, and instead it's basically all Trump, all the time... with increasing amounts of Cruz and Rubio in recent weeks. Hype makes hype.

On the Democrat side, they did the opposite. They let Sanders in because they couldn't keep him out, and they also didn't consider a 70-something self-proclaimed socialist as a "threat" (joke's on them)... but "the machine" did a great job forcing out/buying off all other legitimate threats to Clinton (like Elizabeth Warren, etc.).

It's a shame, because the average citizen is actually deprived of real "choice" in these elections.

 

[GoldenDomer]

It's bothersome, and it's like asking "why couldn't we get more good Democrat candidates?"... does anyone really believe someone like Mark Warner isn't a borderline objectively better choice than either Sanders or Clinton?

The problem is "the machine"... on the Republican side, "the machine" is in such disarray and bad shape that they can't get together and put forth the most viable, reasonable candidates. They can't even get Kasich legitimate air time or press! You have to have the media do your dirty work, and instead it's basically all Trump, all the time... with increasing amounts of Cruz and Rubio in recent weeks. Hype makes hype.

On the Democrat side, they did the opposite. They let Sanders in because they couldn't keep him out, and they also didn't consider a 70-something self-proclaimed socialist as a "threat" (joke's on them)... but "the machine" did a great job forcing out/buying off all other legitimate threats to Clinton (like Elizabeth Warren, etc.).

It's a shame, because the average citizen is actually deprived of real "choice" in these elections.

Excellent post. Reps.

#IrishEnvyForKasich

 

[phgreek]

I think the real question is why can't Kasich get more support? He has executive leadership in a swing state, he has served in the house including as the chairman of the house budget committee. He in theory should be the type of person that many conservatives say that they want, except that no one will vote for him. Just boggles the mind.


Ok now back to work for me.

I agree with you here...after looking at what everyone brings, Kasich has the most relevant experience...his executive experience as Ohio governor, and economic leadership is successful, his federal experience successful and particularly relevant, and he brings Ohio. He is largely conservative where it matters to me...the economy, jobs, budget. He is a faithful guy by all appearances...but not a faith panderer. He seems like a genuine guy who isn't going to oversell things like how he'd deal with the illegal immigration issue. He seems like a pragmatic guy...positive message.

Just shocked that He and Trump aren't flipped with regard to support...

I hope he gets some traction this week.

 

[kmoose]

Congressional Republicans should reject every piece of legislation that is not in the best interests of their constituents, and congressional Democrats should do the same. If that means no legislation can be passed on certain polarizing issues, then you should either lobby your local government instead or find a compromise position that is acceptable to the representatives of the other party.

In other words, judge it on it's merit... Is it good for my constituents? Vote Aye. Is it bad for my constituents? Vote Nay.

For what it's worth.................. "constituents" is party neutral. The House Rep from the 6th district of Ohio represents ALL of the residents of the 6th district, not just those who are registered members of his/her party.

 

[pkt77242]

It's bothersome, and it's like asking "why couldn't we get more good Democrat candidates?"... does anyone really believe someone like Mark Warner isn't a borderline objectively better choice than either Sanders or Clinton?

The problem is "the machine"... on the Republican side, "the machine" is in such disarray and bad shape that they can't get together and put forth the most viable, reasonable candidates. They can't even get Kasich legitimate air time or press! You have to have the media do your dirty work, and instead it's basically all Trump, all the time... with increasing amounts of Cruz and Rubio in recent weeks. Hype makes hype.

On the Democrat side, they did the opposite. They let Sanders in because they couldn't keep him out, and they also didn't consider a 70-something self-proclaimed socialist as a "threat" (joke's on them)... but "the machine" did a great job forcing out/buying off all other legitimate threats to Clinton (like Elizabeth Warren, etc.).

It's a shame, because the average citizen is actually deprived of real "choice" in these elections.

Agreed.
I hate the lack of options in the Democratic race.

 

[kmoose]

You're not an idiot, don't act like one. Obviously individual liberty only extends so far as to preclude you from doing harm unto others.

YOU are the one who said:

That's absolutely not my position. I'd be thrilled if they passed ZERO fucking legislation whatsoever. That's the whole point of the Constitution. It's supposed to be really really fucking difficult for them to pass new laws because each new law they pass is an erosion of our liberty.

All I did was point out how dumb that line of thinking is, by citing a few laws that have not infringed on a single Constitutional liberty of yours.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

But they won't stay home. They'll go vote for her. Again, I don't see that happening for Trump or Cruz. They are at the level of support they are going to get, and they are going to find it tough sledding to get any more people on their train. If Bernie does not win the nomination, most people on the left are still going to the polls.

Funny you mention that. Iowa caucuses drew 45,000 more voters for Republicans than Democrats. Not saying every state will be the same, but it tells me that Iowa Republicans are heavily invested in 2016 and Dems aren't as enthusiastic this time around.

 

[wizards8507]

All I did was point out how dumb that line of thinking is, by citing a few laws that have not infringed on a single Constitutional liberty of yours.

Yes, because the Founding Fathers enshrined the liberty to bribe public officials, use poison in food production, and provide alcohol to all of the kids at your 7 year old's sleepover, into the Constitution!! Damn these tyrannical LAWMAKERS!

El wrongo.

Find me the federal law that says "Thou shalt not use poison in food production" and nothing else, and I'll agree that you've found a law that doesn't infringe on my liberty. Those aren't the laws that get passed. Instead, in the name of not using poison in food production, we get the EPA and the Department of Agriculture with their $150 billion budget. That tax revenue and every regulation that spews out of those agencies absolutely is an infringement on Constitutional liberty.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think the real question is why can't Kasich get more support? He has executive leadership in a swing state, he has served in the house including as the chairman of the house budget committee. He in theory should be the type of person that many conservatives say that they want, except that no one will vote for him. Just boggles the mind.


Ok now back to work for me.

Because he's Democrat Lite. That's why he's so appealing to leftists lol.

 

[RDU Irish]

Because he's Democrat Lite. That's why he's so appealing to leftists lol.

Which is the label anyone who ever makes a bi-partisan deal will carry. Reagan was a RINO for dealing with Tip O'Neal by the same logic. And Rubio gets lumped in with the gang of 8 deal as if he is 100% behind every single thing in that bill.

 

[GoIrish41]

El wrongo.

Find me the federal law that says "Thou shalt not use poison in food production" and nothing else, and I'll agree that you've found a law that doesn't infringe on my liberty. Those aren't the laws that get passed. Instead, in the name of not using poison in food production, we get the EPA and the Department of Agriculture with their $150 billion budget. That tax revenue and every regulation that spews out of those agencies absolutely is an infringement on Constitutional liberty.

That socialist Richard Nixon should have never signed the law that created the EPA. Bleeding heart over-reach trying to keep corporations from killing people.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

People share some policy positions... even people considered radically opposed. So it's flat out ridiculous to cast someone as "anti-establishment" just because they're self-declared "anti-establishment," and then pick and choose a couple policy positions where someone might share with a predecessor and say "because of these points, we can conclude that Rubio is going to have a Bush-esque presidency." It further becomes ridiculous when their positions aren't analogous, and it borders on true absurdity when the positions are shared with anti-establishment, anti-Bush candidates like Bernie Sanders.

If we're going to take an immigration position and say it benefits the "donor class" and "big business" and that it means he's an establishment/Bush Lackey... then what is the explanation for Sanders and other liberals having a position analogous to Rubio's? The distance between what Sanders/Rubio is smaller than Bush-enacted/Rubio-proposed.

Surprisingly, I don't see anyone using Sanders' position to draw the conclusion that he's Bush reincarnate. The reason why is that the entire line of reasoning that secure border/amnesty benefits donor class is wrong, and Rubio is not supporting an "open border." Believe it or not, our borders become increasingly secure each year and there's almost a negligible flow (for a lot of reasons) of illegal immigrants at this time. All amnesty does is provide rights/protections for workers that are here while also allowing them to be accounted for and appropriately taxed.

If I get into the foreign policy thing in this response, it'll get to long. I'll hop over to the other thread for that.

It's obvious that you think the Bush comparison is unfair, so let's set that aside for now. How is Rubio's platform meaningfully different from that of the GOP over the last couple decades? He's making the same neocon arguments on foreign policy, the same neoliberal arguments on taxation (though with some gestures towards reforms that would benefit the middle class), and the same arguments in favor of amnesty and border control. That's why he's an Establishment candidate-- because he's advocating for continuity and the status quo. He's not making a meaningful case for any sort of reform, which is major problem for people like me who think the GOP is pretty bad shape right now.

But I did. I explained how likening his immigration policy to anything close to Bush-esque is wrong. And to take it a step further, what Bush supported in 2006 is much closer to Trump than Rubio... he wanted to double the border patrol, deploy the national guard to the border, require immigrants learn English, etc. He did not support total amnesty. Ultimately, we ended up investing billions in border security and literally built fences in some areas (I saw them go up).

I shouldn't be in a position of having to do this, though. A professional writer should have the obligation to not-suck and provide specifics if they're going to make broad claims like that. And they didn't, so I don't have much patience for someone who claims Rubio's presidency will be a Bush 3rd term just because he has some similar policy positions in some areas. That's an obviously false premise.

You are the first person I've ever encountered who has argued that the Federal government currently has control over our borders. Ever, and I read an awful lot on this subject. Suffice it to say, regardless of how many fences you've seen go up yourself, I remain skeptical that we currently have control over our borders, or that our political elites intend to implement something like a coherent immigration policy.

1. They Dems had the votes so didn't have to be bipartisan

So bipartisanship isn't necessarily a good thing; just a necessary evil when one side isn't capable of dominating the other. That theory doesn't bode well for the integrity of our republic in the future.

2. The R's were against any meaningful reform because Obama was for it. Who knows what it would have looked like if it was undertaken bipartisanly but to just blame the Democrats when the Republicans had zero interest in working with Obama and Democrats. The truth is both sides failed not just one.

So you've taken the measure of why each Congressional Republican opposed Obama-care, and decided that it was merely due to bad faith obstructionism, and therefore it was OK to cram the ACA through over the objections of the duly elected representatives of half of your countrymen. Nevermind that it was a hugely polarizing issue at the time, that it was over-(if not outright fraudulently) sold, and that massive amounts of time, money and political capital were expended on something that turned out to be nothing more than, as you've admitted yourself, an (arguably) incremental improvement on a sh!tty pre-existing system.

The Republicans bear some blame for not having offered a plausible alternative to the ACA. But the Democrats bear far more blame for imposing such an atrocious piece of legislation over half the country's strenuous objections.

The problem with that is that states are interconnected more now than ever. If one state sucks at educating their population it will have an effect on the other states. If one state doesn't provide for their poor, those poor will go to another state that does. In the late 1700's and 1800's when travel was more difficult that made sense, now when the population moves so often, and travel is easy, I am not so sure. If we threw things back to the states, I think it would just become have states (Texas, CA, the NW, NY, FL and the NE along with a few Midwestern states) and the have nots (which would be most of the south, and Midwest, and a few other states). Not the most articulate ramble on my part but I need to get back to work.

So, no more Republic? If that's what you believe, try to rally the votes so the Constitution can be replaced with something more amenable to imperial centralized government. But roughly half of your countrymen are still pretty attached to this whole federal republic idea, so we need to hash this out lest we continue shouting past each other based on misconceptions of what kind of government we live under.

I was going to originally post this but I rambled a little.
My problem with this is that you end up with have not states and have states. Lets say we throw things back to the states. Most red states will suffer drastically, while the many blue states would benefit. Do you really think it should matter if a person is born in rural Arkansas or NYC whether they have healthcare or not?

Does it matter that you were born into your family instead of one in central Africa? The short answer is YES, because we're getting at issues that are central to your identity. The alternative is global-citizen, universalist Progressive bullsh!t that is utterly hostile to Pietas and everything that is Good, True and Beautiful.

Or whether they have the means to put food on the table? or if the school is remotely competent? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line well before our citizenry is so infantilized that the Federal government must step in provide for the needs of every individual citizen. Republican forms of government only work when they're supported by a virtuous, self-governing citizenry."Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither."

Perhaps that's why we disagree on so much. I want to live in a federal republic of mostly self-sufficient communities; you seem to prefer an empire under which each individual's basic needs are guaranteed by the imperium. Unless you're willing to redirect that political project toward your state legislature, I don't think there's any middle ground between our two positions.

 

[wizards8507]

That socialist Richard Nixon should have never signed the law that created the EPA. Bleeding heart over-reach trying to keep corporations from killing people.

Regulations don't scare mega-corporations, they just inhibit small businesses from growing because compliance is so expensive. Know what does scare mega-corporations? Lawsuits. The courts could resolve the vast majority of these issues far more efficiently than Executive bureaucracy. If you're Exxon and you violate some EPA regulation, you pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine and move on. If this was settled through tort law, Exxon would strive like hell to avoid negative externalities so they don't get their pants sued off.

 

[kmoose]

El wrongo.

Find me the federal law that says "Thou shalt not use poison in food production" and nothing else, and I'll agree that you've found a law that doesn't infringe on my liberty. Those aren't the laws that get passed. Instead, in the name of not using poison in food production, we get the EPA and the Department of Agriculture with their $150 billion budget. That tax revenue and every regulation that spews out of those agencies absolutely is an infringement on Constitutional liberty.

Not providing alcohol to minors is most definitely "a law", and it is enforced by local law enforcement.

So now you are changing it to "every Department of Government they create infringes my liberty."?

And can you cite the specific part of the Constitution that the EPA and Ag Dept. infringe on?

 

[phgreek]

Because he's Democrat Lite. That's why he's so appealing to leftists lol.

I took all the pre campaign surveys, and my score aligned with Rubio...which I think makes me a bible gun clutching conservative. But I like Kasich more than any of the rest. Operating from the premise that no candidate is perfect, I kinda look at the economy, and budget process (or lack thereof) in DC, and I'm thinking he is the guy. He would likely repurpose the DOJ from the seriously misguided beast it is. He'd pick conservative supreme court justices. He isn't a threat to the faithful...He gets foreign policy. I'm not sure what he'd do on immigration reform...specifically, and yea he took subsidies for healthcare...All things considered, he seems most complete, and experienced/competent to me.

What am I missing? I'm good with criticism, its not like he's my brother...why is he Democrat Light?

 

[GoIrish41]

Regulations don't scare mega-corporations, they just inhibit small businesses from growing because compliance is so expensive. Know what does scare mega-corporations? Lawsuits. The courts could resolve the vast majority of these issues far more efficiently than Executive bureaucracy. If you're Exxon and you violate some EPA regulation, you pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine and move on. If this was settled through tort law, Exxon would strive like hell to avoid negative externalities so they don't get their pants sued off.

So why did the republican president sign the EPA into law? Your original mention of the EPA seemed to insinuate that this was another liberal big government boondoggle. It wasn't.