Politics

[Ndaccountant]

Yes typo.

Banking speculation absolutely raises prices from food, to oil, etc.

We had a couple bad years in terms the last couple years but that doesn't account for the rise in prices we have seen the last couple years.

Common I thought the tea party partically started because it was bull that Democrats bailed out these greedy New York wall street bankers that crashed our economy. Now you guys wanna kiss the banking speculators rear ends?

Oil demand is up but so is oil suppy so theorectically there should not have been a significant jump in oil prices. Why has there been? Speculation.

I got no problem with producers and consumers speculating amongst themselves and locking down prices. However when you got banks and wall street brokers gambling and betting up these prices I have a problem with this.

By the way for the Reagan lovers, we didn't do this under him. This has only happened since 2000.

Food prices have been impacted by the bio industry. Look at the following charts in this article (cannot import them)
Is Ethanol Causing Pollution of Our Streams?

Now, we clearly have begun planting less wheat and planting more corn and soy. Where is that going?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/889325/sep12_westcott_fig02.png

For corn, most of the increase has not gone to food production.

For soy, food production has been flat but is down since 2000 due to bio fuels.

Couple this with a rising a rising population and you can start to build a case here.

 

[tussin]

Surprise, surprise!!!

With clock ticking on mortgage relief, homeowners wonder what’s ahead - The Washington Post

Looks like 30% of those homeowners who received a bailout under HAMP have already defaulted again. Thankfully the program wasn't ever that effective and the total number of possible foreclosures is around 800K.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Obamacare's problem: You can't fix stupid

It was supposed to be the most burning crisis in America: the 30 million, 40 million, or even 50 million of us, (depending on which politician was screaming the loudest), who didn't have health insurance and were clamoring to get it in order to avoid everything from bankruptcy to death.

So the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, gave us the Affordable Care Act . And they did it with such urgency that they didn't care that not a single Republican in Congress voted for it, and they didn't care that it took legislative chicanery to pass it despite the Democrat super-majority. Nope, the millions of uncovered Americans desperate for affordable health insurance just couldn't wait any longer.

So when the Obamacare exchanges finally opened for business in October, of course the tens of millions of insurance-starved Americans stampeded over each other to sign up and finally get covered.

Except they didn't.

The reality has been shocking even to the biggest Obamacare detractors. A McKinsey Report estimates that just 10 percent of the roughly 4 million enrollees in the ACA are people that did not previously have health insurance. Just 1 in 10!

Those 40 million to 50 million Americans just clamoring for health coverage that the Democrats have been telling us about since the 1940s have turned into just about 400,000 people who have bothered to sign up so far. And how much do you want to bet that those 400,000 will end up making up the lion's share of the up to 900,000 enrollees who have failed to actually pay for their new coverage?

The experts have come up with several good explanations for the lack of interest among the uninsured. They point to the expensive premium and deductible prices, confusing rules, and of course the failed Healthcare.gov website launch.

But here's something no one seems to be addressing, and it's truly the elephant in the room when it comes to people who refuse to get covered now, refused to get covered before Obamacare, and will continue not to get covered forever: You can't fix stupid.

We spend a lot of tax money in this country trying to stamp out stupid with varying degrees of success. But no matter how much we spend and how hard we try, millions of Americans will still smoke, drink to excess, drink and drive, eat unhealthy food, and refuse to be responsible enough to tend to their health and health coverage. And there isn't any website, commercial, or funny viral video on Earth that will change their minds.

So we should stop trying so hard.

The universal individual mandate has always been the weakest operational and theoretical aspect of the ACA, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts had to come up with the crazy idea of reclassifying the entire thing as a tax just to keep it alive. It's a ruling most Americans and Roberts himself will regret for decades to come.

Our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom in this country isn't just a slogan. It means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The freedom to be smart, and the freedom to be stupid. And just because you can't fix stupid, it doesn't mean we should try to fix or amend freedom.

Unfortunately, that's just what Obamacare does by taking money from the responsible portion of society in an attempt to force feed responsibility to another. That's the thing about responsibility: It can't be imposed or transferred from one to another.

President Obama has unilaterally changed the rules of the ACA several times in the past 12 months. There will be more changes to come, including a possible long delay or outright abolition of the entire individual mandate. When - and if - that happens, don't pay attention to all the inevitable excuses that will address everything from blaming bad websites to anti-tea party conspiracy theories.

The real reason will be that the government can't fix stupid without killing freedom. And, as far to the left as America has drifted lately, we haven't quite gone off the deep end.

Obamacare's problem: You can't fix stupid

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obamacare's problem: You can't fix stupid

It was supposed to be the most burning crisis in America: the 30 million, 40 million, or even 50 million of us, (depending on which politician was screaming the loudest), who didn't have health insurance and were clamoring to get it in order to avoid everything from bankruptcy to death.

So the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, gave us the Affordable Care Act . And they did it with such urgency that they didn't care that not a single Republican in Congress voted for it, and they didn't care that it took legislative chicanery to pass it despite the Democrat super-majority. Nope, the millions of uncovered Americans desperate for affordable health insurance just couldn't wait any longer.

So when the Obamacare exchanges finally opened for business in October, of course the tens of millions of insurance-starved Americans stampeded over each other to sign up and finally get covered.

Except they didn't.

The reality has been shocking even to the biggest Obamacare detractors. A McKinsey Report estimates that just 10 percent of the roughly 4 million enrollees in the ACA are people that did not previously have health insurance. Just 1 in 10!

Those 40 million to 50 million Americans just clamoring for health coverage that the Democrats have been telling us about since the 1940s have turned into just about 400,000 people who have bothered to sign up so far. And how much do you want to bet that those 400,000 will end up making up the lion's share of the up to 900,000 enrollees who have failed to actually pay for their new coverage?

The experts have come up with several good explanations for the lack of interest among the uninsured. They point to the expensive premium and deductible prices, confusing rules, and of course the failed Healthcare.gov website launch.

But here's something no one seems to be addressing, and it's truly the elephant in the room when it comes to people who refuse to get covered now, refused to get covered before Obamacare, and will continue not to get covered forever: You can't fix stupid.

We spend a lot of tax money in this country trying to stamp out stupid with varying degrees of success. But no matter how much we spend and how hard we try, millions of Americans will still smoke, drink to excess, drink and drive, eat unhealthy food, and refuse to be responsible enough to tend to their health and health coverage. And there isn't any website, commercial, or funny viral video on Earth that will change their minds.

So we should stop trying so hard.

The universal individual mandate has always been the weakest operational and theoretical aspect of the ACA, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts had to come up with the crazy idea of reclassifying the entire thing as a tax just to keep it alive. It's a ruling most Americans and Roberts himself will regret for decades to come.

Our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom in this country isn't just a slogan. It means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The freedom to be smart, and the freedom to be stupid. And just because you can't fix stupid, it doesn't mean we should try to fix or amend freedom.

Unfortunately, that's just what Obamacare does by taking money from the responsible portion of society in an attempt to force feed responsibility to another. That's the thing about responsibility: It can't be imposed or transferred from one to another.

President Obama has unilaterally changed the rules of the ACA several times in the past 12 months. There will be more changes to come, including a possible long delay or outright abolition of the entire individual mandate. When - and if - that happens, don't pay attention to all the inevitable excuses that will address everything from blaming bad websites to anti-tea party conspiracy theories.

The real reason will be that the government can't fix stupid without killing freedom. And, as far to the left as America has drifted lately, we haven't quite gone off the deep end.

Obamacare's problem: You can't fix stupid

Dana Milbank: Obama has a problem connecting to young on health care - The Washington Post

Written by Dana Milbank, a left leaning columnist at the Washington Compost

 

[GoIrish41]

Is Bluto the one who thinks Rand Paul would be a disaster because he isn't likable, or was that Buster? I'll wager all my vBucks that IF Paul is the Republican nominee, he'll win at least 45% of the 18-29 vote (Romney got just 37%). Any takers?

Actually, that was me who said that he would be a disaster and I stand by it. People who like him really like him. Most everyone else really doesn't like him. I'd take your bet but the qualifying "if" probably means the bet never happens. I find it implausible that he gets the republican nomination.

 

[RDU Irish]

Actually, that was me who said that he would be a disaster and I stand by it. People who like him really like him. Most everyone else really doesn't like him. I'd take your bet but the qualifying "if" probably means the bet never happens. I find it implausible that he gets the republican nomination.

Couldn't you say that about most politicians, either liked or disliked? I'm not sure how that equates with "disaster" so maybe you can clarify what policy he stands for that would be "disasterous". Plenty of politicians have run for and failed to get a presidential nomination but failure to secure it is not a disaster.

What percent of people even know who he is? You have to consider a good half of voters are pretty clueless and most of the other half are firmly camped in R or D territory. Who is really in play to turn the tide?

I think those who don't like him are either A) democrats who would never vote R anyway, B) Social conservatives who are threatened by his message but are likely to vote AGAINST his opponent democrat.

Outside of democrats, I haven't seen the hate for him, though. Mainstream Republicans are either more scared by his independence (even though they tend to agree philosophically) or think him a loony Libertarian fanatic and have never given him a chance.

I don't like his chances to get the Republican nomination because I think the social conservatives have too much power in the Primaries. Seems folks need to cater to them to get the nomination. If he panders, he is just another politician and loses the message necessary to win the youth, blue dogs and independents. If he doesn't pander, I don't think he stands a chance of getting the nomination.

He also stands to be ostracized by his dad's rabid supporters because he is too moderate and they can be quite idealistic. If they get behind him and accept he is a moderate (I think more realistic) version of his dad and their best chance at legitimacy, you could have a powerful force in your back pocket.

 

[GoIrish41]

Couldn't you say that about most politicians, either liked or disliked? I'm not sure how that equates with "disaster" so maybe you can clarify what policy he stands for that would be "disasterous". Plenty of politicians have run for and failed to get a presidential nomination but failure to secure it is not a disaster.

What percent of people even know who he is? You have to consider a good half of voters are pretty clueless and most of the other half are firmly camped in R or D territory. Who is really in play to turn the tide?

I think those who don't like him are either A) democrats who would never vote R anyway, B) Social conservatives who are threatened by his message but are likely to vote AGAINST his opponent democrat.

Outside of democrats, I haven't seen the hate for him, though. Mainstream Republicans are either more scared by his independence (even though they tend to agree philosophically) or think him a loony Libertarian fanatic and have never given him a chance.

I don't like his chances to get the Republican nomination because I think the social conservatives have too much power in the Primaries. Seems folks need to cater to them to get the nomination. If he panders, he is just another politician and loses the message necessary to win the youth, blue dogs and independents. If he doesn't pander, I don't think he stands a chance of getting the nomination.

He also stands to be ostracized by his dad's rabid supporters because he is too moderate and they can be quite idealistic. If they get behind him and accept he is a moderate (I think more realistic) version of his dad and their best chance at legitimacy, you could have a powerful force in your back pocket.

Put more emphasis on the word "really" in my last post. I know just as many republicans who have distain for Paul than democrats.

I believe his unlikely nomination would be a disaster for the party because he would abandon many of the principals on which republicans have run in both foreign and domestic policy. Given the nation's shift to the left in recent national campaigns (they won the popular vote in 5 of the past 6 elections), if they put a guy out front who turns his back on republican ideals of the recent past, and he loses (which he most certainly would if Hillary runs) it would weaken the party dramatically. What would it mean to be a republican if the party is so publically divided between its traditionalists and the libritarian wing. Forget that the tea baggers will still be fighting for their voices to be heard, too. It would look like despiration to put forth a candidate who isn't a "real" republican just because all of those who are seem to get beaten. It is nothing against Rand Paul per se (although I think he is a bit douchey), I think anybody other than the a candidate from the ranks of the social conservatives (who, like it or not, determine the nominee in that party) will produce similar results. If he doesn't pander, he loses the nomination. If he panders and by some change wins the nomination, he destroys his own credibility with mainstream voters and loses. It extends a trend of inability to win on the national stage that has weakened the republican brand for years. The Republicans need a candidate that can bridge the substantial gaps within their own party -- a candidate who can win the honest support of all the factions within the party -- if they have any chance of facing off with Hillary. And, even if they come up with that perfect candidate, they face a monumental battle. Paul hasn't even gotten a sniff of the kind of scrutiny that he will face as a legitimate presidential candidate. If his attempt during the Benghazi hearings to poke Hillary in the eye are any indication, he isn't even in the same league as she is. She would crush him in a national race and drive another nail in the Republican coffin.

 

[wizards8507]

Put more emphasis on the word "really" in my last post. I know just as many republicans who have distain for Paul than democrats.

I believe his unlikely nomination would be a disaster for the party because he would abandon many of the principals on which republicans have run in both foreign and domestic policy. Given the nation's shift to the left in recent national campaigns (they won the popular vote in 5 of the past 6 elections), if they put a guy out front who turns his back on republican ideals of the recent past, and he loses (which he most certainly would if Hillary runs) it would weaken the party dramatically. What would it mean to be a republican if the party is so publically divided between its traditionalists and the libritarian wing. Forget that the tea baggers will still be fighting for their voices to be heard, too. It would look like despiration to put forth a candidate who isn't a "real" republican just because all of those who are seem to get beaten. It is nothing against Rand Paul per se (although I think he is a bit douchey), I think anybody other than the a candidate from the ranks of the social conservatives (who, like it or not, determine the nominee in that party) will produce similar results. If he doesn't pander, he loses the nomination. If he panders and by some change wins the nomination, he destroys his own credibility with mainstream voters and loses. It extends a trend of inability to win on the national stage that has weakened the republican brand for years. The Republicans need a candidate that can bridge the substantial gaps within their own party -- a candidate who can win the honest support of all the factions within the party -- if they have any chance of facing off with Hillary. And, even if they come up with that perfect candidate, they face a monumental battle. Paul hasn't even gotten a sniff of the kind of scrutiny that he will face as a legitimate presidential candidate. If his attempt during the Benghazi hearings to poke Hillary in the eye are any indication, he isn't even in the same league as she is. She would crush him in a national race and drive another nail in the Republican coffin.

Your mistake is assuming that all libertarian-minded voters are within the republican party. You completely ignore the fact that Rand Paul has broad crossover appeal to libertarian-minded voters who are democrats or non-affiliated (i.e. most of them), ESPECIALLY the young voters that are abandoning Obama in droves. Rand Paul doesn't have to pander because many of his positions fall in the overlap of conservatism (for primary voters) and social libertarianism (for general election voters). For example, he believes that gay marriage is a state issue. The evangelicals in the south would be fine with that because they can go ahead and ban gay marriage in their states, but it wouldn't be a stance that AUTOMATICALLY eliminates him from consideration among gay-friendly general election voters. Those voters wouldn't even give a second glance at Huckabee/Santorum candidates.

You also forget how "automatic" Hillary was in 2008. She was as much of a lock then as you seem to think she is now.

 

[RDU Irish]

Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. I think you over estimate the power of the Clintons and if Hillary couldn't fend off a completely unknown Obama 8 years ago, I really don't see how she will do any better this time around.

Republicans have only shown that they will hold their nose and vote given that McCain and Romney got 44% - 47% of the vote. I mean, who was all that excited about either of those guys!

I agree with Wizard, Rand can punt on the topics of which the bible thumpers will lambast him by pleading states rights. Purists will think it is pussy to say "Not a federal issue so I really don't give two shits either direction" or "My personal beliefs are irrelevant on that topic since I don't see any role in federal government in that space." That's a better cop out than the standard flip flopping garbage you see from everyone else based on whichever group they are pandering to that week.

 

[RDU Irish]

I think we see a governor make a solid run in the Republican primaries. We need to get back to executives in the oval office instead of legislators. My only knock on Rand Paul is that he has no real executive experience and that has been sorely missing from our presidential election options for the last two cycles.

 

[wizards8507]

I think we see a governor make a solid run in the Republican primaries. We need to get back to executives in the oval office instead of legislators. My only knock on Rand Paul is that he has no real executive experience and that has been sorely missing from our presidential election options for the last two cycles.

Mitt was THE "executive" and he got spanked.

 

[GoIrish41]

Your mistake is assuming that all libertarian-minded voters are within the republican party. You completely ignore the fact that Rand Paul has broad crossover appeal to libertarian-minded voters who are democrats or non-affiliated (i.e. most of them), ESPECIALLY the young voters that are abandoning Obama in droves. Rand Paul doesn't have to pander because many of his positions fall in the overlap of conservatism (for primary voters) and social libertarianism (for general election voters). For example, he believes that gay marriage is a state issue. The evangelicals in the south would be fine with that because they can go ahead and ban gay marriage in their states, but it wouldn't be a stance that AUTOMATICALLY eliminates him from consideration among gay-friendly general election voters. Those voters wouldn't even give a second glance at Huckabee/Santorum candidates.

You also forget how "automatic" Hillary was in 2008. She was as much of a lock then as you seem to think she is now.

My "mistake" in assuming that all libertarian-minded voters are within the republican party is moot. Rand Paul would have to get the nomination before any of those democrats or non-affiliated voters would have a chance to vote for him in the general election. I've made similar "mistakes" in suggesting that Romney had no chance to win the last election and McCain/Palin had no chance of winning the one before that. Your mistake is you are letting your admiration for Rand Paul cloud your judgment to the political reality of this country. He is a candidate who appeals to percentage of the populatiion not big enough to carry the day. His only ticket is through the rat hole of the Republican Party, where I cannot see a possible scenario in which he comes out victorious. Your second mistake is to underestimate the savvy and skill of Hillary (and Bill) who are master politicians who have made careers by eating lesser candidates (like Rand Paul) for lunch.

Further, you are hoping against hope to believe evangelicals would be OK with making gay marriage a states rights issue. They tried multiple times for national legislation to ban gay marriage outright, protecting the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. They want the whole country to bend to their will on this issue. The republicans would be absolutely stupid to even attempt to re-try this opinion in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately for them, it will certainly come up a general election, which is why I suggested that Rand Paul being called up to the big leagues on issues such as this would be a disaster. The Republicans are on the wrong side of social issues almost across the board. If Rand Paul didn't take the hard stand the evangelicals wanted, the GOP establishment would destroy him and he wouldn't ever make it out of the primaries.

Finally, NOBODY thought Hillary was a foregone conclusion in 08. You are attempting to revise history to make your point. It was always a battle between her and Obama and it was very, very close. When she lost in a very tightly contested primary, she was always viewed on the left as the next in line. Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the political stature or political machine to make a legitimate challenge and most likely doesn't have the juice to convince his own party he is up to the job.

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree with Wizard, Rand can punt on the topics of which the bible thumpers will lambast him by pleading states rights. Purists will think it is pussy to say "Not a federal issue so I really don't give two shits either direction" or "My personal beliefs are irrelevant on that topic since I don't see any role in federal government in that space." That's a better cop out than the standard flip flopping garbage you see from everyone else based on whichever group they are pandering to that week.

There is no escaping issues on the presidential campaign trail. If it were that easy, politicians would do it all the time. I think you are kidding yourself if you think he could just opt out of questions that the party has held deep convictions on for decades. If he can pull that off, he is a much, much better politician that I am giving him credit for. One route to go would be to just come out and say ... "I don't agree with most of my party on this issue ..." The politician who does that almost automatically wins my respect. That may attract those in the middle who are looking for a real leader. Alas, if he did that he would be ushered out of the election by the establishment.

 

[MJ12666]

Yes typo.

Banking speculation absolutely raises prices from food, to oil, etc.

We had a couple bad years in terms the last couple years but that doesn't account for the rise in prices we have seen the last couple years.

Common I thought the tea party partically started because it was bull that Democrats bailed out these greedy New York wall street bankers that crashed our economy. Now you guys wanna kiss the banking speculators rear ends?

Oil demand is up but so is oil suppy so theorectically there should not have been a significant jump in oil prices. Why has there been? Speculation.

I got no problem with producers and consumers speculating amongst themselves and locking down prices. However when you got banks and wall street brokers gambling and betting up these prices I have a problem with this.

By the way for the Reagan lovers, we didn't do this under him. This has only happened since 2000.

I am going to take my own advise and stop trying to educate you on financial issues. It is simply not worth the time or effort since you are obviously prescient.

 

[GoIrish41]

I am going to take my own advise and stop trying to educate you on financial issues. It is simply not worth the time or effort since you are obviously prescient.

Kind of a dickish post.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

To those on the left: you who say candidate "ABC" would be terrible for the GOP, I'm sitting here laughing. If they are a terrible option, the left should be giddy about that GOP candidate getting the nod. You got two gift wrapped softies in 2008 and 2012 with McCain and Romney.

As a conservative, I'd love to see the DNC roll out another Kerry or Edwards again haha.

 

[wizards8507]

There is no escaping issues on the presidential campaign trail. If it were that easy, politicians would do it all the time. I think you are kidding yourself if you think he could just opt out of questions that the party has held deep convictions on for decades. If he can pull that off, he is a much, much better politician that I am giving him credit for. One route to go would be to just come out and say ... "I don't agree with most of my party on this issue ..." The politician who does that almost automatically wins my respect. That may attract those in the middle who are looking for a real leader. Alas, if he did that he would be ushered out of the election by the establishment.

He already HAS done that. He's gone after the establishment a number of times, most recently at CPAC. Maybe I underestimate the impact of the evangelicals but I'm growing more confident in the party base shifting towards a libertarian candidate in the primary.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[GoIrish41]

To those on the left: you who say candidate "ABC" would be terrible for the GOP, I'm sitting here laughing. If they are a terrible option, the left should be giddy about that GOP candidate getting the nod. You got two gift wrapped softies in 2008 and 2012 with McCain and Romney.

As a conservative, I'd love to see the DNC roll out another Kerry or Edwards again haha.

I am happy about it but at some point there needs to be a viable alternative to the liberal point of view to keep the country centered. I'm a democrat but rcognize the need for a check to unchecked liberaism. The GOP is shifting the politics of this country toward their political rivals.

 

[chicago51]

I am going to take my own advise and stop trying to educate you on financial issues. It is simply not worth the time or effort since you are obviously prescient.

Sorry I my views don't line up with your Fox News talking points.

Excuse me for thinking Milton Friedman isn't a god.

 

[Bluto]

To those on the left: you who say candidate "ABC" would be terrible for the GOP, I'm sitting here laughing. If they are a terrible option, the left should be giddy about that GOP candidate getting the nod. You got two gift wrapped softies in 2008 and 2012 with McCain and Romney.

As a conservative, I'd love to see the DNC roll out another Kerry or Edwards again haha.

Frankly the big reason I'm praying for a Democratic win is the judicial appointments. Couldn't imagine what kind of backward thinking judges Ted Cruz would appoint. Actually I could...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I am happy about it but at some point there needs to be a viable alternative to the liberal point of view to keep the country centered. I'm a democrat but rcognize the need for a check to unchecked liberaism. The GOP is shifting the politics of this country toward their political rivals.

We have the US Constitution, even if there isn't one Republican in DC.

 

[GoIrish41]

We have the US Constitution, even if there isn't one Republican in DC.

As much as I fear a country with modern republicans in charge and the great deal of social and economic harm that could come to this nation as a result, I also suspect that unchecked liberal influence has the potential for damage as well. There is plenty of harm that can be done to this nation within the restraints of the Constitution. Picutre a political system stacked with a Democrat or Republican majority in both houses, a president of the same political stripe and a supreme court loaded with like-minded justices. The Constitution is all about interpretation. If one political ilk has a decades-long stretch of power, imagine how their interpretations could allow for massive change. That is why, while I am a liberal Democrat, I understand the need for a counter argument that keeps the country in balance. The Constitution on its own cannot do that. It is designed to be flexible to adapt. It should be easy for you to grasp the type of damage you believe unchecked liberalism could do to this country. You go on and on about how a president less than half way through his second term without the benefit of a full majority in Congress (most of his presidency) and a liberal minded supreme court majority is destroying the country with Obamacare, making us look weak on the world stage, etc., etc. Imaging three Democrats in a row, serving two terms each unrestricted by the other branches of government to interpret the Constituion at will. By the time you are my age, you would be going completely out of your fucking mind with rage against the government. lol. If you are honest, you will be able to apply the same line of thinking to the Republicans and recognize how much damage they could do if they are unrestricted to do whatever they want. As much as I disagree with the Republicans on a whole host of issues, their viewpoint is necessary for balance and the effective administration of our system of government.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

As much as I fear a country with modern republicans in charge and the great deal of social and economic harm that could come to this nation as a result, I also suspect that unchecked liberal influence has the potential for damage as well. There is plenty of harm that can be done to this nation within the restraints of the Constitution. Picutre a political system stacked with a Democrat or Republican majority in both houses, a president of the same political stripe and a supreme court loaded with like-minded justices. The Constitution is all about interpretation. If one political ilk has a decades-long stretch of power, imagine how their interpretations could allow for massive change. That is why, while I am a liberal Democrat, I understand the need for a counter argument that keeps the country in balance. The Constitution on its own cannot do that. It is designed to be flexible to adapt. It should be easy for you to grasp the type of damage you believe unchecked liberalism could do to this country. You go on and on about how a president less than half way through his second term without the benefit of a full majority in Congress (most of his presidency) and a liberal minded supreme court majority is destroying the country with Obamacare, making us look weak on the world stage, etc., etc. Imaging three Democrats in a row, serving two terms each unrestricted by the other branches of government to interpret the Constituion at will. By the time you are my age, you would be going completely out of your fucking mind with rage against the government. lol. If you are honest, you will be able to apply the same line of thinking to the Republicans and recognize how much damage they could do if they are unrestricted to do whatever they want. As much as I disagree with the Republicans on a whole host of issues, their viewpoint is necessary for balance and the effective administration of our system of government.

Fair enough.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Institutional racism

Cops: 4 kids left alone, child wanders naked in street

 

[GowerND11]

My "mistake" in assuming that all libertarian-minded voters are within the republican party is moot. Rand Paul would have to get the nomination before any of those democrats or non-affiliated voters would have a chance to vote for him in the general election. I've made similar "mistakes" in suggesting that Romney had no chance to win the last election and McCain/Palin had no chance of winning the one before that. Your mistake is you are letting your admiration for Rand Paul cloud your judgment to the political reality of this country. He is a candidate who appeals to percentage of the populatiion not big enough to carry the day. His only ticket is through the rat hole of the Republican Party, where I cannot see a possible scenario in which he comes out victorious. Your second mistake is to underestimate the savvy and skill of Hillary (and Bill) who are master politicians who have made careers by eating lesser candidates (like Rand Paul) for lunch.

Further, you are hoping against hope to believe evangelicals would be OK with making gay marriage a states rights issue. They tried multiple times for national legislation to ban gay marriage outright, protecting the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. They want the whole country to bend to their will on this issue. The republicans would be absolutely stupid to even attempt to re-try this opinion in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately for them, it will certainly come up a general election, which is why I suggested that Rand Paul being called up to the big leagues on issues such as this would be a disaster. The Republicans are on the wrong side of social issues almost across the board. If Rand Paul didn't take the hard stand the evangelicals wanted, the GOP establishment would destroy him and he wouldn't ever make it out of the primaries.

Finally, NOBODY thought Hillary was a foregone conclusion in 08. You are attempting to revise history to make your point. It was always a battle between her and Obama and it was very, very close. When she lost in a very tightly contested primary, she was always viewed on the left as the next in line. Rand Paul doesn't have nearly the political stature or political machine to make a legitimate challenge and most likely doesn't have the juice to convince his own party he is up to the job.

A little late to this one but here it goes:

First bolded: Rand Paul probably fits the mold best for most American voters out of all potential candidates. More and more people are socially liberal that is a fact, and the best part about his libertarian views is they fit that category through individual and state rights. Allowing the citizens to determine their own good and allowing states to have autonomy is something many voters can get behind from both sides of the spectrum. He can still appeal to the conservative base through the economy which will allow more Rs to potentially see him as a viable candidate. People are either not educated enough (most likely true) or feel they HAVE to vote for a D or R, especially one that corresponds to the party line, because the Ds and Rs dominate our political landscape.

Second bolded: This is what is wrong with politics. It sounds stupid, but we allow politicians to run our nation and politics. So because Bill and Hilary are savvy and experienced in the "art" of winning elections that means they are the best candidate? No. no, no. They are just like other career politicians in that they spew false words and promise the world only to do what they see fit. Politicians have the biggest egos, it is all about themselves and leaving a legacy instead of serving the constituents that elected them.

Third bolded: i absolutely think the religious right would be happy with a states rights vote. Number one, it should be a state issue, which is supposed to be what the right is about, states rights. Second, those religious conservative states can do what they deem fit, and ban gay marriage in their states. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it would be done the proper way. It is better to determine what is best for states than an entire nation. The politicians are so far removed from what people want while they are serving in DC and they try to make blanket laws and acts to serve the entire country while the needs and wants of the people are completely different, especially state to state.

 

[GoIrish41]

A little late to this one but here it goes:

First bolded: Rand Paul probably fits the mold best for most American voters out of all potential candidates. More and more people are socially liberal that is a fact, and the best part about his libertarian views is they fit that category through individual and state rights. Allowing the citizens to determine their own good and allowing states to have autonomy is something many voters can get behind from both sides of the spectrum. He can still appeal to the conservative base through the economy which will allow more Rs to potentially see him as a viable candidate. People are either not educated enough (most likely true) or feel they HAVE to vote for a D or R, especially one that corresponds to the party line, because the Ds and Rs dominate our political landscape.

Second bolded: This is what is wrong with politics. It sounds stupid, but we allow politicians to run our nation and politics. So because Bill and Hilary are savvy and experienced in the "art" of winning elections that means they are the best candidate? No. no, no. They are just like other career politicians in that they spew false words and promise the world only to do what they see fit. Politicians have the biggest egos, it is all about themselves and leaving a legacy instead of serving the constituents that elected them.

Third bolded: i absolutely think the religious right would be happy with a states rights vote. Number one, it should be a state issue, which is supposed to be what the right is about, states rights. Second, those religious conservative states can do what they deem fit, and ban gay marriage in their states. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it would be done the proper way. It is better to determine what is best for states than an entire nation. The politicians are so far removed from what people want while they are serving in DC and they try to make blanket laws and acts to serve the entire country while the needs and wants of the people are completely different, especially state to state.

First bolded: We don't agree on Paul's political appeal, but the discussion was about his viability as the candidate for President. To become that, he would have to navigate the Republican primaries, which, I have argued, would be his undoing because he would either have to compromise his core beliefs to get said nomination (which would set him up for failure in the general), or alienate the base and thereby be torn to shreds during the primary. I honestly can't think of a candidate within the party right now that would be better (which isn't saying a lot) but I don't see how he navigates the journey without considerable damage to his currently consistent message.

Second bolded: I don't like it any more than you do, believe me. But, that is the political reality we live in. I'm often accused of looking toward a progressive utopia where social ills are erased by effective government. But, the fact of the matter is that I'm more of a realist than a dreamer. It is a political fact that Bill and Hillary are effective at getting elected. It is equally true that they have proven to be effective once getting elected. It is difficult to argue with the results. Similarly, Hillary has been widely praised by those on both sides of the isle for her work in Congress and then as Sec of State. Both also happen to be ruthless politicians who do what it takes to get into office, where they can actually get things done. Perhaps they are exceptions to the rule of those who just want to hold office with no real will to govern effectively. I strongly believe that they had the will to govern and the skill and talent to do so effectively. Nothing about Rand Paul gives me that same confidence. It is why experience matters.

Third bolded: We can agree to disagree on this point. The "states right" argument is one that they use to divert attention away from national movements flowing away from their point of view. On all of the big social/moral issues in my lifetime, they sought national legislation to bend the country to their line of thought. Now that they are not on strong footing, they have retreated to these states rights arguments that, for me, demonstrate an inconsistency in their positions.

 

[RDU Irish]

Mitt was THE "executive" and he got spanked.

Doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a better president than any given Senator.

Seems many equate winning an election with being a successful president.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The New Republic just published an article comparing Cruz and Paul. Might of be interest to those debating his electoral prospects.

 

[wizards8507]

The New Republic just published an article comparing Cruz and Paul. Might of be interest to those debating his electoral prospects.

The article lost me in paragraph one by misusing the term "conservative" and somehow implying that John McCain represents the mainstream of the Republican party.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The article lost me in paragraph one by misusing the term "conservative" and somehow implying that John McCain represents the mainstream of the Republican party.

On foreign policy, he definitely does.