Trump: Primary Three functions of government are Healthcare, Education, Security
This wasn't even a gotcha question. It was an open-ended solicitation for opinion. That Donald Trump thinks this is the role of government tells me all I need to know about his suitability to be President. He either doesn't understand the proper role of government, or he is just as socialist as Bernie and Hillary. Either way it tells me what my research has continued to tell me all along: Trump will not be a Constitutional President if elected.
Get a clue sheeple. The GOP just wants to harvest you, and HRM Donnie is only different in that he doesn't hide it as well. The Democrats just want power. None of the above care a bit about individual liberty, free markets, or constitutional limits on government.
The choice for voters couldn't be clearer.
Stop enabling
Take Control
Make changes
Part three is where you make all welfare taxable and tie the total amount provided to the minimum wage so it's always more profitable to just go to work.
This brothers keeper stuff doesn't mean giving them the house, the store charge cards, the bank accounts and making it both tax free and without inheritance tax.
But steps one and two come first.
you want to bring the house of cards down?
Quit contributing...
I've often said that if you assigned someone to sit at a desk and do nothing but look out the window, you would be able to come back in five years and find the "looking out the window" department with a manager, assistant and three "viewers" one of them a "senior viewer".
I'm reminded my friends int he military have some protection in the area of job preference and job reclaiming preference the civil employees the 'bureaurats' have ...zero.
That takes a coalition such as the Republicans and Democrats have built. Right and Left Wing of the Left Coalition AKA Socialists on a good day...
Even if things went the way you would like above, ti would simply make it more likely that a progressive national socialist would get in office, having a poison pill that takes 10% or 15% of the vote away from a republican candidate would be so very helpful. (note the sarcasm dripping on this statement)
Gary Johnson should run on the republican ticket and keep his platform he has. That would perhaps do something.
Instead
But you won't get it by enabling ....
Cease Enabling
Take Power
Make Change
in that order.
The proper functions of government are crime prevention, security from invasion, and peaceful dispute resolution.
TRUMP: Health care - we need health care for our people. We need a good - Obamacare is a disaster. It's proven to be...
COOPER: But is that something the federal government should be doing?
TRUMP: The government can lead it, but it should be privately done. It should be privately done. So that health care - in my opinion, we should probably have - we have to have private health care. We don't have competition in health care.
But Trump also said Education was a Federal task. This again highlights how clueless Trump is about the proper role of government and the Constitutional separation of powers. Someone who is running for the highest office in the land (and arguably the world) should know better.
I'm not going for all-or-nothing. If I can get a President who will not only slow down the path toward socialism but actually move the dial back a little in some areas -- I'll consider it a pretty good deal.
The progressives will always increment government control and we are the frogs slowly being boiled. Anyone who tries to take away any of their "gains' will be subjected to a blistering attack by the media. We need someone who can stand up to that.
Does Trump's positions match my goals? Not entirely but then no one's do. If we can scale back the government even a little it will be a major accomplishment.
Cruz matches my positions better but I doubt his ability to actually implement -- other than signing executive orders.
This thread has much evidence to back that up, so does the article here, but some reason the pissed off angry people that support him are so blinded to anything he says or does that should be a warning sign that they refuse to see it, to see reality.
.
Welcome to why I quit voting.
The crony capitalist has used tax schemes, imminent domain and bankruptcy. He has admitted to giving campaign donations to politicians with the intent that when he needs something he makes a call and they give him what he needs. Sound like Boyle and the gang from atlas shrugged.
Meanwhile the constitutional candidate has argued before the supreme court on constitution cases and won in favor of the constitution.
He is the only politician I know of that when campaigning told people opposite of what they wanted to here (he would do away with subsidies when asked about ethanol and corn crop subsidies)
But the second guy is bad because he is religious.
Rational or objective, not by any measure.
I'm equally insulted at the 'bully' tactics that have grown out of Black Lives Matter. Look at North Carolina, Apple refusing to do business there if they sign a law requiring people to use the bathroom and locker room that reflects their natural plumbing. What an f'ing concept, and only serves to protect the rights of others. My answer "Fine - we can pull those Apple Store occupancy permits in Raleigh, Durham, etc., we can send the Fire Marshall by at every new product release date so they can count how many people are in the stores, we can stop buying Apples for k-12 and colleges schools, and ban state employees from using iphones. BofA doesn't like it, fine, we don't need to offer direct-deposit to BofA accounts for state employees either. That bullying has gotten out of hand. People have rights to their beliefs and the culture of their communities.
I'm swtiching to Mangos and Pears.
Israel held up their end of the deal. The Palestinians didn't. The attacks stopped for a couple of months and then started right back up again with the Palestinians complaining that they didn't get enough land and that Israel needed to cede even more. Now there are almost daily attacks either from rockets or suicide attackers on the people of Israel. And all this while the Israelis have been giving jobs to many of the Palestinians because the Palestinian government spends the millions of dollars in aid money they get (some of it from the US) to build rockets and dig tunnels!
Peace only happens when both sides want it and the Islamic world does not want peace - either with Israel or anyone else. There is never going to be a settlement to the conflict over there until one side is obliterated. What we should be doing is looking at which of the two actually holds with the ideas of freedom and democracy and productive contribution to the rest of the world. It makes it a really easy decision which side to take.
So from day 1, the palestinians hated the jews and wanted the complete destruction of Israel, which they have stuck to ever since. There is no other solution for them than elimination of the jews and israel. Thats why the conflict goes on to this day, and will continue.
The US got involved (I think that was a mistake) and propped up Israel with billions upon billions of our country's resources. There was no real solution to this issue other than for the Israelis to kill off the palestinians, or vice versa.
If I were an Israeli, I would leave the damn place even though its a "shrine" for their religion and go live somewhere where I wasnt hated.
Trump is right that its time for Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences. Either they kill off one side or the other, or they find some common ground. He is the only one who says we should be neutral and see if there really IS a solution (other than mass genocide). He says it would the toughest negotiation he would ever do, and it may not work. Thats telling it like it is.
On the other hand Cruz would just continue business as usual, giving billions to enable Israel to continue fighting terrorism and getting nowhere.
Why does the US "prop up" Israel? Because we share the same emphasis on freedom and economy! We do tremendous business with the Israelis - despite them not having any oil! After oil, we get nothing from any other nation in the Arab Middle East. All they do is use our own money to scheme about how to manipulate the price of oil in their favor. It's called OPEC - it's a topic you might want to do some more research on.
"If I were an Israeli, I would leave the damn place even though its a "shrine" for their religion and go live somewhere where I wasnt hated."
[facepalm] That was the whole point about them getting their own country in the first place! They had just had tens of millions of their people massacred!
"Trump is right that its time for Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences."
You weren't satisfied with that leg, huh? [shaking head in disbelief] You're making the ouroboros jealous.
The Israeli/Arab conflict is an irreconcilable problem - that what pragmatists like Trump can not comprehend. Like Bill Clinton, they only see the $$$ and their own status from one more negotiation. They have no concept of political or religious identity, what it means, or how that is a part of the very being of those people. Unless you have actually spent time over there, Americans can not understand because we are used to being able to do pretty much whatever we want ideologically without fear of repercussions. We live in a very privileged world, but it is a world Muslim nations do not share with us. Part of being a Jew is a connection to the history of that land and what it stands for. It's a concept few Americans can comprehend and one that we have not had to face as a nation - let alone individuals. We do not grow up with a mandate to visit a land far from our birth at least once in life (Muslims) or having our history of persecution, slavery, and deliverance revisited every year (Jewish passover).
"On the other hand Cruz would just continue business as usual, giving billions to enable Israel to continue fighting terrorism and getting nowhere."
So first you take the position that Donald Trump would just solve the problem. Then you admit that maybe he can't solve the problem. Then before you actually present a potential solution to the problem, you criticize the one plan that has been around for 60+ years through presidents and diplomats of both parties. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe such folly. It is no wonder you sympathize with Donald Trump. It doesn't require any actual thought.
We can't change the history of the area. It is what it is. All we can do is deal with what we have now. Neither can we can't force either side to change their minds. Neither do we have the moral authority to dictate the terms of how each group uses their land. Here are the options we have:
1. Take no side. We can refuse to give money to either side and let them battle it out. If we do that, it is just like taking the side of the Palestinians (see below).
2. Take both sides (the one we currently do). We give both sides money and aid. We give Israel aid in the form of fighters and aircraft and money with which they develop their own firearms and ground weapon systems (take a look at their systems - they are pretty impressive). And we know that's where they are going to use the money. We give money to the Palestinians - ostensibly for infrastructure projects like building schools. They turn around and use the money to build rockets to fire at Israel, tunnels to use to capture Israelis or engage in suicide attacks, and payments to the families of the martyrs. And even though we tell them that's not where they are supposed to be using their money, we keep giving it to them knowing they will keep doing the same thing.
3. Overtly take a side.
a. If we side with the Palestinians, it will mean that we choose to abandon the only pro-democracy and pro-market nation in the region. It will mean that we will side with those whom even the State Department has listed on the terror watch list. We wouldn't be fighting terrorism, we'd be joining it. It would result in the ultimate destruction of the nation of Israel. Bully for us.
b. If we side with the Israelis, it means that we will call upon ourselves the wrath of 2 billion Muslims across the globe. It means that we are forced to confront an ideology that currently occupies 98 of 100 top positions on the global terror watch list. It means open war, and dragging most of our allies - even some Muslim allies - into a World War III that would dwarf all previous wars. We would even have to go to war with the Muslim believers in our own nation. Just wonderful!
Given the options, which one would you choose? To me, staying the present course isn't all that unreasonable.
On every issue I have presented I have pointed out the positions Mr. Trump takes. I have agreed with some, and I have disagreed with many. But the thing I am most disappointed with is how little thought Trump puts into actually forming his policy decisions. Everything seems to be off-the-cuff, spur-of-the-moment, or unscripted. That's fine for a reality TV persona, but as the potential President of the United States, it is a recipe for disaster.
You want a very different kind of President than I do. You want a populist that says things loudly and likes to hear himself talk. I want a Constitutionalist with well-thought-out positions and a history of doing what he says he will do. We're each entitled to our own opinions on the matter. What a great land!
Seriously. I've met some people on this forum with whom I've disagreed but at least had an intelligent discussion. You keep running back to the same debunked talking points or assert the false choice that if I do not support Donald Trump (who has yet to be crowned either the Republican nominee or President of the United States) that somehow I am voting for Hillary Clinton (who similarly has neither been crowned the Democratic nominee nor President of the United States).
Now I supported the points you made where you expressed your desire that government be limited and campaign finance reform a positive step forward. I also support your ability to select for President whom you choose. But you've made very few other arguments which have held up to the level of scrutiny you will commonly see here in the Gulch. You certainly have not impressed me with a cogent, well-thought-out argument in favor of your preferred candidate and quite frankly, the repetition is not only pedantic, but pointless.
You have made your choice. I've made mine. We'll see how things play out.
The basic problem with elections in the USA ( and you might even agree with this) is that the president and the congress have carte blanche to take our money and our rights, which shouldnt be at all. Thats why contributors spend 200 million to elect their candidate and get political favors they want. If the country had a real constitution that protected our rights (which it does not), we would be electing a nexecutive adminstrator and congressional administrators who would run the country efficiently, but could not tax or take away our rights. The qualifications of the person as an efficient administrator would be the issues, not all this nonsense about whose rights would possibly be abridged by one candidate or another.
As for the rest...
A short answer to your proposal? Any time you invest in anyone a supervisory or leadership role there exists the opportunity for that individual to abuse the powers of their position. They can attempt to enlist help in the form of cronies by paying them or promising them power, but the notion that there would ever be a government which could never infringe on natural rights presupposes the notion of humans who never seek for power.
Trump is a lot more honest than any of the other remaining candidates and hides less (possible exception of Sanders on the honesty part), and he would make a great administrator. Better than any of the other candidates for sure.
Our nation has been corrupted slowly over the last 200 years by the usurpations of power bit by ever-so-tiny bit by all branches of government. The People themselves in the Seventeenth Amendment eradicated one of the biggest checks on the Federal Government then in existence: the States by making Senators a popular election rather than an election by State government. Go spend some time reading the history of each Amendment after the Tenth and you may see the hints of usurpation begin to creep in.
If you truly want to make this country great again, I suggest you start by understanding the Constitution of the United States, its founding, its principles, and its original intent. Compare that to what we have now and then determine how we went from one to the other. It may take a while, but it is well-spent time.
Health care ...mmmmm didn't find that in their either
When he added the last point was he thinking protective echelon?
He means preparation for senicide or killing off the elderly.
On the other hand it could be
If one listened closely, trump said security was the most important function of federal government, federal dept of education should be closed and should be a state thing,and medical care should be private.
If the idiot Cooper had asked the other two candidates the same questions, I really doubt any of them would have promoted dissolution of all public school right now, and dissolution of all Medicare and medicaid right now. Not even the conditional and bible thumping Cruz
No president today could get Congress to go along with those things. At least trump wants to scale them back. That's a good thing. Kasich wouldn't scale anything back and Cruz would want to put his into government
There are no John galts running for president in ,2016. The closest was rand Paul and look how far he got. And even if a John galt became president by some accident, the establishment Congress elected by the philosophically challenged citizens would certainly oppose him at every turn
Before we get a John galt as president, major philosophical changes are required
Yes, but then those shouldn't be roles of the Federal Government, should they? What Trump should have said if he really believes the above (which I question) is to turn the question on its head and say "Here are three things the Federal Government should not be involved in: Education, Healthcare, and ..." The way he said it was to declare one thing and then attempt to backtrack and reverse his position. At the very least it is confusing and terrible communications. At worst it is an openly contradictory statement. And given that Trump has even recently stated he was in favor of single-payer, I can't really take anything Donald Trump says at face value.
I think one of the things that bothers me about Trump is that he doesn't give thoughtful answers. Look at the transcripts to any one of his interview sessions and he's always trying to jump in and say something before the interviewer finishes asking the question. (Now Trump isn't the only one - Chris Matthews does the same thing.) A huge part of communications is actually listening to the other person - not just listening to yourself yammer on. What I think happened here is that "The Donald" was so impatient to talk that he didn't stop to thoroughly think through the question and form a cohesive and cogent answer. Any time I listen to Trump all I hear is someone more interested in hearing themselves talk than actually give consideration to the question being asked. That is a serious flaw in my book. Silence is very useful sometimes in communication because it gives everyone a chance to stop and think, instead of going off on knee-jerk reactions. As we saw with the whole wife attack, Trump was very eager to jump into the fray there without doing research; without any thought.
He kinda reminds me of a favorite snack called stegosaurus.
Old Dino once read that paleontologists believe that critter had two brains. One was in its head and the other was near its butt.
When I was a kid I read that a stego has two brains.
Today I did about five minutes of research to learn that scientists once thought that but no longer do.
They are both the same, the only thing that makes trump worse is that he will move the republican party even further away from small government and towards progressive libritarian
When I say there are more important issues now to deal with, like getting rid of the war on drugs, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget deficit and things like that which will affect us all. I dont know the numbers, but I suspect there arent a lot of very late abortions being done now anyway which could be classified as murder. I think Rand weighed in on this one and as I remember said something like the fetus isnt a person until it can live outside the uterus.
I don't know if the framers had healthcare in mind, but in a modern era, I suppose that could be "promoting the general welfare" and most certainly education is part of that.
I don't think anyone is going to deny that a sound educational system is essential to our Republic, and to its economic growth - but whether the government 'directs' or just provides some resource assistance is another matter.
I personally think that certain things, only government 'can do' and ensure they are done - I wouldn't want to rely on the local police force contract for example, although we kind of do with unions, but to the greatest extent possible - police and fire protection need to be there without getting a bill in the mail for showing up after calling them.
I don't like to weigh-in on public education, I had a fantastic public school education in a rural area of northern Minnesota where the entire town's focus was quality education. Many in my high school class went on to the armed forces, medical school, advanced degrees, excluding a few that chose to stay there and drink themselves to death. But I know public education can work, it comes down to management and our unwillingness to fire people that are incompetent, so problems fester and corruption becomes rampant.
I also think that a minimum level of healthcare should be part of the social safety net, not necessarily plastic surgery & what-not, but we shouldn't have people dying of typhoid in the streets and if we did something about mental health, the homelessness in our cities would diminish greatly. To a large extent, their ability to get a job (in an able to work sense) can lead to getting them off the same safety net. We just don't do anything to encourage that social climb, that's the problem. Putting my general belief and theory into a workable plan with a union-driven local government is an entirely different issue and problem.
The government does a decent job of running the military, but there are no unions there and if you don't follow an order, you will probably be court-martialed or face an Article 15 Summary Judgement.
Same thing with federal health care. I had a lot better insurance situation BEFORE obamacare. It cost me 1/3 as much and there was $1000 max out of pocket instead of $6000+. Obamacare has NO competition and should be repealed.
Methods, efficiency, and effectiveness are the realm for political debate, but ultimately those three things and probably a couple of more are in the government's wheelhouse in some way, shape, or form. I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a necessary and 'good' government. I believe in limited government as well, but essential services are just that "essential".
There was once a day when a country doctor could open up a shop that was built on his own land, or the land was given to him/her, no mortgage, a few pennies a day for a secretary or whatever and cash-payment for services rendered. With pharmaceutical therapy, lease payments of thousands of dollars per use on an MRI/CT/PET scanners, radiology, etc., it's not practical to do purely fee for service and ultimately some societal level baseline support is needed for modern medicine (whether that is HMOs, PPO's, single-payer, whatever) again is an argument for political theory.
We can then move onto whether the government should, for example, be employing 3 million federal civil servants and at least as many contractors, whether it should be sponsoring (paying for) advanced research, or if the EPA should be regulating small businesses or if there should even be a minimum wage statute. I'll gladly take on those conversations as well and always with a very "90%" far-right leaning - I'm not pegging the red line on conservatism, but I'm pretty darn close. One of the largest line-items in the budget behind Medicare & Social Security and Defense is going to be the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you pay in $600 for income taxes, you sure-as-shit shouldn't be getting a $9,000 tax refund. So promoting the common welfare is a responsibility for government, income redistribution most certainly is not.
Again, whether that is the business of government is enumerated in the Constitution. That slightly-off-redline in me will also acknowledge that the framers didn't foresee strip-mining or petrochemicals, so we probably do need an efficient and effective environmental control and I believe the forests and natural beauty of our country should be protected indefinitely with the national park system. Or, quite honestly, people would destroy those things. I live near Folsom, California, people think we have these weird little molehills everywhere, no, that's the tailings from the gold dredges that dug 100 feet down in the American River Valley and spit out 2 inch rocks in literally, thousands of 40-foot tall piles along its banks. I don't believe in destroying the rights of future generations to enjoy our heritage, we're not Chinese.
So, responsibility yes, how that is executed is very debatable and I'll be on the conservative side of the aisle in all cases.
As to medical care, I would still like it ot be private. The problem with insurance is that at one time or another we will all need a lot of medical care. Its not like flood insurance, where nonly a few people will actually use it. Everyone is going to get sick and eventually die, so an argument could be made that overall, the amount you pay in premiums should cover quite a large set of bills that you will incur.
The philosophical argument for a conservative will always start with "No", and the next question is 'then what?' and it's not a good place to be in for the argument.
I think we do too much in most cases, and we don't get any return on the dollar invested. Delivery, effectiveness and efficiency is going to be the mechanism of the debate between right and left, but whether we should do those things I don't think is really in question. Yes, we should. How and how much is always going to be the argument.
We also have the question of when parents abdicate their duties. If they neglect and ignore their kids, society will probably inherit the problem. Is it in the country's best interest to require those kids to attend school and get an education. I'd argue yes -because we are respecting the children's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - because their parents inaction trespasses on their children's rights.
Rights and freedoms are always yours, in my opinion, until they infringe on someone else's rights. I'll defend liberty, and have with a rifle and blood, and I'll defend the blessings of liberty and freedom of speech, until someone denies that right that someone else has.
We should be analyzing all government activities in terms of what good we get for the amount they take from us. Governments seem to get a get-out-of-jail card when it comes to accountability. They always excuse inefficiency by saying they need MORE money. If you are spending what you have inefficiently, I dont see how giving more money improves efficiency...
Regulation is where things run amok, if things only happen by legislation, enough people weigh-in on the debate and there are checks & balances to keep some of that at bay. Regulation happens in smoke-filled rooms away from public scrutiny.
Perhaps, but the way he said it was at best confusing and at worst contradictory. Trump would have done better to just pause, collect his thoughts and then respond that they were three important issues facing our nation, but that he would say healthcare and education were better handled by the private sector. The way he actually phrased it established one line of thinking and his details went the other way.
"I personally think that certain things, only government 'can do' and ensure they are done"
I agree. I think there are some things most effectively and efficiently done at a governmental level. The question is at which level is a particular service Constitutional and, secondly, most effective.
"But I know public education can work, it comes down to management and our unwillingness to fire people that are incompetent..."
You admirably point out the keys that make it either work (or not). But I think we will both agree that education is best done at a local level and that the Federal Government should get out of the way entirely. I've see both sides of both public and private education and seen flaws either way.
"I also think that a minimum level of healthcare should be part of the social safety net..."
I think we would both agree, however, that the Federal Government should not be involved in healthcare at all - not only because it is unConstitutional, but because it is inefficient and ineffective. Even at a State level, however, I would argue that it is a slippery slope argument and that it only exacerbates perhaps the biggest problem in the healthcare system: the third-party payer problem. I say it is a slippery slope because then you're getting into which services and procedures you're going to cover and which ones you aren't, which is bound to be mired in politics. The easier solution is to allow patients and doctors to negotiate directly on services and payments. If one wants to allow a patient to submit such expenses for payment by a government safety net, I will allow that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment seem to put those powers in the nands of the States to try out.
"The government does a decent job of running the military, but there are no unions..."
Lol. I'm just trying to imagine what a union-run military could even look like. I'm just getting pictures of a battlefield commander ordering a recovery unit out to repair a damaged tank and the recovery unit lieutenant responding to the order with "Well, we're on break right now, but we'll get back to it in another half-hour. And those repairs are probably going to take a couple of days to complete because that kind of work requires two extra guys to hand us parts..."
Same thing with others, airports and hospitals are expensive and the pooled resources of the nation can benefit us as a whole, because you don't build those every day. Some states with a lot of resources like California and New York are really just 'donor states' and never get back what their populace pays in, if they get 60 cents on the dollar, they are lucky, and it does necessarily lead to higher taxes in those states. Others, like Alaska, get back $1.50 or more on the dollar they contribute. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it's probably strength of their politicians. California and New York are also dead-last in the primary season if you notice, so we're very, very low on the 'promises' lists.
What I'm saying is that he's not necessarily wrong, if anything, it's the educated answer to the question because the detail wasn't asked.
Trump needs to stop whining about how everyone is treating him "unfairly". He ought to read Bill Gates' book about rules for business. #1 is that life isn't fair and just get over it. (I also like one of the others which is never make fun of nerds because you're likely to end up working for one.)
Trump is not run by political correctness, which is one thing I like about him. Running in the public arena is ALL about political correctness and appearing one way or another to gain votes (unfortunately). I am not surprised therefore that the so called reporters trap him in ways to show he isnt politically correct. He may never survive this, but it would be unfortunate to be saddled with the evil witch woman who is VERY good at handling political correctness and telling a majority what they want to hear. Of course after being elected, she will simply do what her contributors tell her to do (As Obama has done)
hehe. If only. I think that's been primarily relegated to the X-Files now. ;)
"Trump is not run by political correctness, which is one thing I like about him."
Political correctness is one thing. It is quite another to fly off at the mouth in undisciplined response about every topic that comes up. Would Hillary be worse for this nation? I don't doubt it. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Trump hasn't secured the nomination - nor has Hillary. Until those respective events take place, I will keep my options open.
I would also point out that Trump fares very badly in polls in a one-on-one contest against Hillary Clinton. The only poll in which Trump wins is the Fox poll, and even in that one it is a statistical ties. In many of the others he's getting blown out as bad as John McCain to Obama in the 2008 election.
Trump is under constant attack by establishment people. He gets blindsided all the time by people who want to make him look bad. Thats a terrible thing to have to deal with, and its why presidents have handlers who tell him through teleprompters what to say. But you get Obama promising to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan during the election, and yet we are still over there 8 years later.
Hillary is bought and paid for. She has powerful supporters. She will get the election with her "superdelegates" no matter what Sanders does. I would rather Sanders wins the democratic nomination actually. He is more honest and lays out his plans for all to see. Hillary is just telling us what her handlers tell her to say.
I dont listen to polls run by people who have a vested interest. He would do best against Hillary I think than any of the other candidates.
Tell me how Kasich could possible win against hillary if he can only win one repub state primary out of 30-something. And how could Cruz win against hillary if he is way far below Trump in voter support. Just doesnt make sense to me. Maybe Trump would lose against Hillary, but that just means the country is too far gone socialist to be even slowed down
If you believe the polls.
If you want someone to explain the vote differentiation between Cruz and Trump, I would first point out that in the 2008 election year, the critical point was when Rudy Guiliani dropped out. That left McCain (a centrist/RINO) and two "evangelicals" in Romney and Huckabee. Huckabee stayed in the race even though he had no chance at all of winning simply to spoil Romney's candidacy (he even admitted it). Huckabee split one side of the GOP votes and we ended up with the centrist McCain who got clobbered in the generals - just like the polls predicted. (Those same polls also said Romney would have defeated Obama the first time around, but who knows).
In this election the Republicans started with sixteen candidates. That's a huge amount of voter dispersion to contend against. And it's a well-known fact that name recognition in politics is the single biggest factor to election. Trump has 100% name recognition. If you look at the polls, however, Cruz' popularity has grown right along with his name recognition. Trump's popularity is stagnant because people have already formed their opinions of him. Only Hillary Clinton comes close to Trump in name recognition. So Trump has already got all the voters he is going to get nationally. Ted Cruz still has the chance to persuade voters to vote for him, and his recent successes show he is closing the gap rapidly now that it is effectively a two-person race.
Optimistically, that may signal a turnaround in the last two weeks. And some of Trump's more recent antics, like rescinding his pledge to the the eventual nominee, may indicate he feels some heat.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but your positions are all over the map. In one thread you are criticizing everyone but Donald Trump for soliciting funds and in the next you're pointing out that they are a huge determining factor in the race. As to the campaign managers, the political pundits pointed to Trump's loss in Iowa being due to his lack of a campaign there and the superiority of Cruz'. In fact, you won't hear anyone criticizing Cruz' campaign effectiveness anywhere. Where you got the notion that somehow Cruz is running a sub-par campaign is beyond me. Trump, however, has been content to simply do nothing but appear on TV shows and the odd rally - except when he's too emotionally involved and refuses to attend a debate.
"Cruz would do no better than McCain"
Speculation belied by every political insider I've listened to and every poll out there currently. It's one thing to present one's opinion, but to keep insisting that it is fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a sign not of logic, but of emotion-driven decision-making.
When it comes to campaign contributions, Trump is providing them, so he isnt beholden to outside contributors. Cruz and Kasich are bought and paid for from what information I can get. Cruz's wife works for Goldman for gods sake . From what Sanders says, his contributions are all small ones so he is an "outsider" too. I didnt say Cruz is running a sub par campaign, but its obviously not working to defeat Trump, despite his totally negative campaign to defeat Trump (negative campaigning is a big turn off- means they cant convince me to vote FOR them, but resort to tearing down the other guys). To that extent, Cruz IS running a sub-par campaign. Kasich is doing better on that account most of the time, but has lately resorted to dumping on Trump too.
If you want to go back on the campaign contributions thing, again, I will ask: Do you want to restrict the office of the President to the ultra-wealthy? Cruz' campaign is based on grass-roots donations - not the Republican Party. They backed Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio.
Who STARTED the negative campaigning? That would be TRUMP! Cruz for the first several debates and in speeches said that he wasn't going to stoop to attacking other Republican candidates. Trump started the whole thing with his "lyin' Ted" mantra after he got beat in Iowa and threw a hissy-fit. It wasn't Cruz who went after Trump's wife, but Trump didn't bother checking that before he went after Cruz' wife. It isn't Cruz who seemingly in every interview has to disparage his opponent. Trump started throwing it and now you want to throw a fit if some splatters on him? Please. Trump has no claim whatsoever on the high road.
Cruz has done a number of underhanded things that he hasnt disavowed. First with the whole "carson has backed out, vote for Cruz" thing. Then there was the whole printing of Trump's wife pictures with the caption about "do you want this as your first lady" thing. You can say what you want that it was someone else that did it, but I say its obvious that at least Cruz and Romney knew about it (they havent disavowed it at all). Cruz hasnt said that he disapproved of using Trumps wife in that way. Its got nothing to do with Trumps qualifications. If Cruz didnt approve of it, he should have said so and publicly withdrew it. He brought in the wife and family thing. Trump's response was just to show pictures of both wives with the caption- a picture is worth 1000 words. Cruz had a hissy fit, but he DID start bringing in the wife thing. The two of them should have apologized to each other and put the issue to rest. Wives are wives, not publicly elected officials anyway.
Now, Cruz is after Trump openly and almost everytime he speaks. Its stupid and annoying, as well as unprofessional. Its obvious Cruz is feeling the heat of losing and just wants to tear down the will of the people who support trump. I think Trump has been pretty good at talking about what he brings to the table, and Cruz should do the same.
In regards to the Carson thing, that one has been covered ad nauseum. CNN reported that Carson's people in NH had left him (and it was true) to work for Cruz. Cruz' people then used that in a last-minute campaign effort. There were no lies told. Carson felt sorely done by, and Cruz did apologize to Carson. (Interesting side note: Carson said that Trump offered him a place in the cabinet in exchange for his endorsement.) Did Trump ever apologize for calling Cruz a liar? Nope. In fact, he still keeps using that line.
In regards to the ad in Utah, it wasn't run by Cruz. He didn't sanction it. It was run by an anti-Trump PAC. If you want to harp on one political candidate being responsible for the acts of others, you're going to get hammered on the whole David Duke endorsement fiasco AND on the recent hit piece done by one of Trump's friends at the National Enquirer. Do you really want to go there?
For a measure of who is actually bringing real solutions to the table, let's look at the last several debate performances. Trump's victories in the debates came only at the very first when he didn't have people coming after him on his record and when he was getting a 2-to-1 airtime allotment! Rubio killed Trump in the debate just before Florida. Cruz won the one before that. As the number of debate participants has dwindled, so has Trump's ability to dodge his policy problems. And did you hear him in the few interviews he did right after the Florida debate? He couldn't stop going on and on about Marco Rubio's jab and even turned it into a supposed reference about his manhood. Seriously? And now he throws a pretended fit about Fox so he doesn't have to go toe-to-toe with an experienced debater. What is he going to do if he wins the primaries and has to go up against Bernie or Hillary? You think he's going to get a pass then?
I would go for a constitutional amendment that forbids a transfer of one person's wealth (against their will) to another. PERIOD. No political favors, no lobbyists, no need for big political contributions.
Regarding deal-making, that's all we've been getting from Republicans for twenty years. What has it gotten us? $20 trillion in debt, an expansion in welfare programs, terrible trade deals, and an even worse foreign policy. I don't want the idea of getting things done to "trump" (pun intended) getting things right! I want a principled President who isn't afraid to turn President Obama's own refusal to negotiate with Republicans back on the heads of the Democrats! The art of deal-making is first and foremost to know what position you have and know what lines you will not cross. I don't see Trump as being able to draw those lines.
Are Trump's supporters mad at the GOP Establishment and standard Washington politics? Yup. And so are Ted Cruz'. And so are Bernie Sanders' for that matter. But mob rule is a ridiculous claim to authority or substantiation for moral character. In a forum where the participants value logical thought and reason, we recognize as have many throughout history that democracy's Achilles' heel is the passionate mob. We don't need another Barack Obama who plays on the emotions of the voters. We need someone to educate voters on why socialist policies will destroy this nation.
2) He came out saying gays should be kicked out the military (and that would be for religious reasons). I think soldiers should be hired for their ability, whether gay, straight, female, etc.- not on religious grounds. He also bible thumps, which makes me nervous. I am not into religious tenets written in books thousands of years ago and not questioned since then, having given that stuff up when I was a kid. What else is "god" going to tell Cruz to do- I sure dont know.
3) Deal making has a very bad name when it comes to how much you want to take from me, or the other way around. We are a 50-50 country now. Whatever is voted on seems to steal from me and give to someone else. I would rather NO deals be made on issues like that. That said, in a socialist country like we have, a president would have to simply announce a veto of all new laws for his presidency, and not permit any increases in taxes of any kind or any new taxes. I would vote for that actually, but a candidate would have to lie about it during the election, and just DO it once elected in this philosophical
environment.
4) What would have happened if Repubs had NOT opposed the expansion of socialism? We got an example with Obamacare. Not to say Repubs are free market advocates, but they have offered some slowing down of socialism on occasion.
5) Trump is anti establishment, which is why he is the subject of so much hatred from it. Sanders is also anti establishment, and somehwat honest also (which I respect). He comes out and tells us he is socialist and what he wants to do (which the congress would probably go along with, unfortunately).
5) We dont need another preacher like Obama or Hillary or Cruz for that matter. They all appeal to emotions that allow for the establishment to continue. Where do you think Cruz or Hillary gets their contributions (how about Goldman Sachs and wall street). At least Trump is on his own and doesnt have to pander to them.
#2. When Obama forced the issue he ignored the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs. You can paint this as a religious issue if you want, but the reality is that the armed forces themselves didn't want open homosexuality any more than they want women in combat units. What they concluded is that it would deleteriously affect unit integrity and camaraderie, which are critical in real-world situations.
As to his "bible thumping", again, show me where he advocates policy decisions based on religion. Otherwise you are allowing your irrational fears to drive your decision-making.
#3. That seems quite a departure from your original position.
#4. Excuse me, but there weren't nearly enough Republicans voting against these things - that is my point. The only three Senators willing to do anything were Mike Lee, Rand Paul, ... and Ted Cruz.
#5. "We dont need another preacher like... They all appeal to emotions "
Say WHAT? This is PRECISELY how "The Donald" is getting all his support! Is his border strategy really all that logical? Of course not! It's provocative rhetoric in the extreme! What about his comments on Muslims coming to the United States? Good grief! To claim that Trump has gained his popular position based on logic is a complete farce! He is ginning up the passions to get people emotionally invested in him - just like Obama did.
#2 If elected, Cruz would be the commander in chief of the military. Why would he even get in the middle of the gay-straight thing at this point. He should say the military should pick the people that will do the job- and Cruz would pick the military leaders who will carry that out efficiently. I am NOT in the military, but I would estimate there are a lot of gay people currently in it who are doing a great job. You dont have to be some testosterone laced bully to fix electronics on a plane, or other such jobs. If you are in infantry, yeah- your job is to kill the enemy any way you can, and it should be.
#3- I dont like the whole idea of taking from me and giving to others. But, if there is going to be any backtracking from that in terms of quantity, I think "deal making" is the only way it will happen. Maybe Trump can get taxes lowered a bit, and make up the difference by getting rid of entrenched bureaucracies. I dont expect Trump to be a john galt in this society at this time.
#4- I agree that there arent enough repubs to make a difference as long as the dems
have control.
#5- As to the borders, I have to say that if you want to have a country, you have to have borders. As to the hispanics coming here, our problem is making through regulation impediments to hiring US workers in the first place . IN the second place, we should give guest worker permits and NOT give guest workers freebies or minimum wages either. Thirdly, the mass immigration has pretty much stopped anyway as those jobs go to china and other countries.
As to muslims, I look at their book where they want to kill infidels, and it turns me against them. If someone believes in Islam, that means they believe in that part of it (or it says in the book THEY should be killed). Crazy ass religion if you ask me. I dont want anything to do with them. As to letting them in to the country, I certainly would support a ban until at least we figure out how to separate the radicalized ones from the ones who arent out to kill me for not believing.
Trump has a track record of efficiently completing tasks, but more importantly delegating responsibility to experts and trusting and acting on that advice. The ability to delegate and trust the results is something that is sorely lacking in government - the existing preference is to ignore the problem until you retire and let someone else deal with it.
No wonder Trump is under so much hatred- there are a lot of inefficient bureaucrats who enjoy the status quo, and he would get rid of them. I think 4 years of Trump would be good for the country.
Here are the ten richest counties by per capita income:
County Name
Median Household Income Estimate for 2013
Loudoun County, VA $117,680 (Fairfax area)
Falls Church city, VA $117,452 (DC/Fairfax)
Los Alamos County, NM $110,930 (Sandia National Labs)
Fairfax County, VA $110,658 (Fairfax)
Howard County, MD $108,503 (Baltimore/DC)
Hunterdon County, NJ $107,203
Douglas County, CO $105,192
Arlington County, VA $101,533 (DC)
Morris County, NJ $99,950
Montgomery County, MD $97,873 (Baltimore/Northern Virginia)
The next gen Air Force "B-3" out for R&D to Northrup right now requires the ability to strike any OCONUS location within 6 hours from a Continental US base without landing and return.
We don't need the forward bases anymore, we haven't for years.
Here's a radical idea: why don't the other Muslim nations take in all these refugees - including the original "Palestinians" who were displaced? It's a very simple solution to the problem.
The real answer is that both Islam and Jewry consider the city of Jerusalem to be theirs by divine right. The Jews believe the Temple Mount to be the only site acceptable on which to rebuild the Temple originally commissioned by David and built by Solomon. Islam believes the Dome of the Rock (the Mosque currently occupying the Temple Mount) was the site where Mohammed received a vision from Allah and thus became a holy site similar - but not quite as holy - to Mecca or Medina.
The issue is never going to be resolved until one of those two religions is utterly wiped off the face of the Earth. The Muslims have already tried three times and gotten their tails whupped, but when you have a numerical superiority of more than 1000 to one, there is only so much military superiority can do for you...
This is about the Palestinians being jealous of Israeli prosperity, nothing more. Short of Israel giving them more money for doing nothing than they already do, there is only so much. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it. If the Palestinians want to hang out on street corners all day instead of building an economy for themselves, its a very difficult problem to resolve, and it needs to start from within.
I was astounded that the most they can figure out how to come up with were 234 soldiers to deploy to their streets. That's it. That's the total sum of their national defense capability minus NATO (aka American) involvement. This is ridiculous.
If you are in business, and you are buying widgets for $10 that you are only selling for $9.... you don't keep doing it. You cut your damn losses and move on to something that works.
If you want to mislead yourself about the events and pretend that someone else is responsible other than who actually is, no one can stop you from ignoring reality.