DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 05, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
-
Let's pretend that Trump's sail loses its wind, and the GOP nomination to go against Clinton comes down to Rubio vs Cruz. I don't say that because I don't like Trump, nor that he couldn't win against Clinton. I'm predicating this conjecture on that fact that Trump really isn't a Conservative. He's alot of things, and saying all the right things to win him the GOP nomination, but his track record is hardly one of conservative, minimalistic-government principles
So, putting aside their looks, or how they talk, since neither is an issue to their electability, the 2 of them bring to the table 2 forms of conservatism. One that has the DC power structure scared snotless, the other a likely more electable candidate, still guranteeing a conservative Republican in the WH, come Nov
For those who think Cruz can't win, have another thing coming. The reality is that Cruz can win, but if he wins DC lobbyists and politicians attacking him will be out of a job, which is why they hate even the thought of a Cruz Presidency. The Washington elite have every incentive to stop Cruz because he would be just as transformational as Obama has been, though his path to victory may be harder than Rubio's.
For critics of Rubio, he is seen as not going far enough, to reign in DC's power grab. So while reality is that Rubio may have an easier time winning, than Cruz, his critics do not believe he will go far enough and do as much to fix the problems in Washington.
Cruz and Rubio would both be conservative to varying degrees. What is at stake between the two is how easy their election would be vs how transformational their presidency would be. Rubio backers are looking at the path to the White House. Cruz backers are willing to take a gamble on the slog of a general election campaign so they can see Washington rent asunder
Either would be a stellar step in repairing the massive damage Obama's socialist-light policies have rendered upon this country
-
Where I work Cruz is not well remembered.
He cost us a couple of paychecks you know.
What can he promise that would mollify our harsh memory?
-
That's the thing....he's not the modern incarnation of a Politician, who's campaign is to promise everything to everyone. His stance on trying to keep Congress committed to financial responsibility with tax payers' money could be seen by some as costing a couple of paychecks. For those not Government employees, and fed up with the status quo, those actions are an indication of just how committed he'd be at fixing the massive damage inflicted on the populace by this administration, if he were President
Again, it provides a likely comparison board between the 2. One who scares the living snot out of the DC elite & lobbyists, the other likely more electable.......but lacking such a record of commitment
-
Trump is not a conservative.
A candidate's appearance is clearly a factor in his electability, and has been ever since the age of photography and TV.
Yeah, sure, if Cruz is elected the lobbyists who oppose him will be out of a job. Like all those who oppose Obama have been selling encyclopedias and Amway due to unemployablity for the past seven years. There will be MORE of them.
But Cruz is a weasel and a smartass that does not believe his own bullshit and it is obvious from listening to him. He's not getting elected. People hate him now and the more they know him the more they will hate him. He is hateful. And he has no real solutions to this countries plans. No one is passing any damned flat tax. Not even the GOP would pass it.
Obama has done far more good than harm to the people of this country. All he has done to you is make you afraid that he is gonna take your damned guns.
Lobbyists are not afraid of anyone. They are lawyers: they will represent whomever hires them and say whatever they need to to do the job they are given.
Electing people because they scare others is a really, really STUPID criteria. Perhaps that is why it appeals to you so much. You think that politics is some form of Pro Wrestling spectator sport.
-
Trump is not a conservative.
Who claimed he was??
Yeah, sure, if Cruz is elected the lobbyists who oppose him will be out of a job. Like all those who oppose Obama have been selling encyclopedias and Amway due to unemployablity for the past seven years. There will be MORE of them.
The "out of a job" is rhetorical. But thanks for demonstrating how completely empty Obama's pledge was to purge DC from the influence of lobbyists. Add that to the laundry list of "promises" he apparently never meant to keep
But Cruz is a weasel and a smartass that does not believe his own bullshit and it is obvious from listening to him.
And you know he doesn't believe his own ideolgy........how again??
He's not getting elected. People hate him now and the more they know him the more they will hate him.
If "the people" you're referring to are Democrats, liberals, entrenched politicians, lobbyists, and union bosses......not a problem
And he has no real solutions to this countries plans. No one is passing any damned flat tax. Not even the GOP would pass it.
Every one of his platforms he's campaigning on are real solutions to this country's abysmal economic, unemployment, and foreign status. So, it would appear the only way to "test your hypothesis" is to elect him as President, and see which party passes his proposals, and which party pulls out every parlimentary trick and filibuster to prevent it from becoming law
Obama has done far more good than harm to the people of this country. All he has done to you is make you afraid that he is gonna take your damned guns.
Guns are the least of the fears of what Obama is "gonna take away"
Lobbyists are not afraid of anyone. They are lawyers: they will represent whomever hires them and say whatever they need to to do the job they are given.
Lobbyists crave power, as do entrenched politicians. They feed each other, and demand control. That's why both Trump and Cruz scare the snot out of them. They can't control either. And the less control they have the less power and influence they have. THAT's what they're afraid of
Electing people because they scare others is a really, really STUPID criteria.
That hilarious coming from the side that tries to scare the electorate about the evils of the NRA and the GOP. So, I guess if the label fits, wear it proudly, I'd suggest
Perhaps that is why it appeals to you so much. You think that politics is some form of Pro Wrestling spectator sport.
Again, the irony
-
Trump is not a conservative.
Who claimed he was??
===================================
Trump himself has stated that he is a conservative many times. In some ways, he is. he certainly is in favor of lower taxes for people like himself, he seems to believe in trickle down economics. But he is uninterested in abortions or persecuting gays by denying them rights.
When Cruz started out his victory speech with "All Glory to God" that is a clear example of bullshit. Abolishing the Dept of Education is something else he would not even try to do, just as Reagan lied about abolishing it and then doing nothing. He could never get any flat tax through Congress, and he surely knows that as well.
Cruz will not be president of this country. Nixon hated most of the people, but they were unaware of this: it came out in his tapes.
-
What he says and what he does, are 2 different things. Point being there's very few conservatives that claim "he's a conservative". Which begs the question, why bring it up? To argue yet another point, no one is making??
And giving glory to God is no BS what-so-ever to a devoted Christian. Where's his pledge to "abolish the Dept of Education"? Must have missed that. If he's campaigning on a flat tax, you can bet that once elected, he'd absolutely propose it, and then its up to congress to vote on it. How much you want to bet that the GOP would pass it, while the Dems would try to prevent it from even coming to a vote? I'd wager ownership to my house
And funny you should bring up Nixon's tapes, as some source of hatred, as Clinton's e-mails sing a far longer tune of unethical, when not irresponsibly reckless, conduct
-
You have not heard Nixon's tapes, apparently.
Nor did I mention them.
Nixon hated the people of this country.
I brought up Trump not being a "conservative" because Trump has claimed to be one many times. In any discussion about Trump, I think that Trump himself carries more weight than your opinions about Trump. I think that Trump thinks he is a conservative, he just defines it differently than you do. As for me, I think that conservatism is simply a bogus aura that greedy people like to use to make their greed and selfishness seem more acceptable. They don;t really want to "conserve" anything: they just want to resurrect the "good old days" that they remember quite imperfectly.
-
You have not heard Nixon's tapes, apparently.
Nor did I mention them.
Actually you did
Nixon hated the people of this country.
please provide a quote, in context, from the tapes, where he made clear how he "hated the people of this country". Your say so has no credibility
I brought up Trump not being a "conservative" because Trump has claimed to be one many times.
Obama claims to support the Constitution. Doesn't stop him from defying it time after time.
As has been made abdunantly clear, no one that's massively supporting Trump is claiming he's some full blown Reagan-like conservative. So its irrelevent what he claims. And this forum is all about opinions, so it carries just as much weight as yours, which includes any discussion about Trump.
So, we're both in agreement, he is no "conservative", regardless of how you think he's simply redefining the term. He's a populist, primarily, regardless of what he might claim. His record makes that painfully clear. He's saying "conservatives things" now, because he's trying to get the support of the base of the GOP, and cinch the nomination. Doesn't make him a conservative, any more than you claiming to be objective. He's simply tapped into the anger that the country has towards politicians in general, the same way Sanders is tapping into the base of the Democrat party, who are so fed up with political machines, like Clinton
-
Bernie appeals to Democrats who want a more progressive society than that which Clinton has supported in the past. It is not the same as the split in the GOP, which involves racism, religious bigotry and the promotion of religion over science.
-
No...Sanders appeals to many Democrats who are fed up with politicians, precisely like Clinton. Yea, some want more socialism, but I'd opine most just don't trust Clinton, as far as they could throw her. It's identical to the appeal many Republicans have for Trump, who are fed up with Republican politicians in general, who say whatever they need to get elected, then throw their entire constituency under the bus, once they get there
-
...........................and the promotion of religion over science.
Is the Democratic party committed to the promotion of science over religion?
-
I hardly think so. They have never claimed that.
The forced birther movement is based on people of one religion imposing their standards on everyone else.
So is the movement to prevent the ACA from providing birth control because some clowns at the Hobby Lobby don't want their employees to practice birth control.
-
......................based on people of one religion imposing their standards on everyone else.
...............
What would you call forcing participation in gay marriage on bakers and photographers and even pastors , who would rather not.
-
A Double Standard?.......dare I say, Hypocrisy?
-
It is a single standard.
>Do it my way.<
This must be one of the most common philosophies on the planet.
-
Oh you can bet the farm on rationalizations that will be used to justify the hypocrisy, but folks like xo will dutifully support the double standard
-
Of course, no preacher should have to perform a wedding he does not wish to. Public service weddings are available at the courthouse.
The lawsuits of bakers and photographers are rare and are just some over enthusiastic types trying to set precedents. Baking cakes and taking pictures are not religious events. I would not force them to provide the service if it were up to me. But it isn't.
-
It is up to us all.
We elect representatives in hope that they will help us create a country that is good for us all.
Perhaps even organize the effort.
Distressing how often it does not work out like that.
-
(http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/020516.jpg)
It's a Cuban sandwich.
Today on Fox news I heard this phrase...
"The American People want their sovereignty back."
Ahhh, that was well said.
-
White people want what they thought was their sovereignty back. They do not want to be bothered to "press one for English", they are tired of listening to uppity Negroes and Mexicans demanding decent jobs and equal treatment. They want to be able to call up an old buddy and arrange a good job for junior rather than junior having to apply and compete with everyone else.
-
White people want.................................
So for you it is racial.
The nickel that can be respent forever.
So there is no such thing as an overweening power grasping government that will disenfranchise us all?
And if there were , some of us would deserve it anyway, based on race.
-
I am simply addressing the issue. A large percentage of the middle class realizes that their lifestyle is slipping away, and they blame the Blacks, the Hispanics and the poor. That is the basic message of the Tea Party. It is the message of Roger Ailes and Fox "News". It was carefully crafted and presented on rightwing radio for decades. It is bloody obvious to political observers all around the world.
Racism tool for robbing the middle class and getting them to blame those less fortunate than they. It is what the Fucking Republican Party is all about and has been since Nixon.
-
I am simply addressing the issue. A large percentage of the middle class realizes that their lifestyle is slipping away, and they blame the Blacks, the Hispanics and the poor.
What the frell are you talking about? Only racists blame them. MOST OF THE REST OF US MIDDLE CLASS, blame Government for perpetuating the above "feeling", punctuated by policies that soak the middle class in taxes, while "the rich" can afford those taxes. THAT is the message of the TEA party..and NOT that its the fault of some race or economic class. Blacks can't tax anyone. Hispanics can't tax anyone. The poor don't even get taxed, outside of sales items
Good gravy
-
The Blacks and Hispanics, we are told, get welfare from the government paid for out of our taxes.
The Hispanics are taking our jobs!
The Blacks, Hispanics and other poor must be cut off as undeserving leeches, as it will force them to get off their lax=zy asses and get to work.
The Illegals must all be deported.
We have been hearing this shit since Reagan invented his Cadillac Welfare Queen stories. Or rather since he read the script with these imaginary people in it.
The Tea Party rarely if ever, suggests that the rich are not paying their fair share. The general Tea Party line is that taxes must be LOWERED in order to increase revenue, as lowering taxes always results in more money for the government.
-
The POOR, as in ALL races, get welfare from Government, paid for out of our taxes. Government not enforcing our rather clear immigration law, make that situation even worse. GOVERNMENT POLICIES perpetuate this condition, deincentivizing many to not even try. That again is the fault of GOVERNMENT, not Blacks or Hispanics
Capice'?
And news flash....THE RICH ARE ALREADY PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE
-
Really? Matt Romney paid a measly 14%, and that was almost certainly the highest percentage he has ever paid. He did not go to the Caymans for the fine beaches. There is a reason why he only presented one year's tax returns.
-
There's also a reason he's only paying 14%.....BECAUSE HE HAS NO INCOME TO BE TAXED. This is so rediculously used by the left, implying that Romney only, and has always payed a mere 14%.
That % is specifically on investments, not income, AND YOU KNOW THAT. Romney, like Soros, and so many other uber-rich, who have made enough money that WAS TAXED AS INCOME, can now simply live off their investments. That's to be applaued...NOT PUNISHED. As long as someone has earned their money legally, doesn't make their status some how unseemingly or underhanded.
Romney was taxed just like the rest of us for his income AND investments, until he reached a point where he no longer required to work in generating an income to continue to live off of
In other words, the rich are already paying their fair share, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean
B)
-
Now you are just being stupid. Romney's income was on those tax forms as well.
Romney has received far more benefits from living in this country than the population of entire small towns.
-
Now who's playing stupid. ROMNEY IS NOT WORKING.....HE'S NOT RECIEVING A PAYCHECK....ERGO NO TAXABLE INCOME, outside of his invesments, which are being taxed
Just because he's been a financial success doesn't make him some evil incarnate. He worked, he payed his dues, he payed his share of income taxes when he was working, AND paying taxes on his invesments as well. He simply managed to reach a point where he can live off his investments.
There's a yacht load of folks who receive more benefits from living in this country, than the population of entire small towns. I remember reading an article how Kenny Rogers bought a home from Lionel Richie, that included its own golf course on the property. And Rogers simply bought it with a 1 time cash transfer
SO FRICKEN WHAT? They're ALL PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE
-
Romney can arrange his income to make it appear that he is receiving dividends.
Rich people have all sorts of tax dodges, and I am sure Romney used them all.
You are hardly qualified to decide what is fair and what is not.
-
What part of HE'S NO LONGER WORKING, are you not grasping?? No work, no income tax
And I'm perfectly qualified to proclaim fairness vs overt unfairness (as in punitive)
-
It is called the INCOME tax, not the WORK tax. Romney had millions in income. And he was able to get away with a low, low 14% tax rate because of the way the tax laws were written. I do not blame him for taking advantage of the tax laws which favor the mega rich, but these tax laws favor the wealthy.
A guy who does heavy physical labor might pay up to 34%, which a guy like Romney entrusts his investments to advisers pays less than half that rate. TAT NOT WHAT I call equitable.
-
Playing semantic games again. It's called an income tax, that taxes a person's WORKING income. NOT investements, NOT sales, but working INCOME, in the form of wages, or salary, or tips, or commissions. If you are not WORKING, you generate no taxable INCOME. You are taxed on other things however. Romney already did his work, already payed his required income taxes, when he was generating a working income. He no longer works, thus he no longer pays income taxes. That's the literal definition of FAIR
-
The income tax taxes investments, sure as hell it does. I have investments and I have paid taxes on profits from investing.
INCOME is not the same as what the IRA calls EARNED INCOME.
There is also a MINIMUM TAX.
-
The income tax taxes investments, sure as hell it does. I have investments and I have paid taxes on profits from investing.
And that's taxed as well, but that's investment. That's not you or Romney working for anything. Income tax is generated from one's work...be it salary, commission, punch clock, etc.
Investements, and any profits they generate are NOT the same as work income, that's why they are NOT taxed the same. That's why you have taxes on investements, and taxes on income...BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ::)
-
The tax on investments is 15%.
Romney somehow managed to get away with only paying 14%.
The income tax is NOT exclusively a tax on money earned by working.
-
INCOME tax is PRIMARILY a tax on money earned by working. Profits made on investments are a whole other animal, ergo, they are taxed seperately, at a lesser rate. We lesser folks are taxed on both, if we're still working. It's by no means fair, to punish us lesser folks for having to pay an equally higher tax on our investments, while still working and paying income taxes, or to punish success with higher taxes, if someone manages to reach a point where they no longer have to work for a living. That's called a GOAL
-
The income tax taxes investments, sure as hell it does. I have investments and I have paid taxes on profits from investing.
INCOME is not the same as what the IRA calls EARNED INCOME.
There is also a MINIMUM TAX.
And you want your tax load increased?
That is remarkably generous.
But could you not do as well as the government at directing charitable giving?
Probably better?
-
I can give to charities if I wish, and deduct it from my income, just as Romney does.
-
You may , but it only gives you a percentage off .
The main part of the tax is still due and the main part of that is still someone else's idea of good spending.
-
There never will be a government that spends only on what any given individual considers essential, no matter what party is in power.
We can vote for the party that is most in keeping with what we expect from the government, and that is all we will ever be able to do.
-
There never will be a government that spends only on what any given individual considers essential, no matter what party is in power.
We can vote for the party that is most in keeping with what we expect from the government, and that is all we will ever be able to do.
This is one of those rare instances, that xo is correct. With an emphasis on what we "expect from the Government". If only the GOP actually practiced what they campaign on, we conservatives could then start expecting them to run the Government as it was intented to be run
-
Reagan said he wanted to abolish the Secretary of Education. He did not need Congress to approve this, but he failed to do it. He said he would make the government smaller, It grew in size and in cost. He said he wanted to balance the budget. He also did not do that.
Not one of the Republicans has managed to do most of the supposedly "conservative" stuff they promised.
I bet the next Republican candidate will also say that he wants to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv (where it is much safer and more convenient to Israelis) to Jerusalem (where there is no room and it would be much less safe). This is another promise that they always make and even never try to fulfill.
It is a really dumb idea, by the way. They promise this because some rich Jewish donor hands then a bag of much money, which of course, they do not return.
Conservatives are essentially suckers. It is like Charlie Brown and the football. Charlie always trusts Lucy and she always jerks it away.
-
Actually, you do need congressional support. Too bad he didn't, as its not a function of the Federal Government to be meddling with a state's primary function. But you're making my point, that the GOP frequently is elected to office, on what they pledge to do, then turn around and throw those who voted them in, under the bus. Senator Cruz being one of the rare exceptions, and the reason he and Trump are the top 2 in the current polling, and why Sanders has been able to stay as close as he has to former Secretary of Scum, and her financial juggernaught
-
Cruz and Trump are the scummiest guys in the race. They are a couple of demagogues, but I think Trump believes more of his own foul BS than Trump.
-
There never will be a government that spends only on what any given individual considers essential, no matter what party is in power.
We can vote for the party that is most in keeping with what we expect from the government, and that is all we will ever be able to do.
This is very well said!
And isn't it a good argument in favor of limiting government?
Both in power and in proportion of the time and effort it can demand of us?
-
Yeah! Limit government so that it does not dictate what a woman can do with her own damned body.
I see healthcare and protection from monopolistic practices as something we have a right to expect from out government.
-
Is that the only limit that matters to you?
The government can tell anyone else everything else , but the right to kill ones own child is sacred , but only for women?
In reality , if the government does not work to prevent murder it has little reason to exist.
Every bit that the government takes and forbids is loss of freedom, but we the public consent to just regulation.
When the regulation is unneeded , it is unjust.
-
That is A limit that matters to me, not the only one.
-
How about a limit on what the government should cost?
-
It should not cost more than it has to.
-
And who decides what it "has" to??
-
It should not cost more than it has to.
Yes!
You hereby have all the qualification needed to join the TEA party.