[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Rubio is the last hope of the GOP. [/quote]
I bet he pulls it off and eventually gets the nod.
[/quote]
Let’s hope so. He’s the only one in the GOP field who has the potential to be able to go toe to toe with HRC.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Cruz is the man. [/quote]
If by man you mean maximalist ideologue, sure.[/quote]
The brightest guy in the room.
The best spoken.
The one that holds truest to the Founding Father’s intent.
You can label him how you want.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Rubio is the last hope of the GOP. [/quote]
I bet he pulls it off and eventually gets the nod.
[/quote]
Let’s hope so. He’s the only one in the GOP field who has the potential to be able to go toe to toe with HRC.[/quote]
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]
I’d wager decent money that someone as far right as Cruz is not electable in the general election. Rubio might be, but I think, if he gets the nomination, he’s going to run into some strong headwaters from the Democrats on social issues. I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy, domestic policy, or economics, when you can legitimately garner a massive amount of votes just be pointing out that a candidate would disallow abortion in cases of rape or incest, never minding that this issue will be of little, if any, significance to the executive branch.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Cruz is the man. [/quote]
If by man you mean maximalist ideologue, sure.[/quote]
The brightest guy in the room. [/quote]
Are you aware of Dr. Carson’s story? Dr. Paul? Easy to make that claim as you can’t verify, but Carson was an incredible doctor. I would say he is the brightest guy in a lot of the rooms he walks into, but being bright doesn’t mean you would be a good president.
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]
I’d wager decent money that someone as far right as Cruz is not electable in the general election. [/quote]
Hillary wouldn’t be electable if she had an R next to her name either.
All this electable talk is pointless. Current pop culture is a RockStar POTUS and Rule 5 anyone who dares not have a D next to their name.
Big picture, the Republicans would be infinitely better off running a Cruz up and losing, no matter by how much, and rest assured they lost on principle than be “democrat light” and narrowly lose to a D.
I’m beyond tired of the White House being a game for a chair, a soap opera chase. I want fucking statesmen and women to run because they want to be a god damn leader, not because these ego maniacs what their name in a fucking history book.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]
I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]
HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?
My favorite part of the debate is when Santelli asked Cruz and then Paul about the FED. Three of the smartest guys in the room had a quick conversation about an issue that affects every American, and I got the impression no one was paying attention.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
My favorite part of the debate is when Santelli asked Cruz and then Paul about the FED. Three of the smartest guys in the room had a quick conversation about an issue that affects every American, and I got the impression no one was paying attention.[/quote]
I’d venture to say the vast majority (90+%) have no idea what they were talking and couldn’t care less. Sad really.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Anybody watch the debate last night?
A decent summary about the candidates here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/we-have-our-final-six_1055055.html
Jeb didn’t do what he needed to, but nobody lost like CNBC. Holy crap were the moderators terrible. The questions were bad, the moderators got facts wrong:
Even liberal political news writers thought the moderators did terrible:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/28/3717186/cnbc-debate-moderators-yelling/
Any thoughts?[/quote]
Well I think the debate as a whole was a win for the entire Republican presidential push. The only candidate that lost was Bush, because he fell for the moderator’s rancor. The rest united against the moderators and took them to school. Otherwise I think most of the candidates performed well. If I had to pick a winner I would say Cruz or Rubio.
But the big winners of the night was the republican candidacy as a whole. They united and made fools out of the moderators. And that made big news. Even liberal pundits were offended at how bad the CNBC moderators were.
CNBC’s attempt to turn the debate into a circus totally backfired. And on top of that, the entertainment factor was high so it got a lot of exposure.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Cruz is the man. [/quote]
If by man you mean maximalist ideologue, sure.[/quote]
The brightest guy in the room. [/quote]
Are you aware of Dr. Carson’s story? Dr. Paul? Easy to make that claim as you can’t verify, but Carson was an incredible doctor. I would say he is the brightest guy in a lot of the rooms he walks into, but being bright doesn’t mean you would be a good president.
[/quote]
No being bright doesn’t mean you’ll be a good president, but it sure doesn’t hurt. We’ve seen what the power of stupidity can do when given unchecked power. So I will take brains and inexperience over dangerous stupidity any day of the week.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]
I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]
I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]
HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]
Oh yeah, given the overwhelming foreign policy successes of the last 6 years, starting with the ME apology tour and the Russian ‘Reset’ button.
We need more of that kind of success.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]
I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]
Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]
I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]
Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]
Like the States?
The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Cruz is very intelligent, but brightest in that room, I donno. If he is, it isn’t by a large margin. I don’t think his tax plan will work largely because I don’t think a flat tax will pass.[/quote]
What do you think of a flat tax?[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of a flat tax on income. I’d prefer to see a flat consumption tax. It’s largely irrelevant though because it’s unlikely we will get away from the progressive income tax structure.[/quote]
I’d take either over the current tax code. And we probably won’t actually manage to dismantle the current bureaucracy but you never know. I’d rather have a president who wants to change it than one that wants to keep it the same and just tax more.
I would love to see the IRS dismantled and shelved. Estimates vary widely but I have seen on average 300 to 440 billion dollars annually just to manage the current tax structure. Imagine what just eliminating that overhead would do for the government coffers and the economy.
The main point is it can be done. Whether it will be is something else, but I am for somebody at least trying. [/quote]
Ahhh, dismantling the IRS would have a number of unintended economic consequences and someone has to collect the taxes.[/quote]
Like the States?
The vast majority of them already collect a state sales tax, so the infrastructure for a consumption tax is nearly in place.[/quote]
Yeah, it could be collected much more efficiently particularly if the code is vastly simplified. The only real consequence would be the displaced IRS workers and tax accountants. And that is a problem that would have to be dealt with, but its not a sufficient reason to keep a bad setup. Presumably a simplified tax plan would create jobs in the free market due to a boost in the economy so I would think it would balance out.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
He may be more “electable” than Cruz. We shall see.[/quote]
I still argue this is the Democratic strategy that is winning elections, because it allows them to deflect from having to engage in serious debates about foreign policy . . .
[/quote]
HRC assuredly has a foreign policy advantage in this election, as did Obama in 2012.[/quote]
Oh yeah, given the overwhelming foreign policy successes of the last 6 years, starting with the ME apology tour and the Russian ‘Reset’ button.
We need more of that kind of success.[/quote]
The GOP has lost its traditional edge in foreign policy. Clinton is far and away more experienced and more learned in this regard than anyone the GOP has to offer in 2016. Rubio is the only one who seems to have half a brain.
http://www.cfr.org/world/rebooting-republican-foreign-policy/p29717