Presidential race 2016

[Duchess]

I'm never going to be okay with anyone taking funds away from PP and there's probably a million other people who feel the same way I do. (I took creative license and pulled that number out of my butt). It's like the right have a mental block where PP is concerned and only view them as a place women get abortions and as most of us well know, that is not the case at all.

[BlueTiki]

Why do we need to fund PP when health insurance is mandatory for all Americans?

Put PP's half billion into the ACA and let the health care providers continue selling dead baby parts.

It will offset the premiums and/or fund new clinics, all under the aegis of the insurer.

Simple!

[Duchess]

Why do we need to fund PP when health insurance is mandatory for all Americans?

I guess I have to admit to only considering young women who don't want to use their parents insurance because that was my experience.

[username]

I think b/c should be offered in middle school, high school lunch lines (as well as at all welfare/social service sites).

Would you like a NuvaRing or a couple of condoms with that slice of pizza? How about a morning after pill? Step right up.

[Duchess]

I just listened to Donald being interviewed, he said last night's debate should have been called The Trump Show and Fox should be thanking him for the highest rated televised debate in history. He spent a good part of the interview commenting on how unprofessional Megyn Kelly was and he said "she had blood coming from her eyes...and other places". Hahaha. Fricken Donald.

[Carsman]

The Donald is full of himself, and I've said it before, and now saying it again.
I believe that he is having a blast with his over the top antics and theatrics, and loving every minute of his non PC ranting's, and statements. Saying what many people feel but won't, due to PC compliance. He does actually make many valid points on many touchy issues!
However, in the end, if it looked like he may get the nomination, I fell he will not accept it. Because actually being the POTUS will require more time and hard work then he is willing to sacrifice. He will not go through it.
(I may be wrong, it won't be the first time )

[username]

The Donald is full of himself, and I've said it before, and now saying it again.
I believe that he is having a blast with his over the top antics and theatrics, and loving every minute of his non PC ranting's, and statements. Saying what many people feel but won't, due to PC compliance. He does actually make many valid points on many touchy issues!
However, in the end, if it looked like he may get the nomination, I fell he will not accept it. Because actually being the POTUS will require more time and hard work then he is willing to sacrifice. He will not go through it.
(I may be wrong, it won't be the first time )

He won't get the Republican nomination. I don't know how I know this but I do. Someone more mainstream will get the Republican nomination. Trump will have to run as an independent/3^rd party to stay in the race. Republican's will gradually close ranks and chew him up and spit him out of the primaries.

He has money but I don't think even he has enough money (or PC) to ward off the GOP special interest groups.

He was smart to say if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, he might run independent. He won't get the GOP nomination/he might have to split from the party. MAYBE he could pull off a miracle and win independently but I'm afraid the votes would be so split at that point, Hillary has a better chance.

Shame.

[BlueTiki]

I did the debates "old school" . . . deliberately listening (instead of watching) via AM radio.

Without seeing the candidates and their public personas, I believe that Carson is the candidate with principled character.

I believe Cruz is a dicsiplined conservative.

I believe Huckabee is the strongest debater in the truest sense of the word.

I found Trump's response to the bankruptcy question spot on and poignant.

I agreed with Paul's position on curtailing foreign aid.

I agreed with Christie's SS reform.

I agreed with Carson's scenario on how to destroy a nation.

And I believe that Trump accurately stated that contributions are investments for future favors.

I believe FOX News was too full of themselves . . . it seems the moderators spoke more than the candidates.

And I would bet, if asked, none of the candidates wore entirely American-made clothing or accessories.

I have a tough time swallowing "bring jobs back home" while wearing foreign made goods.

The GOP needs to drop the Obama care and pro life rhetoric . . . they've proven that, when given the chance, they aren't willing to confront either issue. It's bullshit.

Enough . . . back to my coffee and croissant.

Thanks, HotD . . . your post on what you get from the "debates" inspired me to tune in.

Did I mention that I can't stand Bush?

[Duchess]

I agreed with Christie's SS reform.

I disagree with you & Christie. I should be entitled to the money I've put into it whether I need it or not. It's my money. It's my understanding that he thinks I should forgo it if I'm financially secure. WTF! I don't get access to my money if I had enough sense to save and to plan for my old age? This is what he has said about it - We should remember that Social Security should be retirement insurance. I’m suggesting that Americans pay into this system throughout the course of their life knowing that it will be there if they need it to support them…But if you are fortunate enough not to need it, you will have paid into a system that will continue to help Americans who need it most…

[HairOfTheDog]

Huckabee's and Christie's debate about Social Security / entitlements reform was, to me, one of the best-argued and thought-provoking points in the debate.

I'm curious as to how others here feel about it...


Is Christie right that retired wealthy people should not be entitled to the Social Security benefits they paid into their whole working lives, and that money should instead be distributed to those retirees who need it more? He's saying the existing pool of money is gonna run out and therefore should be distributed based on need; that Social Security was meant to keep Americans from growing old in poverty, not to contribute to anyone's existing wealth.

Or, is Huckabee right that since the government took the money from wage-earners' checks, whether they liked it or not, the government owes everyone who paid into the SS pool the benefit checks upon retirement (regardless as to whether they're wealthy or not)? He's saying the government mismanaged the Social Security system and retired Americans shouldn't be made to pay for that. He thinks, instead, a consumption tax should be paid by everyone in the economy to generate new revenue; new revenue which would be used to fund Social Security without depriving the wealthy of the SS retirement benefits to which Huckabee feels they're entitled.

[BlueTiki]

Social Security is bankrupt. As Christie stated, they've robbed it to pay for other programs . . . leaving IOU's. Sometime, somehow, someone will fund it to the proper level . . . that's the political line.

Christie also wanted to raise the eligible age to collect.

Social Security is not only for retirement.

Don't forget the Disability portion, too.

Any idea on the percentage increase, over the past decade, of Americans on disability?

Huckabee believes it's a promise we made to people and it's a promise that needs to be kept.

There is no guarantee benefits will be ready and waiting for you . . . none. Any candidate who promises benefits, is a liar.

I could care less if SS ended in 10 years . . . just don't have me continue to contribute.

I will be comfortable and financially secure . . . I've worked, planned and achieved this goal.

If SS is to be continued, I want Wall Street to control and administer the fund . . . NOT the Feds or State.

[HairOfTheDog]

I did the debates "old school" . . . deliberately listening (instead of watching) via AM radio.

I watched some of the debate and listened to some of it. I thought it was well done, overall.

Without seeing the candidates and their public personas, I believe that Carson is the candidate with principled character.

I got the same impression. He appears to mean what he says and to be running because he genuinely cares. I find him very intelligent and non-abrasive.

But, I don't think anyone's first governmental job should be President of the United States. And, Carson has shown ignorance (which he doesn't deny) about basic foreign policy issues and global relations, which I believe is an area of particular importance for our country at this time. I therefore think he's unqualified and does not have a serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. I've written him off.

I believe Cruz is a dicsiplined conservative.

Maybe you're right and I'm off-base. I think Cruz is a full-of-shit self-promoter who panders to the extreme religious right. I've written him off.

I believe Huckabee is the strongest debater in the truest sense of the word.

I too thought that he was very good. He's articulate, passionate, and an effective in making his point. Too bad his religious leanings had him publicly defending the Duggers and their incestuous pedo kid for months on end. I think that hurt his chances inside and outside his religious base. Still, I'm interested in some of his policy proposals and have not completely written him off yet.

I found Trump's response to the bankruptcy question spot on and poignant.

I thought it was a long way of simply saying, "everybody does it in big business". Poignant, no. True to a good degree, probably so.

I agreed with Carson's scenario on how to destroy a nation.

I liked his analogy about performing surgery on a patient; the skin color being irrelevant to what's inside.

[HairOfTheDog]

And I believe that Trump accurately stated that contributions are investments for future favors.

Some people contribute to causes because they believe in them and they care. Some only for selfish motives, like hoping for future favors from those to whom they contribute and tax write-offs. Some probably for both.

Donald Trump claims that he donated a lot to Democratic candidates and causes in the past just for favors. Maybe that's true, or maybe it's just the answer that serves him best as a GOP Presidential candidate. In any case, I don't think it's a vote-getter for him, nor do I think Donald Trump's donation-motivation accurately applies to all, which he never claimed it did. Many people and businesses who contribute to politicians and parties will never be in a position to ask for favors. He answered only for himself, in his unique position.

I believe FOX News was too full of themselves . . . it seems the moderators spoke more than the candidates.

I thought it was generally well done and went very quickly. The questions were tougher than I'd expected and provided a good opportunity for the candidates to get out from under some of their most-criticized statements/positions (or to sink their own ships, which I think they all managed to avoid).

(I did get the sense that Megyn Kelly was intentionally assigned to question Trump and their little exchange was anticipated. I also think Trump's celebrity is largely responsible for the ratings bonanza.)

The GOP needs to drop the Obama care and pro life rhetoric . . . they've proven that, when given the chance, they aren't willing to confront either issue. It's bullshit.

Yep. I don't think they'll ever stop with the religious pro-life rhetoric, however.

Thanks, HotD . . . your post on what you get from the "debates" inspired me to tune in.

I like reading your take on things and discussing them with you, so I'm glad you listened-in for whatever reason.

Did I mention that I can't stand Bush?

I was almost ready to write Bush off before he even officially announced his candidacy because I disagree with him on some issues of importance to me (and, frankly, also because of his name).

But, I'm trying to listen objectively to all of the candidates and, so far, I like Bush on immigration and education. He did better than I'd expected in the debate.

I expected Paul to be a little stronger in stating/selling his positions, and Bush to be a little weaker.

[Carsman]

The Donald has been making many valid points, (yes although crudely) on many issues that need to be addressed. He most likely will not become the GOP nominee. (I think he wants it that way)
However, he has to be given credit for making the other candidates now have to address these issues since he opened the door. So when all is said and done, in the end, The Donald will in fact have helped America!

[blueberryhill]

If SS is to be continued, I want Wall Street to control and administer the fund . . . NOT the Feds or State.

Oh Tiki, say it isn't so....can only write short msg cuz my fingers hurt like heck (old age).....You and Hair already debated some of the other issues, but we don't want Wall Street running anything for us...The recession in 2008 was a financial disaster for most of us thanks to the crooks in the Banks and Wall Street. They literally lost billions of dollars for investors and brought down economy in one full sweep....and only one person is in jail, Bernie Madoff.....
Just another brief comment.....I will never vote for a Party or individual who degrades and considers women to be 2^nd class citizens. Politicians need to keep their old, liver spotted faces/noses out of our bedrooms. A woman's body should be hers to control and decisions made re pregnancy is between her and her Physician....and unless you have a uterus, just zip it.....PP does so much more than counsel re termination of a pregnancy and actually probably have prevented more pregnancies than actually they helped terminate same.....You know if it were men who gave birth, it would not even be an issue.....

I so wish we could do a clean sweep of Congress, and get rid of all the old coots who want to take us back 100 years because they fear change.
The religious right (bible thumpers to me) is downright scary. Some excuse sexual crimes, some discriminate against certain groups of people, and if they use the Bible literally as their guidebook, then we are all sinners and probably will die in a gunfight at high noon......

[Duchess]

Some of you know I have a very active imagination and after hearing about Bill and the Donald exchanging phone calls it took off with me. Zoom Zoom.

[HairOfTheDog]

The Donald has been making many valid points, (yes although crudely) on many issues that need to be addressed. He most likely will not become the GOP nominee. (I think he wants it that way)
However, he has to be given credit for making the other candidates now have to address these issues since he opened the door. So when all is said and done, in the end, The Donald will in fact have helped America!

I agree that Trump is good for the presidential race, to a point. That point is rapidly approaching, in my opinion. When it becomes all about Donald Trump's persona and petty drama -- and not about the issues -- it hurts the Republican party and distracts some Americans from what's important.

During the debate, Trump got asked tough questions about negative remarks that he did, in fact, spew. So what? So did the other candidates. Trump responded by saying that he doesn't have time to be politically correct. Fair enough. But, he can't let it go then, and that's why I think he's the worst candidate for the job, and why I agree with you that he is not seriously running for President. He's too smart to really want the job and yet behave so childishly in pursuit of it.

I do agree with his point about there being too much shrouding of difficult issues in political correctness. I believe he's serious about that particular point and it's valid. However, someone who wastes all kinds of time and energy on starting/stoking Twitter feuds and name-calling campaigns because, he contends, he personally wasn't treated with enough political correctness (he claims Megyn Kelly was "inappropriate" with him) is himself acting like a hypocritical baby. That's worse politically than someone who spends too much time worrying about correctness-perception, in my opinion.

Imagine Donald Trump taking exception with something said about him or his statements/policies in a Congressional meeting, a UN summit, or a NATO strategy session and then stoking it into a personal vendetta, which is his M.O. I think he'd clearly be dangerous and terrible as the leader of the United States of America, though I like him as a celebrity shit-stirrer and business mogul.

[Carsman]

The SS issue for the retired rich, the notion of taking away the entire SS benefits from the retired rich, ($250,000 or more yearly income) even though they paid into the fund all their working life, is wrong.
It could possibly be made a little more fair and easier for them swallow, if it were only cut in half, instead of Govt taking it all. The Max. SS is around $32,000 annually for the retired rich, so cut in half they would still get $16,000, better then "0"! And the over spending Govt gets $16,000. So . . .

[username]

Unless there's some off setting tax decrease, I can't agree to some SS reductions on the "wealthy". Or, at minimum, I'd want to know exactly where those entitlement reforms would go. I agree that SS/entitlements are unfundable but I'm sorry. We've paid the max in to the system for years (and been taxed up the ass...particularly in CA). Given what we paid in state and federal income taxes the last couple of years...I'm sorry but I'm kind of DONE. My husband and I have been paying in to social security since we were teenagers.

[Maggot]

S.S. is a tax, FICA is a tax. The money is spent before they get it. There is absolutely no chance for reform and soon if this goes on entire paychecks will be donated for the "good" of the people. It goes to the bottomless bucket as fast as it can go but comes out much faster.

People no matter how "rich" they are still deserve the money they have put in.