Decent result in Iowa

I am not a fan of Trump or Cruz, the two top winners. But it is good that Trump did not come in first; Cruz didn’t win big and Rubio came close. Maybe Cruz and Trump will smash each other leaving Rubio. Rubio is not my first choice. I think he has the capacity to be a great president, but he is too young and inexperienced. We don’t want another Obama. But when I compare him to Trump, Cruz or (heaven forfend) Hillary, Rubio looks good.

Rubio has natural political talent. He is young, optimistic and representative of the "new America." He would look good next to old lady Clinton, the future versus the past.

I was hoping for one of the governors. Republicans has such a strong field. It is sad that it was hijacked by Trump and Cruz. But if I cannot have one of the successful governors, I can go with Rubio. Sure, he has Obama level experience, but he seems much less arrogant and we can hope he doesn't turn out to be a Republican version of Obama.

On the Democrat side, Hillary & Bernie are tied. No matter how it shakes out, nobody really won the vote. That means that Bernie really won. He kicked to old bag down the road. Who would have imagined this last year?

Posted by Christine & John at February 1, 2016 10:48 PM
Comments
Comment #402347

Back when the field was 17 candidates, I predicted Cruz would win it all. He is the most horrendous candidate out there- not counting Trump- and I always figured this would be a year where the GOP base would reject traditional conservatism and the establishment, in favor of anger, fear, bigotry, and hatred. And with the possible exception of Trump, there is no one worse than Cruz. What did you expect? FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, and others have been encouraging anger and fear and bigotry and hatred for seven years. That is what the Tea Party is all about. It has nothing to do with conservative ideals. This is the worst part of the voting public America has to offer, and it is on display in all its foul malignance.

Trump will probably win NH and maybe even SC. He will also win NV. But the March 1 and 15 primaries will be the chance for Cruz and his billionaire backers to revel in their negativity, and show their true foul natures to full extent. The GOP base will love it. Because this is what conservatism has become- a toxic brew of hatred, bigotry, racism, and misogyny.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2016 11:24 PM
Comment #402348

But think of what a great country we have. Two of the leading candidates are sons of immigrants. We cannot even say that our current president is the son of an immigrant, since his father never became an American. Is there any country more open to newcomers than the United States?

We like to kick ourselves for being intolerant, racist etc. This just ain’t so.

Posted by: C&J at February 1, 2016 11:24 PM
Comment #402349

phx8

IMO, neither Cruz nor Trump will win the nomination. This is as good a result as we can expect. Trump will suffer from not being “a winner.” Cruz needed to win bigger.

Rubio struck a very hopeful note. He can beat Hillary.

Actually, maybe even Bernie can beat Hillary. With all he problems, I stick to my prediction that she will develop “health issues” after March 1 but before June 30. Too bad. It would be fun to see Rubio kick her ass.

Posted by: C&J at February 1, 2016 11:32 PM
Comment #402350

Iowa’s Democratic caucus remains too close to call, with Hillary Clinton clinging to a 49.9 to 49.6 percent lead over Bernie Sanders.

No fair. It was Hillary’s turn. She was entitled to win because she is a woman and she waited to get it.

Posted by: C&J at February 2, 2016 12:25 AM
Comment #402352

phx8

Ad hominem much ? Lol

Posted by: dbs at February 2, 2016 5:34 AM
Comment #402353

DBS, that and all the ‘anger, fear, bigotry, and hatred’ BS seems to be all he has lately. Why, it almost seems as if he is angry about all the Constitutional talk, fears all the support it is getting, and is intolerant towards all who support it.
That kind of hatred seems to be becoming more and more prevalent amongst the left today.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2016 9:33 AM
Comment #402354

Because this is what conservatism has become- a toxic brew of hatred, bigotry, racism, and misogyny.
Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2016 11:24 PM

Finally, we know what phx8 really thinks. I do believe he left out unpatriotic and incompetent.

My top three choices were, and are, Cruz, Trump and Rubio.

It took some really huge cahones for Cruz to stump Iowa with the promise to end ethanol subsidies within five years. I believe all the other candidates are ethanol supporters.

The establishment of both parties took a beating yesterday in Iowa. Good…Great.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 1:02 PM
Comment #402355

kctim & dbs,
When conservatives promote misogyny, anger, fear, bigotry, and hatred, I feel it is important to point it out. And there is no need to go to liberals or non-partisan sources to discover this. Other conservatives are making the same point, including presidential candidates.

Take Rubio. Did you know he is a horrible misogynist? He really hates women. If it were up to him, he would condemn thousands of women to death every year. Talk about a War on Women!

Do you know why that is true?

Ever hear of an ectopic pregnancy? About 1 out of 50 pregnancies are ectopic. If allowed to continue, there is a good chance it will kill the woman, and most of the time the embryo will not survive, because an ectopic pregnancy involves the development of the embryo outside the uterus. Rubio insists there should be no abortions, even if it threatens the life of the woman.

He would literally condemn thousands of women to death. And when it comes to a War on Women, it doesn’t get any worse than that. It is a profoundly misogynist stand because it unnecessarily kills women.

Do you understand why that is so evil?

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2016 1:13 PM
Comment #402356

Dr phx8
You never cease to amaze me.
You totally distort the facts concerning the ectopic pregnancy. Wherever you got the data is the wrong source as usual.
Your charge of killing women is sick.

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2016 1:30 PM
Comment #402357

Come on Phx8, that’s the same lame a$$ excuse people try to use to say people actually hate gays if they simply disagree with gay marriage.

Lack of support for abortion does not mean a person dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women. And the left trying to instill anger and fear by falsely equating the two just for votes, is pathetic.

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2016 1:43 PM
Comment #402358

By the way, the conservatism of today is very different from what it used to be. It has become much more extreme and radical. It has followed the leads of hate entertainers like Limbaugh and Hannity and others, and politicians like Gingrich. This phenomenon- the movement of conservatism towards ideas that were once considered unacceptable- is called “The Overton Window.”

“The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy’s possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public in order to move and/or expand the window.”
Wikipedia

We see numerous examples of this among the GOP presidential candidates. For example, denying women abortions under all circumstances, even if that results in the unnecessary death of thousands of women every year, used to be considered unacceptable. Today, at least one candidate- Rubio- openly advocates this. He is moving the Overton Window.

Another example is Trump and his proposal to ban all Muslim immigration, or JEB and Cruz and their policy to only allow Christian refugees in the US. Once again, this used to be considered unacceptable. Today, imposing religious restrictions on immigration has become standard among conservatives. The Overton Window has been moved.

But WHY has conservatism moved its Overton Window? What emotions propelled this change?

You know the answer: Fear. Anger. Bigotry. Hatred. Misogyny. Racism.

We usually see this in reference to Muslims, ISIS, and illegal immigrants. We saw it with Ebola in western Africa. We see it today with the common GOP belief that Obama is a Muslim.

It is often justified under the guise of ‘religious freedom.’ The movement of the conservative’s Overton Window meets widespread opposition. Opponents refusing the imposition of hateful policies are called haters themselves, reverse racists, and other similar things, and are accused of persecuting Christians and other conservatives.

Oh, one more thing about Rubio. Did you know he said this?
“It’s now abundantly clear: Barack Obama has deliberately weakened America…” He went on to say even worse stuff, but the point is that the Overton Window has moved. In the past, it was always been acceptable for presidential candidates to criticize the previous president and denounce policies. But it is outside the window of acceptability for presidential candidates to suggest a sitting president is intentionally, purposefully harming the country. Plenty of people criticized Bush for his failed policies, but no one ever suggested he did them on purpose because he HATES America! Think about that for a moment.

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2016 1:52 PM
Comment #402359

But WHY has liberalism moved its Overton Window on gay marriage, gays in the military, women in combat roles, religious freedom in our schools and town squares, removing the name of God from our money and pledge of allegiance, crosses from graves in national cemeteries, gender neutral school bathrooms and changing rooms, sanctuary cities, hatred of police, disregard for private property, freedom of speech on college campuses, and so much more?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 2:05 PM
Comment #402360

Could it be that many liberals who find “Fear. Anger. Bigotry. Hatred. Misogyny. Racism.” in Conservatives are simply looking in their bathroom mirror?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #402361

More silliness from the liberal asylum and another example of liberal “Overton Window” excess.

“…members of the 127-year-old American Dialect Society anointed “they,” the singular, gender-neutral pronoun, the 2015 Word of the Year. As in: “They and I went to the store,” where they is used for a person who does not identify as male or female, or they is a filler pronoun in a situation where a person’s gender identity is unknown.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/she-ze-they-whats-in-a-gender-pronoun_us_56b0f03ae4b0655877f7495f

No doubt when conservatives us pronouns such as “he” and “she” they are displaying their hatred.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #402362

Makes me laugh how some in Iowa choose their Democrat candidate for president. A coin toss? Anyone have a two-headed coin to loan Hillary?

“The same way school children decide who gets to play with a toy first or how referees choose who gets the ball first on Super Bowl Sunday, some precincts in Iowa determined who they’d choose for the most powerful job in the world.”

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/02/hillary-clinton-won-6-iowa-precincts-thanks-to-coin-tosses/21306679/?icid=maing-grid7|maing9|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D1105923962

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #402363

Who needs a two-headed coin?
Just go out and get yourself a window, put it wherever you want, ignore or alter fact and history, and claim it’s “the new domain of acceptability.”

Posted by: kctim at February 2, 2016 2:52 PM
Comment #402364

There seems to a some basic misunderstanding about ectopic pregnancy. Do some research. Outlawing all abortions, even if they endanger the health of the mother, will certainly kill many women. It is a simple fact. Rubio wants to outlaw all abortions and, if necessary, let women die rather than terminate a pregnancy.

The Overton Window is not a conservative or liberal idea. And yes, the Overton window has moved in reference to gays. In 2004, Bush ran on a ‘God, Guns, and Gays’ platform. Promoting homophobia was popular enough to help him win the presidency.

The Overton Window has moved. Today, homophobia is unpopular. Gay marriage is acceptable for a majority of people. For others, it still inspires hatred. Just two days ago, a television personality from something called “Duck Dynasty,” took the stage at a Ted Cruz rally and declared gay marriage a sign of “depravity” and “perversion” and said “We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there.” Cruz followed Robertson on stage and said he was “a joyful, cheerful, unapologetic voice of truth.”

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2016 3:48 PM
Comment #402365

ectopic pregnancies normally do not exceed 8 weeks and the baby is dead. This causes complications for the mother and the doctors usually find the cause before it gets too serious. In many cases the mother does not even know she is pregnant.

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #402366

phx8 wrote; ” Gay marriage is acceptable for a majority of people. For others, it still inspires hatred.”

I find the above writers casual and excessive use of the word “hatred” quite revealing.

It is hatred for a religious person to hold to their beliefs.

It is hatred for a fiscal conservative to espouse a government that lives within its means.

It is hatred towards women for folks to request that they use contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It is hatred when those, confused about their gender, are denied the use of opposite gender changing rooms and toilets.

It is hatred when those wishing to live in the US are required to do so legally.

It is hatred when those wishing to vote are asked to register properly.

It is hatred when a person objects to joining a union.

It is hatred when some don’t wish to have women in combat.

It is hatred when some require work, for those able, in exchange for tax paid benefits.

It is hatred when one holds to their religious beliefs regarding traditional marriage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 4:53 PM
Comment #402367

tomhumes,
You might be interested to know some pro-lifers do not consider terminating ectopic pregnancies to be the same thing as an abortion because an ectopic pregnancy is redefined as an “abnormal pregnancy.” However, there are ectopic pregnancies resulting in the delivery of healthy babies, so making that distinction in order to justify ending one is dishonest.

RF,
“It is hatred for a religious person to hold to their beliefs.”
No. There is only a problem when a religious person feels they have a right to impose their religious beliefs on someone else.

By the way, I’ve always thought putting “In God We Trust” on our money is bizarre. Doesn’t that strike you as blasphemous? Sure looks odd to me.

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #402368

“In God We Trust” is a form of praise.

“blasphemy” denotes any utterance that insults God or Christ (or Allah, or Muhammed) and gives deeply felt offense to their followers.

The word “God” can be found throughout our nations capital and in many of documents written by our founders.

None of these references could possibly be considered “blasphemous”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 5:56 PM
Comment #402369

” There is only a problem when a religious person feels they have a right to impose their religious beliefs on someone else.”

Atheists feel they have a right to impose their non-religious beliefs on us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 6:09 PM
Comment #402371

“Atheists feel they have a right to impose their non-religious beliefs on us.”

Could you provide a few examples, Royal.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2016 6:21 PM
Comment #402372

Rich, declaring that separation of church and state dictates removal of religious symbols and speech from publicly owned spaces clearly was not the intention of our Founders who allowed, condoned, and joined in, just such practice.

It is outrageous when atheists find a violation with religious symbols on the graves of military person in national cemeteries.

It is abominable when a student can not exercise commonly accepted religious free speech on school grounds.

Many more examples are available.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 6:32 PM
Comment #402373

Royal,

In your examples, it is not atheists that have “imposed” their views, it is the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2016 7:23 PM
Comment #402374

RF,
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
—-Thomas Jefferson, in an 1823 letter to John Adams

“Declaring that separation of church and state dictates removal of religious symbols and speech from publicly owned spaces clearly was not the intention of our Founders who allowed, condoned, and joined in, just such practice.”

You do know Christmas, for example, was not widely observed until the mid 1800’s, right? The Puritans did not observe it at all. Others, such as our Founding Fathers, observed it as a remnant of Saturnalia, which mainly meant drinking and dancing and acting rowdy. The symbols we associate with it today (and the phrase ‘Merry Christmas) did not become common until the middle of the 1800’s.

“It is outrageous when atheists find a violation with religious symbols on the graves of military person in national cemeteries.”

Here is a list of 62 Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and markers.

http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp

“It is abominable when a student can not exercise commonly accepted religious free speech on school grounds.”

Students are free to practice their religions on school grounds; however, the school and its teachers cannot impose practices or support them. For example, students can pray in a classroom; however, students cannot interrupt class with disruptive acts, such as loudly speaking in tongues in the middle of a lesson. Teachers can cite the Bible. I have taught in public schools and I have done just that- ironically, in reference to a book I taught by Ayn Rand, “Anthem.” But teachers cannot teach the Bible as a sacred text.

Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2016 7:26 PM
Comment #402375

Really Rich? My examples coincide with the men who wrote the Constitution. Do a little homework on the Founders and religion in the public space.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 7:26 PM
Comment #402376

phx8 twists Jefferson’s letter into a pretzel and seems either proud of it or ignorant of his grave error.

Frankly, those on WB should be embarrassed by phx8’s feeble attempt to portray Jefferson in such a fashion. phx8 is once again revealed as a religious hater and damnable spinner of lies. The end of the Jefferson letter reads:

“So much for your quotation of Calvin’s `mon dieu! jusqu’a quand’ in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient Colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.’”

Find the entire Jefferson letter here;

http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/11/15/letter-from-thomas-jefferson-to-john-adams/

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/53/Letter_from_Thomas_Jefferson_to_John_Adams_1.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2016 8:08 PM
Comment #402377

Royal,

What you think the founders meant is immaterial under our Constitution. The Supreme Court is designated under the Constitution to interpret the meaning of the document and its drafters. They have chosen to interpret that document as requiring a separation between church and state.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2016 8:36 PM
Comment #402378

Rich, Separation of Church and State is no where to be found in the Constitution. Not having a State Religion is but separation No. I wonder why the 10 commandments hasn’t been taken from the SCOTUS building yet.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 2, 2016 9:33 PM
Comment #402379
It is hatred for a religious person to hold to their beliefs.

Royal, such silly misguided examples you cling to. You claim the mantle of the anti-establishment conservative in the voting booth yet you fall for the establishment line when it cones to forcing your religious beliefs upon others. Mixing politics and religion only serves to obfuscate the issues. Not getting your way on closely held beliefs causes hatred.

When has anyone politically opposed to you made these statements you claim as your defense against the hatred you and your fellow conservatives spew towards others when you use your religious beliefs is such an anti spiritual way. When you deny others their rights because it conflicts with your beliefs the answer is simple. Practice your beliefs and let others practice theirs. Codifying your beliefs into law denies others the right to practice their beliefs.

If in fact you held to your conservative principles half as much as you held to your religious beliefs you wouldn’t make such a nonsensical claim. To think your religious beliefs should be codified into law is laughable. To think the founding fathers wanted it that way is even more laughable.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 2, 2016 11:39 PM
Comment #402380

Those on the left define hate as anything they disagree with.


Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2016 11:53 PM
Comment #402381

RF,
Here is the entire paragraph from the link you provide:

“The Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Jefferson was a Deist. He thought there was a basic truth to the “primitive and genuine” story of Jesus, but that it had been perverted by the ‘artificial scaffoldings’ of organized religion. This is hardly an endorsement for entwining religion and the state. As he writes, “the dawn of reason and freedom of thought” in the United States would allow its citizens to see beyond the scaffolding of organized religion and perceive the fundamental truths.

Posted by: phx8 at February 3, 2016 1:50 AM
Comment #402382

Liberals are the last who should be complaining about others imposing their beliefs onto everybody. They do it every single day. The only difference is which ‘G’ word they believe to be their savior.

I’ll take religious preaching over liberal oppression any day.

Posted by: kctim at February 3, 2016 9:06 AM
Comment #402383

j2t2: “…you use your religious beliefs is such an anti spiritual way.”

Huh! Can you explain?

“To think your religious beliefs should be codified into law is laughable.”

Huh! Can you explain?

phx8 writes; “Jefferson was a Deist. He thought there was a basic truth to the “primitive and genuine” story of Jesus, but that it had been perverted by the ‘artificial scaffoldings’ of organized religion. This is hardly an endorsement for entwining religion and the state.”

Once again phx8 resorts to spinning and twisting in his effort to characterize the religious as wishing to entwine religion and state. Look around the nations capital for evidence of what our Founders believed and wrote about with regard to religion and state.

Only a rabid Leftie can dismiss evidence available for all to see.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #402384

President Obama and Thomas Jefferson have something in common?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 3, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #402385

Congratulations America. Your government has managed to increase our National Debt to $19 Trillion. Every living person in the United States, including the newborn, now owes $58,000 in debt.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 2:50 PM
Comment #402386

Much more relevant is the debt-to-gdp ratio, which remains above 100%. To be immune from inflation problems, it would mean bringing this down to 75%. Assuming balanced budgeting (a laughable assumption), this requires growing the economy by a third. 5% growth is possible, but maintaining it for 6 years is unlikely. Averaging 3% is more plausible, but would take 11 years to bring debt to sustainable levels.

Per capita debt is a nearly meaningless tool for comparison. The US is doing much better than many other OECD nations. That said, it is truly a miracle that investors continue to gobble up US treasuries like there is no tomorrow.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 3, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #402387

“Much more relevant is the debt-to-gdp ratio, which remains above 100%.”

I agree Warren. Unfortunately, many citizens don’t know what that even means. They are much more likely to understand that their newborn owes $58,000 upon drawing their first breath.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #402388

Ends don’t justify means. The argument is not only fallacious but decreases the average citizen’s understanding of the issue. Ultimately, it leads to very poor decisions such as the Tea Party’s monkeying around with the debt limit.

If Debt were just 50% of GDP, it would still be a mind-boggling $29,000 per person, but it would be absolutely insane to reduce government spending in such a circumstance. Zero debt should be the goal of every household, but it would be a disaster for the government.

Household budgeting and government budgeting are different and people need to learn this. For instance, it is perfectly acceptable for Debt to rise during a recession. Government spending is supposed to be counter-cyclical. As Americans cut back, Uncle Sam pitches in. Now that our economy has improved greatly throughout Obama’s Presidency, we need to restrain Uncle Sam so that he can spend again when times are tough.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 3, 2016 3:48 PM
Comment #402389

I believe that everyone on WB understands what “RINO” means.

With the advent of Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist Democrat, do we now have “DINO’s”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 4:45 PM
Comment #402390

Do we need new nomenclature to define the various wings of the once great Democrat Party? Left, right and middle hardly applies any more.

The Right wing is gone.

The Middle wing numbers are too small to make up a decent football team.

The Left Wing was the New Progressives and will soon become the Left Behind.

The Socialist Wing is the predominant faction fueled by brainless, greedy youth following a hippie Pied Piper.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 5:16 PM
Comment #402391

Candidates govern the way they campaign. We are being provided valuable insight into some of the candidates by the way they are reacting to IA. Trump is being a sore loser. He is accusing the Cruz campaign of using dirty tricks to steal the win. And that tells you a lot about Trump. He paid little attention to IA until the end, and when he realized he could win, he threw himself into it at the last minute. He failed to think strategically. As a result, his 2nd place finish makes him appear weak.

The Cruz campaign did, in fact, spread a false story that Carson was quitting, and it might have effected the IA caucus. And that tells you a lot about Trump. His people play dirty. They will say and do anything- absolutely anything- in order to win.

Huckabee, Santorum, and Paul have either dropped out or are about to suspend their campaigns. Several others will probably be gone after the NH primary, including Kasich and Christie. Jeb* has enough money to stick around for a while.

As for the Democrats, I don’t think the Sanders campaign will last very long. After a win in NH he will face a lot of primaries in a very short time, and his opponent is already well organized and poised to campaign effectively in those states. It’s just a very unfavorable scenario for an upstart, and momentum can evaporate with just one loss- most likely, SC.

Posted by: phx8 at February 3, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #402392

Correction,
The dirty tricks by the Cruz campaign in IA tell you about Cruz. He will say or do anything- absolutely anything- to win. If called on it, he will play the persecuted Christian card.

Remember, they govern the way they campaign.

Posted by: phx8 at February 3, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment #402393

LOL…love the BS correction of BS phx8.

“Candidates govern the way they campaign.”

True for obama. He lied then, and is lying now.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2016 7:50 PM
Comment #402394

“Candidates govern the way they campaign”

So, if Hillary were to win, we will be governed by a President with ‘dissociative identity disorder.’
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays we would have Hillary Hussein Obama.
Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays we get Hillary Sanders.
Sundays? Well, if we are lucky we will get Hillary Clinton of the 90s.

Posted by: kctim at February 4, 2016 9:24 AM
Comment #402395

And they’re off! Although the Iowa caucus is a political event, I am uncertain that the first place contention is meaningful except for Iowans.

I support both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. They both have ideas that I would like to see implemented. I do believe Clinton would be better positioned to implement those ideas if she is the eventual nominee although Sanders does have an air of confidence that I did not expect but believe he assumes that rightfully so.

I haven’t heard a Republican candidate yet that has put forth an appealing message. Not sure what the game plan is if all you want to do is undo a two term President’s policies without using any of that in a productive manner. But it does appeal to the “Unsilent Majority”, these people are anything but silent and we are all aware that “they” are angry and upset. Angry and upset doesn’t motivate anybody except those that, well, want to be angry and upset.

Please no lectures on what the “Founding Fathers” want or wanted. I am concerned only what this father wants and many like me. Their ideas and abilities should be respected and admired but that was over 200+ years ago. Although a lot of what they encompassed in their ideas is still admirable today, the implementation of today’s societal needs is to different to hold steadfast to a lot of the antiquated policy and procedure that they needed at that time.

I will observe the primary process as best as I can. I really will enjoy this process more when we move into the general election cycle and get down to some brass tacks.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 4, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #402396

Speak,
Both Democratic candidates are terrific, and I really appreciate the way they insist on discussing issues, rather than name calling or demanding voters be fearful. I watched most of the Town Hall meeting last night- something I usually don’t do- and they were so good! Mrs. Phx should be a perfect target voter for Hillary, but by the time Sanders finished last night, she was ready to vote for him. We’ll see if that holds. I’m still for Hillary, but with either candidate we’ll have a dignified, experienced legislator as the nominee.

Meanwhile, the GOP race gets worse. It is amazing how many different people from both sides of the aisle say exactly the same thing about Cruz: he will say and do absolutely anything. And that is not a good thing. I predicted he would win the nomination because he is so extreme.

Rubio is taking hits from all sides. He accused Obama of being “divisive” because Obama went to a Mosque. Rubio is one sick puppy. He is every bit as nuts as some of the others- he is just better at staying on script and avoiding reporters.

Jeb* is pathetic. And after NH he might actually be the best one left!

The others will be gone soon, leaving Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Jeb. Trump and his appeal to ethno-centrism (white supremacy) continues unabated. He feeds on anger and fear. Rubio and Cruz are just as bad in the way they appeal to the darker parts of the American character, but they not as good at doing it as Trump- a carnival barker at a barking carnival of a political party.

Posted by: phx8 at February 4, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #402397

phx8, I wanted to watch the town hall but got interested in a college basketball game. My interest in politics while avid is easily distracted sometimes.

I also am very excited about the Democrat candidates. They both appeal to me in very different ways. I really don’t have any gripes about either of them, honestly.

Jeb! really seems to going after Rubio. I think he might be trying to cut his legs out way before Florida, if either of them last that long (although I’m pretty sure the Bush backers will keep him in it for the long haul). It seems sometimes that Trump and Cruz will cancel each other out with toxicity but you never know. Cruz is really unlikable from my perspective, I knew I didn’t like him but didn’t realize how many establishment types can’t stand him. Trump just keeps saying “it will be really great”, “I will get everything done”, “I will make the best deals” but has nothing to really prove that he can even attempt it except his braggadocio, which is formidable.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 4, 2016 4:11 PM
Comment #402398

Santorum endorsed Rubio, but when Santorum went on “Morning Joe and Scarborough asked him to name one legislative accomplishment by Rubio, Santorum could not do it. Scarborough asked three times. Rubio literally accomplished nothing.

As a general rule, I try to avoid personal attacks on candidates. Heh. Maybe it’s not so much a rule as a guideline. Anyway, I’m sure many of the candidates are much different in person from their image in the media. But I have to admit, there is something about Cruz that makes my skin crawl. My wife feels the same way. It is hard to put a finger on it. Maybe it is the way he gives fake, canned responses. The content is certainly horrendous enough, but other candidates say similar things without evoking such a reaction from me. It is just that there is nothing genuine about Cruz. It is a sense that he is lying to me and everyone else, that he himself doesn’t believe a word of what he says, and it is all done in a whiney, smarmy kind of tone, and if he is the victim in his warped worldview, as if he is the one who has been put upon when his hatred has been thwarted. It’s the same old persecuted Christian complex that appears among so many conservatives. It is never attractive. Personally, I consider religion to be a very intense and personal matter, and NOT something to be publicly bandied about, but in the case of Cruz, it is truly fingernails on the chalkboard.

Posted by: phx8 at February 4, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #402399

So far the Republican primary process is reminding me of everything I don’t like about politics. Divisiveness, playing on peoples fears, dirty tricks(Cruz via Carson), and complete lack of understanding other people’s positions. Now I know there are some commenters here who accuse liberal Democrats of that very same thing, (lack of understanding of other people’s positions). But it’s not that I don’t understand and respect their ability to hold a position different than my own, I just disagree with it.

Cruz creeped me out when he read “Green Eggs and Ham” to his daughters while filibustering the PPACA. He seemed oblivious to the Dr. Seuss moral of the story that although the little boy did not like green eggs and ham and did not want green eggs and ham, once he tried green eggs and ham he liked it very much. How tone deaf do you have to be to not notice that a children’s book is attempting to inform you that some things in life may be unappealing but once it is attempted, it could be something that you like? Blissfully ignorant.

I am going to try to watch the debate tonight but again I do get easily distracted.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 4, 2016 5:40 PM
Comment #402400

phx8

Hillary has some very serious legal problems, and they are of her own making. Better jump on the Berniemobile, because it is your only hope.

Posted by: dbs at February 5, 2016 5:06 AM
Comment #402401

The gloves came off in last night’s first one on one debate between Sanders and Clinton. An exchange that was particularly interesting is when Hillary said to Sanders something like “your campaign has made suggestions that I am influenced by donations, if you have something to say just come out and say it”. Bernie replied with “I am proud to say that I am the only candidate on this stage that does not have a Super Pac that accepts donations for big money people, my average donation is $27”. Her retort was something like “I invite you to find any donation that I ever accepted that swayed my vote or position”. Powerful exchange about a very big part of this election cycle. Trump is using the same strategy as Sanders, sort of, by pointing out that he is funding his campaign and can’t be bought. Now that 4 more Democrat debates have been sanctioned, I hope to see more of this back and forth.

I hope to be able to watch some of the Republican debate tomorrow night(there are some good college basketball games that may distract me again). Fiorina is already petitioning the RNC and the sponsoring network for a place on the stage. She did not garner enough support to qualify but she thinks she should be there. We shall see, rules are rules for a reason? The field is smaller and no under card debate this time. I would like to see some real issues discussed and not the bantering about each others or President Obama’s shortcomings, but a focus on what they can do and how they can do that with some specific details.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2016 10:14 AM
Comment #402402

The Hillary train wreck has been quite interesting so far.
The dem leadership knew that her lack of integrity and mishandling of classified information would mean nothing to their voters. As long as she supported abortion, gay-marriage, special treatment for certain groups, and the redistribution of other peoples wealth, she should have been good. The majority of democrats were supposed to do as they were told and blindly support her, just like they always do.

Sanders was supposed to make her look like the ‘moderate’ choice. Hillary only supported a partial government takeover of health care, not a full takeover as Sanders does. She wanted to make higher education more affordable, not make it ‘free,’ as Sanders does.
On issue after issue, she was supposed to be the ‘not as extreme as Bernie’ choice. The majority of dems were supposed to still be ‘moderates,’ not far left extremists.

The dem leadership and Hillary miscalculated just how far left and dependent dems have become and now she is trying to out socialist the socialist.
The race is no longer democrat vs. socialist, it’s now far-left progressive vs. socialist.

The question is, how will these promises of huge government, endless freebies, special treatment divisiveness and gutting of the 2nd Amendment, play out in the general election?

It’s going to be a crazy year.

Posted by: kctim at February 5, 2016 10:24 AM
Comment #402403

It’s great to get a different take on the Democrat primary process, however misguided, ill informed and pretentious that might be. It might be more interesting to get some information from a conservative or Republican or whatever about the Republican primary process.

phx8 has been steadfast in his prediction of Cruz garnering the nomination. I on the other hand would not be so bold as to make a prediction(no offense phx8) but would like to see it come down to Trump vs. Bush as the final two candidates with some good debates regarding each of their policies and positions, again with some specific details. What I like and what I get is not always synonymous therefore I am not predicting that outcome as much as wanting to see that competition. Cruz and anyone else debating for the nomination would be too much theater for me to observe with any sense of political acumen.

I am as yet undecided on my vote to be cast. Although I can state with definite certainty that the only Republican I might have even looked at would have been Jon Huntsman. This Republican primary process was much to toxic for him to even consider a run.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2016 11:26 AM
Comment #402404

Speak,
I always thought Huntsman was an excellent candidate. I would prefer a Democrat for a number of reasons, but he is another Republican who seems capable of doing the job without creating a national nightmare of wars and economic crashes. Bush #41 was good in many respects too, especially with foreign policy. But he got elected with the help of a lie, “read my lips…” and it came back to rip his lips off.

kctim,
Personally I do not care whether HRC or Sanders is a ‘progressive.’ That strikes me as a red herring and irrelevant to the issues. The press likes to chase it because conflict sells. There are differences between the two, but both are good candidate, and whether you realize it or not, their stands on issues are popular with many Americans- probably a majority.

Did you know Condi Rice and Colin Powell staffers did the exact same thing with their personal servers as HRC? Some of their staffer’s info turned out to be classified. And you know what? No one cares. The FBI is trying to find out if anything valuable was hacked. They publicly announced they were not investigating HRC.

dbs,
Are you a mayfly? Do you have a memory of a gnat? If so, you will remember all those e-mails from all those other scandals- Fast and Furious, the IRS- and you will remember all the anonymous leaks, and the constant iteration by FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity and others that the e-mails would blow up, and boy oh boy… any day now… any day now… any day… any… zzzz.

How many times will you fall for the same baloney? Do you ever learn? The echo chamber insists Obama and HRC are liars and untrustworthy and horrible people, yet scandal after scandal fades away with no conclusion or indictment, only to be replaced by yet another false accusation. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. How many times will you fall for the same old conservative con? Isn’t there some point where your feelings get hurt after being abused so badly?

Posted by: phx8 at February 5, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #402405

phx8, Powell has said “it’s an absurdity” in regards to the kerfuffle about his and his staff’s emails. Hillary addressed this in the debate last night. Rice and Powell’s emails were again retroactively re-classified just like Hillary’s. I’d really like to see a way to remove politics from the intelligence community. Now that the oxen being gored are Republican it may shed light on why this is happening right now, but I doubt it.

Colin Powell struck me as a Republican of the Eisenhower mold. Not only because of his military service but because of his fundamental belief that Republican ideals were something to be respected and treated with dignity. He has to be having a hard time now when he sees most of his party’s participants acting like a Pavlovian pet every time Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned, salivating and succumbing to the nonsense that is promulgated. But instead of shame for this activity they display ignorance of it and revel in it. It is no wonder he endorsed President Obama in 2008 and 2012. His exemplary service to his country would not allow him to participate in the fallacious attacks that the right wing carnival of pundits and so called politicians have waged and continue to wage. One of the most decorated and admired servants to his country(until his infamous UN speech) can’t stomach this nonsense. It would be great to see someone, anyone of his party’s participants finally come to their senses and see this for what it is, but I doubt that will happen too.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2016 2:20 PM
Comment #402406

Speak,
Kasich seems to be a pretty sensible guy, and he sees the incredibly destructive GOP carnival for what it is- a toxic stew of ethno-nationalism, white supremacy, and Christian dominionism. Kasich is the only candidate I think could actually beat HRC in the election. With any luck at all (for Democrats) he will be knocked out in the NH primary. Having said that, it is really bad for the country to see one party sink to this level. It has devolved into a circular firing squad of name-calling, with occasional breaks to demand the public be afraid of ISIS, illegal immigrants, and so on. Really ugly stuff. It is bad for the country, and while there might be some satisfaction in knowing the GOP brought it on themselves, it nevertheless diminishes our image abroad and our democracy at home. Ultimately, this decline diminishes us all.

Posted by: phx8 at February 5, 2016 3:10 PM
Comment #402407

phx8, I get that feeling from Kasich also but I would be pleasantly surprised if he actually came out and said the words necessary to snap people out of their dazed and confused state. I am uncertain what those words could or should be but I would hope that someone that cares about their party should know what they are or at least be able to touch on it a little bit without offense.

I find no satisfaction in the loss of sanity of one party in the two party system that we currently have. Even though it would appear self-inflicted and able to be self-corrected, it does great harm to our country when 30% of the voting public seems possessed by some force that they have an inability to reckon with. I don’t doubt that there are very big and very real differences between liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans but to focus on the minutiae of these personal attacks is not conducive to debating the real positions held by each group and how best to resolve them for the good of our country.

As you say “Ultimately, this decline diminishes us all.” For my part I would like to find a way to remove this burden of partisanship without giving up my beliefs and ideas of governance. I expect there are some on the right that feel this way also but we seem to be at an impasse and each side digs their heels in further at every turn. There are also those that just enjoy the goading and sparring and there always will be. Do we need an Alexander like character that can cut through this Gordian knot of ideals with some great concept or are we doomed to this dance of partisan politics for the rest of our country’s existence?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #402408

Phx8

It’s kind of hard to claim misleading and irrelevant to the issues when Sanders and Clinton are going back and forth about ‘progressive’ credentials and all.

Actually, I do believe their stands on convenience and comfort issues are now probably popular with a small majority of Americans. I’ve stated many times that there are more Americans dependent on government today, than ever before.

No, I was not aware that Rice and Powell had set up and maintained unsecured private personal servers on private property, instead of using the government servers. The last I heard was that their staffers had used private email accounts and that is definitely an issue that also needs to be addressed.

As I said before, the national security implications from mishandling classified information is what’s important, not who did it. IF Rice and Powell themselves are actually guilty of the same thing Clinton is, they also should be held accountable for their actions.

Posted by: kctim at February 5, 2016 4:00 PM
Comment #402409

kct, not to belittle your point but there are more Americans than ever before also. We have changed as a society and perhaps percentage wise there are more people “dependent on government” today. Certainly if we go back to the beginnings of our country that would be true but as I said we have changed. I don’t see this as something to be feared or detested but to be used and improved.

Perhaps we need many Alexanders wielding their swords of new concepts to cut through this partisan idealism that grips most of us somehow?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 5, 2016 4:45 PM
Comment #402410
I was not aware that Rice and Powell had set up and maintained unsecured private personal servers on private property, instead of using the government servers.

Wouldn’t a private email account on a commercial server be worse than Clinton’s arrangement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 5, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #402412

phx8

“Are you a mayfly? Do you have a memory of a gnat? If so, you will remember all those e-mails from all those other scandals-“

Lol. I guess when the fix is in and the attorney general is a political pawn and not capable of doing her job you might think those were bogus scandals. Problem this time is that when the FBI recommends she be indicted it won’t be as easy. I don’t believe she’ll ever spend a day in prison, which is where she actually belongs, but if the FBI releases the evidence against her to the public she will be ruined. The wheels are coming off the big democrat machine, and I for one will thoroughly enjoy the show. That woman has lied so many times she can’t even keep them all straight.

Posted by: dbs at February 6, 2016 7:11 AM
Comment #402413

dbs,
Look at what you are saying! ‘It is all a conspiracy and a cover-up.’ She is supposedly a liar, yet there are never any indictments or trials or convictions, and nothing substantial that has ever been lied about. Everyone is a liar- Obama, Hillary, liberals… That is precisely how you end up with candidates like Trump and Cruz and Rubio. It is all anger and rage and frustration on the part of conservatives because they keep telling each other it is all conspiracy, cover-up, and lies.

Posted by: phx8 at February 6, 2016 10:40 AM
Comment #402414

I’ve stated many times that there are more Americans dependent on government today, than ever before.

Kctim, Be specific man, are you suggesting baby boomers retiring onto social security is the reason for this supposed dependence. Or are you suggesting corporations such as WalMArt that pay such low wages, are causing the working poor to rely on food stamps and medicare? Or are you suggesting the poor infirmed and disabled have grown in number despite the supply side economics trickling down this past 40 years? Oh or maybe you are suggesting those unable to find jobs due to corporate America sending jobs overseas for so long as they fought to lower wages on the middle class. Or the …. well the conservatives war on the middle class the past 30 years?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 6, 2016 11:41 AM
Comment #402415

dbs,

What makes you doubt Lorreta Lynch’s integrity? If the FBI recommends it, she will certainly indict Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 6, 2016 12:25 PM
Comment #402418

phx8; “But I have to admit, there is something about Cruz that makes my skin crawl.”

Truth, honesty and love of country does that to some folks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2016 3:51 PM
Comment #402419

Speaks; “I find no satisfaction in the loss of sanity of one party in the two party system that we currently have.”

We agree, how could the once great Democrat Party even consider an avowed Socialist?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #402420
Truth, honesty and love of country does that to some folks.

This is the man who lied about CNN’s reporting on Dr. Carson, right?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 7, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #402421

Wrong!

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2016 5:57 PM
Comment #402422

WP,
You beat me to it. Funny how I’ve been talking about Cruz and his dishonesty, and guess who pulls the dirtiest trick of the 2016 campaign season! Cruz is a real piece of work.

Rubio blew himself up at the debate. All it took were a few verbal shoves by Christie to reveal Rubio for what he is… a cardboard cut-out citing memorized lines.

RF,
Sanders is popular for a simple reason: he talks about issues. He is absolutely relentless about it, and his concerns resonate with a lot of Americans, especially young people. Universal health care makes sense. The cost of college is out of this world, and staggering amounts of debt are common for young people.

Sanders needs to come up with a way of restraining rising costs if there is going to be government underwriting education. But remember, for the price of the War in Iraq, we could have already funded college education for everyone who qualified.

Watch carefully what happens when FOX or Limbaugh or Hannity mention Sanders. They will do everything they can to AVOID discussing the issues that Sanders campaigns on. The GOP is desperately trying to avoid discussions of college debt, the high cost of health care insurance, and low wages due to the unjust distribution of wealth. But these are what people actually care about! I’ve said before, I support HRC, but dismissing Sanders by simply name-calling is a big mistake. His socialism appeals to a lot of people because, once again, it addresses what they actually care about.

When the GOP offers fear and anger it does not resonate with young people. The young people remember the War in Iraq all too well. The failure of the GOP and the success of Sanders (and Clinton) is typified by attitudes towards gay rights. Most of the young people accept gay rights as a matter of course. The GOP is wildly out of step on this issue as well as other social issues.

Cruz just said “socialized medicine is a disaster.” That is simply untrue. For example, a young relative of mine works for a company based in Denmark. He receives the same benefits as his Danish compatriots and he visits Denmark a couple times of year. It is a small country- just 5 million- but medical care there is every bit as good as the US, it is universal, and it covers everyone.

The cost per capita for health care in Denmark is $6270. The cost per capita for health are in the US is $9146.

Obamacare is better than no reform, but universal health is the best option. Sanders is right on this one and people know it.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2016 6:04 PM
Comment #402423

“Sanders is popular for a simple reason: he talks about issues.”

I hope he wins the nomination. We can have America vote on his Socialist issues or Democratic issues that made America what it is.

” Universal health care makes sense.” In a socialists mind it does. Failing Obamacare on steroids.

“The cost of college is out of this world, and staggering amounts of debt are common for young people.”

And why is that? Don’t blame conservatives. Bernie will socialize the cost; and costs will soar. Make middle-class working Americans pay for everyone and everything. Break the middle class and make them dependent on government is the plan.

“His socialism appeals to a lot of people because, once again, it addresses what they actually care about.”

Sure…and a lot of people prefer Communism. So what?

Is there anything else we should copy from Denmark?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2016 6:27 PM
Comment #402424

In polls for the happiest people in the world, the Danes come in first. I would say we could learn a lot from them.

Every major country in the world has ‘socialist’ health care. They cover all their citizens and they do it for much less than it costs Americans. We pay MUCH more. Obamacare has slowed the rise in costs, but it is still too high. There is no reason to have corporations providing health care insurance. None.

Sanders may win the nomination, but I still think it is unlikely, even after a big win in NH this Tuesday.

And by the way, Sanders does not go after the middle class to foot the cost of his programs. He goes after the richest of the rich. Social Security can be fixed indefinitely by removing the payroll cap, and as a matter of equity, it should be removed.

Remember, the middle class was created when the top tax brackets were 70% and even 90%, and corporate taxes provided a substantial share of tax revenues.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2016 6:50 PM
Comment #402425

Did Cruz not claim that CNN reported that Carson was going to drop out of the race? Was this not false? CNN merely tweeted that Carson was going to Florida for a quick break and to change his wardrobe.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 7, 2016 7:27 PM
Comment #402427

” Universal health care makes sense.” In a socialists mind it does. Failing Obamacare on steroids.”

Royal,

Medicare is a universal single payer socialist health care system for a large segment of Americans. It is also has strong support across political affiliations. So, are the majority of Americans closet socialists? Is Bernie not simply suggesting that we adopt for all what not only the rest of the world does, but more importantly, what we already consider a successful program for those 65 and older?

By the way Obamacare is not a socialist health care system. It is a private sector market driven program with government subsidies for lower income consumers. It is a conservative health care program passed by liberals. Ironic, considering the degree of opposition from conservatives.

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2016 11:29 PM
Comment #402429

Warren

“Wouldn’t a private email account on a commercial server be worse than Clinton’s arrangement.”

Transmitting classified info over unsecured channels is a problem no matter what. To knowingly do it, lie about it, and then try to cover it up, is much much worse.

J2

Yes, social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA etc… all make people dependent on government.
You can blame Wal-Marts secret plan, but I blame laziness and materialism. You blame some ‘conservative war,’ but I blame the policies that actually encourage such harmful behavior.
You don’t want specifics, you want excuses and I am not the one to do that.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2016 9:54 AM
Comment #402431
Transmitting classified info over unsecured channels is a problem no matter what.

Absolutely. This is why the whole “Private Server” aspect of the scandal is a red herring. Even an unsecured @state.gov email account is insufficient for transmitting such information.

It seems three former secretaries of states and/or their aides have gotten themselves in hot water over the exact same issue. All three have sent or relieved emails on an unsecured server that contain information that is considered classified today. Whether or not the information was classified at the time of transmission remains to be seen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2016 2:03 PM
Comment #402432

Rich writes; “Medicare is a universal single payer socialist health care system for a large segment of Americans.

A SUMMARY OF THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

“Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund now faces an urgent threat of reserve depletion, requiring prompt corrective action by lawmakers if sudden reductions or interruptions in benefit payments are to be avoided. Beyond DI, Social Security as a whole as well as Medicare cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing.

The Trustees project that the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be depleted in 2030, the same year projected in last year’s report. At that time dedicated revenues will be sufficient to pay 86 percent of HI costs.”

Canada is having trouble with its Health Care system. I have not dug into Denmark but I expect it will face funding problems sooner rather than later.

With our National Government $19 Trillion in debt, how much more debt can be added to fix our existing social programs?

All the wealthy folks in America don’t have enough to pay off our existing debt. Soon, government will dig into middle class America for ever more taxes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #402433

Warren:

In a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #402435

[Se*ist] is gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s se* or gender.

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” – Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a Hillary Clinton campaign event.

Is Hillary Se*ist? She openly promotes se*ism by telling women to vote for her as she has the correct genitalia.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2016 3:06 PM
Comment #402436

Warren

Who controls access to unsecured @state.gov email accounts?
Who controls access to accounts on their own private server?

The private server is hardly some red herring.

And YES! while it is absolutely disgusting that partisans are trying to shift the focus onto others, IF they have also mishandled classified material, they too need to be held accountable.

The classified information, not abortion, gay marriage or government freebies, are what’s important.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2016 3:08 PM
Comment #402437

Royal,

My point was simple: Medicare is socialist and Medicare is very popular across all political affiliations.

Health care cost inflation is a problem facing all health insurers, private or public. It is not unique to Medicare.

If anyone was actually interested in driving down Medicare outlays, then they would support rescinding the restrictions against Medicare negotiating prices for drugs. Hard to understand why Medicare is denied the opportunity to use its market share power to reduce drug costs for its beneficiaries.

Posted by: Rich at February 9, 2016 4:11 PM
Comment #402438

“If anyone was actually interested in driving down Medicare outlays, then they would support rescinding the restrictions against Medicare negotiating prices for drugs.”

Agree. The “anyone” you speak of is corrupt Washington. Bernie will not change how Washington operates, but rather, merely expand it creating ever more opportunities to squander and plunder the public purse.

“Medicare is socialist and Medicare is very popular across all political affiliations.”

Why would you expect it to be any different? We borrow ever more money to pay for it because the entire design is flawed.

Many Americans would be very pleased if we socialized food, automobiles, housing and more. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2016 4:44 PM
Comment #402439
the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

I don’t think anyone ever denied the FBI was conducting an investigation. What nobody knows is the conclusions the investigation will reach.

Who controls access to unsecured @state.gov email accounts? Who controls access to accounts on their own private server?

“Control” is a meaningless attribute. If a server is unsecured, it is unsecured. Period. Whether it is @clintonmail.com, @state.gov or @aol.com, the law is the same.

And YES! while it is absolutely disgusting that partisans are trying to shift the focus onto others, IF they have also mishandled classified material, they too need to be held accountable.
I agree. If aides of Powell & Rice sent or received classified information on personal email accounts, then they need to be treated the same as Clinton. Claiming that using a private server in Chappaqua is any worse than a commercial server owned by AOL is absurd.

Personally, I think the whole affair is overblown. These emails found on Clinton’s server or Powell’s AOL account were not classified at the time they were created. It is only today that they have been given retroactive classification. Some have alleged that Clinton should have been able to recognize the information as “born classified”, but if Powell and Rice’s aides made the same mistake, then reason would suggest that Clinton’s judgement might not have been so bad after all. I base this conclusion upon the assumption that I think it is highly unlikely so many people would err in the exact same way. My assumption might be wrong, but that’s why the FBI is conducting their investigation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2016 6:31 PM
Comment #402441

“I don’t think anyone ever denied the FBI was conducting an investigation. What nobody knows is the conclusions the investigation will reach.”

If I recall correctly, phx8 has denied it many times.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2016 7:08 PM
Comment #402442

RF, I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 9, 2016 7:25 PM
Comment #402446

“Control” is a meaningless attribute. If a server is unsecured, it is unsecured. Period. Whether it is @clintonmail.com, @state.gov or @aol.com, the law is the same.”

Seriously? You honestly think that ‘who controls access,’ is meaningless? Is a kid with an AOL account able to control who see’s their emails? What they see? When they see them?
Come on man.

“Personally, I think the whole affair is overblown.”

I am guessing that you have no experience with handling classified information? Never known anyone reprimanded, fired or discharged for less than what Clinton has done?

“but if Powell and Rice’s aides made the same mistake, then reason would suggest that Clinton’s judgement might not have been so bad after all.”

She was the SoS, not some aide. She knew the position would require that she deal with classified information on a daily basis and she still chose to use her own private server for official business. Then she chose to lie about it. Then she chose to stall the investigation.

Her judgement has been terrible, Warren.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2016 9:30 AM
Comment #402447

The question is about security, not control. None of these servers were secure against hacking, which is why they were unsuitable for storing classified information.

Is a kid with an AOL account able to control who see’s their emails? What they see? When they see them?

Powell’s AOL account was under his control as well as the control of AOL’s personnel. So, any classified information in Powell’s emails would be visible to not only traditional hackers, but also to AOL employees. So, in that sense, Clintonmail was a better place for classified information than AOL.

I am guessing that you have no experience with handling classified information? Never known anyone reprimanded, fired or discharged for less than what Clinton has done?
Again, neither you nor I know whether the information in these emails was contemporaneously classified or not. Classification today does not imply classification yesterday. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2016 10:58 AM
Comment #402448
Yes, social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA etc… all make people dependent on government.

So two things kctim, “we the people” are dependent upon “we the people” is bad because it is a group effort not an individual effort, is that your reasoning here? I mean we all pay into the system, yet you make it sound as if we are addicted and this “dependence” you claim is somehow making us …. well… um … what exactly! What is the difference between depending upon a wall street firm with your 401k or a insurance company with your annuity and social security? Other than social security doesn’t make a profit off your money of course.

Does the military fighting a war make us dependent upon the government as well Kctim? Will we become lazy if we don’t hop on a plane and go fight in Afghanistan on our off days and holidays? How does this “dependent upon” thing work? It seems you would have us believe that someone who contributes to medicare should not rely upon medicare as it makes us dependent upon medicare and then poof we are addicted to medicare and become lazy! Sounds silly doesn’t it?

You can blame Wal-Marts secret plan, but I blame laziness and materialism.

Of course you do kctim I would expect no less than you pointing to some conservative la la land of myths and misinformation that is a “secret” plan when the “secret” is out in the open.

You blame some ‘conservative war,’ but I blame the policies that actually encourage such harmful behavior.

Not “some conservative war” Kctim, the war on the middle class conservatives have waged since the Reagan revolution. The lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the middle class policies of conservatives hoping to be trickled on. The union busting policies that allow companies like walmart to pay low wages so the working poor get food stamps and health care paid for by we the people. The conservative policy of giving tax breaks to corporations for shipping jobs out of the country.


You don’t want specifics, you want excuses and I am not the one to do that.

I asked for specifics and all I get are vague assertions, myths and your excuses! I’m not surprised.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2016 11:26 AM
Post a comment