Jeb Bush deathwatch

[Pointedstick]

Oops, wrong subject… I meant CNBC's farcical attempt at running a debate. Those clowns did more to legitimize the conservative narrative of a liberal media bias with their comical and hostile questioning than any conservative ever has. My wife and I kept looking at each other and saying, "Is this real? Did they really just ask that question?" Cruz's rebuff was cathartic. If you haven't seen it, do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmUqzJnf8zY

Probably the most decisive moment of the debate was when Jeb Bush received an idiotic trap question about whether the federal government should regulate fantasy football (WTF?) and walked right into it, opening with an awkward joke and saying that yes, probably there should be some kind of regulation, only to have Chris Christie explode with indignation over the stupidity of the question and close with, "Let people play! Who cares!?!" The "Who cares" rubbed right off onto Jeb. He's toast. I sort of feel sorry for the guy.

[flyingpylon]

Don't feel sorry, his fantasy football team is 7-0!

[MachineGhost]

Bush was hysterical.  He couldn't get in any attacks except that slight at Rubio's attendance record so he was just side-seat driving off the other candidate's responses.  Bye bye!

And I do wonder like that tweet, why does he always look so upset when he answers a question?  lol

Fiorina has got to loosen up and stop being as stiff as a robot that can also smile.  She's way too serious and needs to chill out.  I suspect she's too repressed from sore life experience.

[clacy]

I didn't see too much of Jeb when he was Gov, but so far he has looked horrible as a POTUS candidate.

I have no clue why he got so much hyper other than he was considered the favorite son of the establishment.

As far as I can tell, it's more than just the fact that it's a bad time to be an establishment candidate. He's looking like he's just out of his league regardless.

[MachineGhost]

As far as I can tell, it's more than just the fact that it's a bad time to be an establishment candidate. He's looking like he's just out of his league regardless.

That may be a matter of degree as Rubio is clearly an establishment candidate.  He offers nothing new from the same old broken NeoCon RINO formula, just reform gradualism.  The base seems to be favoring him 2:1 over Trump or Bush now.  Sadly, swing voters don't decide the nominations, only the primaries, so all we can do is just sit on our hands and fret.

It's hard for me to understand how immigration can be such a hot topic for conservatives yet they coalasce around a corporate sellout like young, naive, sweating Rubio.  But maybe I'm just looking at it all too policy wonkish....

P.S. "Warm kisses" to Bush!!!

[Libertarian666]

Oops, wrong subject… I meant CNBC's farcical attempt at running a debate. Those clowns did more to legitimize the conservative narrative of a liberal media bias with their comical and hostile questioning than any conservative ever has. My wife and I kept looking at each other and saying, "Is this real? Did they really just ask that question?" Cruz's rebuff was cathartic. If you haven't seen it, do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmUqzJnf8zY

Probably the most decisive moment of the debate was when Jeb Bush received an idiotic trap question about whether the federal government should regulate fantasy football (WTF?) and walked right into it, opening with an awkward joke and saying that yes, probably there should be some kind of regulation, only to have Chris Christie explode with indignation over the stupidity of the question and close with, "Let people play! Who cares!?!" The "Who cares" rubbed right off onto Jeb. He's toast. I sort of feel sorry for the guy.

Too bad Christie doesn't apply that same logic to pot.
But he is too stupid to do that.

[MWKXJ]

It's hard for me to understand how immigration can be such a hot topic for conservatives yet they coalasce around a corporate sellout like young, naive, sweating Rubio.  But maybe I'm just looking at it all too policy wonkish....

It's hard to understand why so many, both left and right, are perfectly fine with our government's lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws.  Citizens would seem to have the right, at a minimum, to expect their government to enforce the laws crafted by their representatives.

Incidentally, the 2016 candidates---Democrat and Republican---who, by and large refuse to enforce immigration laws, are being invited to a "foreign and defense policy issues" forum in a foreign nation which *does* enforce immigration laws:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natasha-s ... 67160.html

My God, the irony.  American politics has devolved into a farce.

[clacy]

It's hard to understand why so many, both left and right, are perfectly fine with our government's lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws.  Citizens would seem to have the right, at a minimum, to expect their government to enforce the laws crafted by their representatives.

Incidentally, the 2016 candidates---Democrat and Republican---who, by and large refuse to enforce immigration laws, are being invited to a "foreign and defense policy issues" forum in a foreign nation which *does* enforce immigration laws:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natasha-s ... 67160.html

My God, the irony.  American politics has devolved into a farce.

Unfortunately we've gotten to an era where politics trumps the rule of law.  Laws can now be selectively enforced, or disobeyed depending on who is in power. 

[Libertarian666]

It's hard for me to understand how immigration can be such a hot topic for conservatives yet they coalasce around a corporate sellout like young, naive, sweating Rubio.  But maybe I'm just looking at it all too policy wonkish....

It's hard to understand why so many, both left and right, are perfectly fine with our government's lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws.  Citizens would seem to have the right, at a minimum, to expect their government to enforce the laws crafted by their representatives.

Incidentally, the 2016 candidates---Democrat and Republican---who, by and large refuse to enforce immigration laws, are being invited to a "foreign and defense policy issues" forum in a foreign nation which *does* enforce immigration laws:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natasha-s ... 67160.html

My God, the irony.  American politics has devolved into a farce.

I don't want the government to enforce any laws.

And of course the so-called "representatives" represent only themselves, as is clear from the fact that neither they nor their supposed "principals" can be held responsible for their actions. Needless to say, in any case of actual representation, either the principal or the representative (or both) can be held responsible for the actions of the representative.

Hope that helps.

[MWKXJ]

I don't want the government to enforce any laws.

Laws would seem to be a public good if few in number, commonsensical, and seldom changed.  Such laws could help to establish habits deemed beneficial by representatives in the general public, e.g. don't rob widows and orphans.  The current tax code, on the other hand, seems to stand as the antithesis of this approach to lawmaking; a colossal exercise in sophistry, in need of Pharisaical nuance to decipher, and constantly varying.  There is something fundamentally unfair about rulebooks which reward those who discover their loopholes.  It's sort of a "gotcha" approach to justice.

Lawmaking would appear to be an art, as a happy median likely exists somewhere between libertarian anarchy and statist overregulation.

And of course the so-called "representatives" represent only themselves, as is clear from the fact that neither they nor their supposed "principals" can be held responsible for their actions. Needless to say, in any case of actual representation, either the principal or the representative (or both) can be held responsible for the actions of the representative.

Hope that helps.

I believe I agree with you.  In other words, the people elect the representatives they deserve.  Sadly, the average American may not be team-oriented enough to elect a civilized government.  From Montesqueue's "Spirit of Laws":

Book VIII.
2. Of the Corruption of the Principles of Democracy. The principle of democracy is corrupted not only when the spirit of equality is extinct, but likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.

When this is the case, virtue can no longer subsist in the republic. The people are desirous of exercising the functions of the magistrates, who cease to be revered. The deliberations of the senate are slighted; all respect is then laid aside for the senators, and consequently for old age. If there is no more respect for old age, there will be none presently for parents; deference to husbands will be likewise thrown off, and submission to masters. This licence will soon become general, and the trouble of command be as fatiguing as that of obedience. Wives, children, slaves will shake off all subjection. No longer will there be any such thing as manners, order, or virtue.

We find in Xenophon's Banquet a very lively description of a republic in which the people abused their equality. Each guest gives in his turn the reason why he is satisfied. "Content I am," says Chamides, "because of my poverty. When I was rich, I was obliged to pay my court to informers, knowing I was more liable to be hurt by them than capable of doing them harm. The republic constantly demanded some new tax of me; and I could not decline paying. Since I have grown poor, I have acquired authority; nobody threatens me; I rather threaten others. I can go or stay where I please. The rich already rise from their seats and give me the way. I am a king, I was before a slave: I paid taxes to the republic, now it maintains me: I am no longer afraid of losing: but I hope to acquire."

Source