Gyroscopic Investing

Possibly. But Bush (W) and Obama aren't running and this fool is.

Reub wrote: Possibly. But Bush (W) and Obama aren't running and this fool is.

They're all fools.

I just find Kasich to be the least foolish.

Jesus...

We're not "giving Iran $150 billion."

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-US-sen ... on-to-Iran


This is how you know you can't trust the war-mongers on that stage.

Fiorina articulates her positions in a style that I'd want my president to. She sounds like an articulate badass without sounding fake angry like Christie or like she's acting like Rubio.

Too bad I'm pretty sure she's just really good at not sounding like she's full of sh!t.

moda0306 wrote: Fiorina articulates her positions in a style that I'd want my president to. She sounds like an articulate badass without sounding fake angry like Christie or like she's acting like Rubio.

Too bad I'm pretty sure she's just really good at not sounding like she's full of sh!t.

I watched for about 20 seconds which is about my level of pain tolerance for that sort of thing nowadays. I had been liking some things I'd heard about Fiorina but I heard today that she said the first thing she is going to do when elected is call her friend Bibi Netanyahu. I'm assuming the purpose of that call would be to ask where he would like the first bombs to be dropped on Iran. And if she said she wants to build up the military like WiseOne said, I'm now thinking she's just an articulate version of Sarah Palin.

I like Trump only for the reason that I think he is the only candidate who would actually even try to do ANYTHING about the immigration issue besides talk nonsense.  I think that's probably what a lot of people see in him and maybe he can ride that horse all the way to the emperor's throne but I'm guessing his entertainment factor is going to start wearing off pretty soon. I like it when he speaks his mind and calls a spade a spade about the other candidates but I think he really stepped in it when he suggested that Fiorina has an ugly face. He must have realized it too because I heard he said that he thought she had a beautiful face during the debate and that's the first time I've heard him try to backtrack on any of his comments. That may have cost him the vote of all mature women with less than beautiful faces which may have cost him any chance of election. Not a constituency you probably want to offend in today's electorate and not very politically smart in my opinion.

I agree that fiorina is not nearly as good as she sounds if you don't know the issues. The Netanyahu comment made my eyes roll. She's no good. She just talks the talk.

After watching that second debate, I'm starting to think that Marco Rubio is actually a super-advanced android that has been programmed with GOP talking points. His delivery is always non-specific and a little bit too perfect.

Call to action!!!!!  Start the campaign for some fresh air.  Let's support John Boozman for the GOP candidate for President.  He is a former Razorback.  He is an optometrist so he can perhaps diagnose and cure fellow politicians who can't find their butt with both hands.  With a name and afiliations like that, what could go wrong? 

... M

TennPaGa wrote:

MediumTex wrote: John Kasich is the only Republican who is remotely appealing to me.

I'm curious... What exactly about Kasich appeals to you?

I must confess to not seeing a lot of any of the Republican candidates on TV (I don't have cable, and don't watch much broadcast stuff on-line), though I've read a fair amount, and heard soundbites from all of them on the radio over the last few months.

Relative to the other candidates, Kasich and Paul have the most appeal.  Things I like about Kasich:

• he strikes me as less of a showman than the others
• he seems less willing to engage in hyperbole
• he doesn't seem quite as omni-directionally belligerent in foreign policy as the other candidates  (he said he wouldn't cancel the Iran nuclear deal, for example)
• his accent sounds familiar -- like me, he's from Pittsburgh.  Superficial, I know.

OTOH, like all the other candidates except Rand Paul (and I have my doubts about him), he's probably for endless war, and I could never vote for someone with such a stance.

How could you possibly have doubts about Rand Paul's stance on endless war? He's been clear and consistent on how insane that is ever since he's been in politics, and of course his father had the same position.

I guess you could doubt him on that if you doubt all politicians on everything, but then how do you choose who to vote for at all?

Pointedstick wrote: After watching that second debate, I'm starting to think that Marco Rubio is actually a super-advanced android that has been programmed with GOP talking points. His delivery is always non-specific and a little bit too perfect.

Well, if that is the case, then Hitlary's handlers need to switch manufacturers. She's not nearly that advanced.

I was hoping Rand Paul would have more to say, as the only true libertarian in the group.  I was kind of disappointed that he let himself be mowed down by the big government, we-must-legislate-social-behavior types.

The classic talking points dominated the debate way too much.  It wasn't just Rubio.  That always happens though.  It's the signal that it's time to turn the TV off and hit the sack, because you already know exactly what everyone is going to say.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: After watching that second debate, I'm starting to think that Marco Rubio is actually a super-advanced android that has been programmed with GOP talking points. His delivery is always non-specific and a little bit too perfect.

Well, if that is the case, then Hitlary's handlers need to switch manufacturers. She's not nearly that advanced.

LOL!

WiseOne wrote: I was hoping Rand Paul would have more to say, as the only true libertarian in the group.  I was kind of disappointed that he let himself be mowed down by the big government, we-must-legislate-social-behavior types.

The classic talking points dominated the debate way too much.  It wasn't just Rubio.  That always happens though.  It's the signal that it's time to turn the TV off and hit the sack, because you already know exactly what everyone is going to say.

Rand got a lot more time relatively to some of the others than he did in the first debate, but some of the others also interrupted a lot more than he did.
However, for those voters who want someone with actual consistent positions and detailed proposals, and don't want a warmonger, he's the only one available.
Unfortunately, that is a small portion of the voting public, so we'll probably get another neocon.

As for the JCPOA, Rand didn't say he would tear it up on day 1. But I think it is reasonable to question an agreement that has at least the following undesirable characteristics:

1. It has secret side deals.
2. It hasn't been approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution.
3. It allows the Iranians to inspect their own facilities and report on whether they are compliant.

If that makes him a warmonger in your eyes, so be it. I don't see it, personally.

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:
...like all the other candidates except Rand Paul (and I have my doubts about him), [Kasich is] probably for endless war, and I could never vote for someone with such a stance.

How could you possibly have doubts about Rand Paul's stance on endless war? He's been clear and consistent on how insane that is ever since he's been in politics, and of course his father had the same position.

I have doubts because of his opposition to the JCPOA, which his father favors.

I think PS nailed it a few weeks ago.  He's in favor of it, but can't say that and have a chance of winning the primary.  So he softens it up into "I think we could have negotiated better."  Which is easy as hell to say about any deal and come up with some legit reasons why, even if they're not at all deal breakers for him.

However, when you have the full force of the military-industrial complex to contend with when you are inaugurated as President, with all the complex underbelly of toxic war-time $hit that goes on into perpetuity at this point unless the President expressly and strongly takes an axe to it, I sometimes wonder if Noam Chomsky, Ron Paul, and Murray Rothbard, in a 3-way tag team trifecta presidential assault, could disassemble our Nat'l security state to any meaningful degree. 

I mean first, you have to actually KNOW the DoD/CIA/NSA/IRS/FBI/DEA/etc is actually doing to then do something to stop it.  How likely are those agency heads to tell you anything more than they want you to hear if they see you as a temporary threat to their existence, where at worst they get shit-canned in an assault on their very reason for waking up in the morning, and at worst they go to jail?

Fat chance. Oh well...  As HB would say, Hakunah Matatah

moda0306 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: How could you possibly have doubts about Rand Paul's stance on endless war? He's been clear and consistent on how insane that is ever since he's been in politics, and of course his father had the same position.

I have doubts because of his opposition to the JCPOA, which his father favors.

I think PS nailed it a few weeks ago.  He's in favor of it, but can't say that and have a chance of winning the primary.  So he softens it up into "I think we could have negotiated better."  Which is easy as hell to say about any deal and come up with some legit reasons why, even if they're not at all deal breakers for him.

However, when you have the full force of the military-industrial complex to contend with when you are inaugurated as President, with all the complex underbelly of toxic war-time $hit that goes on into perpetuity at this point unless the President expressly and strongly takes an axe to it, I sometimes wonder if Noam Chomsky, Ron Paul, and Murray Rothbard, in a 3-way tag team trifecta presidential assault, could disassemble our Nat'l security state to any meaningful degree. 

I mean first, you have to actually KNOW the DoD/CIA/NSA/IRS/FBI/DEA/etc is actually doing to then do something to stop it.  How likely are those agency heads to tell you anything more than they want you to hear if they see you as a temporary threat to their existence, where at worst they get shit-canned in an assault on their very reason for waking up in the morning, and at worst they go to jail?

Fat chance. Oh well...  As HB would say, Hakunah Matatah

Reagan was able to get the 1986 Tax Reform Act through Congress, and Clinton was able to get federal welfare rules overhauled, but that's about the closest thing we've seen in most of our lifetimes to the kind of reform that these guys are talking about.

Many of these federal agencies have hundreds of thousands of employees.  You don't just change things like that overnight.  At best, you can decommission them over several years (or decades), but even that requires extraordinary political will.

Notice how when the military began to sense that the Cold War was about to lead to LARGE cuts in defense spending, a bunch of new enemies suddenly sprang up?  These intra-governmental entities are not stupid.  They know how to survive.  Perhaps the finest example of this bureaucratic will to survive within the federal government was the bureaucratic entrepreneurship of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI--any time they started to run out of legitimate federal crimes to investigate, they would just push Congress to federalize a little more of state criminal law.  Masterful!

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:
As for the JCPOA, Rand didn't say he would tear it up on day 1.

That is certainly encouraging to me.

But I think it is reasonable to question an agreement that has at least the following undesirable characteristics:

1. It has secret side deals.
2. It hasn't been approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution.
3. It allows the Iranians to inspect their own facilities and report on whether they are compliant.

If that makes him a warmonger in your eyes, so be it. I don't see it, personally.

I guess.  However, the fact that these are the same objections quoted by neocons concerns me.  The fact that Ron favors the deal and Rand does not concerns me.

Reading other snippets from the debate has me more hopeful.  I hope you are right about Rand.

Even neocons can be right about some things. I'll bet most of them would agree that the sun rises in the East.
For that matter, W said something intelligent once, namely (quoting from memory): "If you live in tornado alley, you need a tornado shelter".

MediumTex wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I have doubts because of his opposition to the JCPOA, which his father favors.

I think PS nailed it a few weeks ago.  He's in favor of it, but can't say that and have a chance of winning the primary.  So he softens it up into "I think we could have negotiated better."  Which is easy as hell to say about any deal and come up with some legit reasons why, even if they're not at all deal breakers for him.

However, when you have the full force of the military-industrial complex to contend with when you are inaugurated as President, with all the complex underbelly of toxic war-time $hit that goes on into perpetuity at this point unless the President expressly and strongly takes an axe to it, I sometimes wonder if Noam Chomsky, Ron Paul, and Murray Rothbard, in a 3-way tag team trifecta presidential assault, could disassemble our Nat'l security state to any meaningful degree. 

I mean first, you have to actually KNOW the DoD/CIA/NSA/IRS/FBI/DEA/etc is actually doing to then do something to stop it.  How likely are those agency heads to tell you anything more than they want you to hear if they see you as a temporary threat to their existence, where at worst they get shit-canned in an assault on their very reason for waking up in the morning, and at worst they go to jail?

Fat chance. Oh well...  As HB would say, Hakunah Matatah

Reagan was able to get the 1986 Tax Reform Act through Congress, and Clinton was able to get federal welfare rules overhauled, but that's about the closest thing we've seen in most of our lifetimes to the kind of reform that these guys are talking about.

Many of these federal agencies have hundreds of thousands of employees.  You don't just change things like that overnight.  At best, you can decommission them over several years (or decades), but even that requires extraordinary political will.

Notice how when the military began to sense that the Cold War was about to lead to LARGE cuts in defense spending, a bunch of new enemies suddenly sprang up?  These intra-governmental entities are not stupid.  They know how to survive.  Perhaps the finest example of this bureaucratic will to survive within the federal government was the bureaucratic entrepreneurship of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI--any time they started to run out of legitimate federal crimes to investigate, they would just push Congress to federalize a little more of state criminal law.  Masterful!

A couple things here, to the issues you mention:

1) Welfare Reform

If you take actual "welfare" as a portion of the federal budget, it's pretty damn infinitesimal, and I highly doubt it was a big portion before reform was voted in.  No big industries were at risk of losing massive amounts of revenue, and nobody within the welfare department was at risk of losing their job or going to jail, I'm willing to bet. (sorry I'm a bit light on a will to research... I'm going with gut-feel here)


2) Tax Reform

While I am truly impressed with the idea of going from 70% tax rates to 26%, I don't see parties with a whole lot to lose here.  I doubt there were huge IRS layoffs or arrests of abusers.  I doubt accounting firms were having massive amounts of decreased revenue as well.  Nobody really had much to lose.


And keep in mind, not much of what the IRS did or the Welfare department did was done in a complex web of secrecy with other departments (I know there are some exceptions with the IRS at least, but compared to the secretive surveillance/defense/intelligence agencies it's an open book).  This means that even if departments or industries were threatened, they have no reasonable means of destroying their threat.  Can you imagine a collection of CPA firms in the 1980's (mostly probably loving Reagan) coming together with the IRS to try to find his medical records and show to the public he had Alzheimer's or something?  I can't imagine that.

But our defense/intelligence/surveillance departments/industries are a much more connected and secretive web.  The NSA wouldn't be a shadow of the threat it is to our freedoms if it didn't supply other departments with the information it collected, or if it didn't have a lot of private contractors that did its "dirty work" for it.  Oh and that secrecy adds a ton of ability to expand its tentacles, or have tentacles expanded into it, that we simply cannot see.



And with regards to Hoover, while I almost completely agree with you, as much as I don't like feds getting into general criminal law (mehates the drug war), at least with that they actually have to MAKE a law.  Congress never made a law to create our current surveillance/intelligence/defense/perma-war state.  They just let the executive branch do whatever the heck it wanted because COMMUNISM! 


Now we are stuck in this state that the FF's warned us about... where war has made so much of our government so secretive that it's turning into a hydra monster that we can't kill.  And unlike economics, slavery, manifest destiny and state's rights, permanent war-time state, and its toxicity to healthy government, is something that the FF's actually all seemed to agree on.

Moda,

I agree with you.

Dismantling the government-industrial-surveillance complex would be a very hard thing to do.

The latest CNN poll shows Carly moving up substantially. Rubio also moved up nicely with his fantastic understanding of foreign policy. The two of them (or Kasich) might be unbeatable.

Reub wrote: The latest CNN poll shows Carly moving up substantially. Rubio also moved up nicely with his fantastic understanding of foreign policy. The two of them (or Kasich) might be unbeatable.

Remember, though, that campaigning and governing involve entirely different skill sets.

Fiorina seems like an intelligent and sincere novice with a narcissistic streak.  As someone noted earlier, it seems like we already tried that approach with Obama and it hasn't worked very well.

As I have said before, I like Kasich.  I think he would make a good President.  Some of these other Republican candidates scare me because they are running based on ego and attitude, but the job they are seeking requires actual skills and experience that many of these candidates simply don't have, especially Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz and Paul.

I find it hard to believe that the intelligencia on this forum has not commented on my suggestion:

John Boozman from earlier in the thread.  If nothing else, consider the name recognition potential.  I am majorly disappointed. 

... M

Reub wrote: The latest CNN poll shows Carly moving up substantially. Rubio also moved up nicely with his fantastic understanding of foreign policy. The two of them (or Kasich) might be unbeatable.

Why am I not surprised that you are a fan of Carly and Rubio? Rubio is the most belligerent sounding neocon I've heard in a long time. And Carly wants to spend $500 billion to build up the military? Very Reagan-esque but where is that money supposed to come from?

I could be wrong and there still may be a constituency who will buy what they are selling but my guess is people are getting pretty sick of America's foreign adventures when we have enough problems of our own to deal with. If Carly and/or Rubio gets the nomination I might actually be motivated to go out and vote which I have not done for quite while. Against them, that is (though I suspect Hillary will be just as bad as them so there would be no point in voting for her). 

Mountaineer wrote: I find it hard to believe that the intelligencia on this forum has not commented on my suggestion:

John Boozman from earlier in the thread.  If nothing else, consider the name recognition potential.  I am majorly disappointed. 

... M

Though I like his reserved style compared to bombastic conservatives, he's pretty much your standard right-wing conservative, what with the joy of mixing church and state, expanding the perma-war surveillance state and not giving a crap about the environment. A few things I don't care for in the least. But you probably weren't asking for my opinion.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I find it hard to believe that the intelligencia on this forum has not commented on my suggestion:

John Boozman from earlier in the thread.  If nothing else, consider the name recognition potential.  I am majorly disappointed. 

... M

Though I like his reserved style compared to bombastic conservatives, he's pretty much your standard right-wing conservative, what with the joy of mixing church and state, expanding the perma-war surveillance state and not giving a crap about the environment. A few things I don't care for in the least. But you probably weren't asking for my opinion.

moda,

I ALWAYS value your opinion.  I'm not in to group think as much as you might believe.    Of course, I reserve the priviledge of carefully evaluating what you say, just as I would want you to carefully evaluate my stuff and use your BS meter to point out when you think I go astray.  Actually, re Boozeman, I think you are probably close to the mark.  The reason I picked his name out of the hat - it fascinates me how certain candidates get their names pushed prominently when others of equal or better "party" characteristics are swept under the rug.  Boozeman seems to be more "GOP" that many of the other candidates.  At least he has done some things to better mankind and appears to have a functioning brain, unlike the current fearless bloviator. 

... M

Desert wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Moda,

I agree with you.

Dismantling the government-industrial-surveillance complex would be a very hard thing to do.

I've long assumed that newly-elected presidents are taken into a special room where it is explained how things really work in this country.  "Nice little campaign, George, but we're gonna need you to shut your pie hole and start invading the Middle East.  You can choose not to, of course, but I wouldn't if I were you.  You love your family, don't you, George?"

Protection racket.  SMH.