I think this Republican field is shaping up to be the biggest mess the Republicans have ever created for themselves. There are way too many candidates and most of them are a joke. Can anyone actually imagine Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee as president in 2016? Not me. There might be 20 candidates by summer And that’s causing a problem:
[quote]A pivotal turning point in the Republican presidential race will come in August, when the first debate of the primary season is held in Cleveland. But there’s already a problem: Not everyone will make it on stage… No GOP primary debate has ever included more than 10 candidates. Even if this year’s stage is more crowded than in the past, some reasonably serious White House aspirants are bound to be left out. washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
[/quote]
And the ones left out are all going to moan, even though they surely won’t have any chance.
The Republican party needs to pull its head out of its
They should start by publicly distancing themselves from people who have no chance, like Carson, Fiorina and Trump- I mean come on, they have never won anything. They should also get rid of the idiots who already lost (several times): Santorum, Huckabee, Perry. They should have (too late now) put huge pressure on people like Paul and Rubio to stay where they are. They could have done this if they had it together at all as a party. The Republicans are much more likely to lose the senate now because those two are running.
None of this will happen, though, and I think we’ll see a repeat of the last two cycles: way too many Republicans running against each other and tearing each other down, basically screwing the person who gets the nomination and pushing him (of course it will be a him) into positions that rile up the base and guarantee a general election loss. Everyone has been theorizing about how demographics in the US will keep Republicans from winning, but I think it will be the Republicans themselves that keep them from winning.
I largely agree with this…but if they shed all of these people who you are suggesting they get rid of,…WHO’S LEFT?
If you kick Carson, Fiorina, Trump, Santorum, Huckabee, Perry, Paul, and Rubio out of the race, who is going to run for president for the Republicans? The only realistic option that you didn’t mention there is Bush.
[quote=“Taiwanguy”][quote=“Cooperations”]
They should start by publicly distancing themselves from people who have no chance, like Carson, Fiorina and Trump- I mean come on, they have never won anything. They should also get rid of the idiots who already lost (several times): Santorum, Huckabee, Perry. They should have (too late now) put huge pressure on people like Paul and Rubio to stay where they are. They could have done this if they had it together at all as a party. The Republicans are much more likely to lose the senate now because those two are running.
[/quote]
I largely agree with this…but if they shed all of these people who you are suggesting they get rid of,…WHO’S LEFT?
If you kick Carson, Fiorina, Trump, Santorum, Huckabee, Perry, Paul, and Rubio out of the race, who is going to run for president for the Republicans? The only realistic option that you didn’t mention there is Bush.[/quote]
Bush, Walker, Christie, Jindal, and Graham are left. I would watch that debate, but I will wait for the Daily Show highlights of a 16-20 person debate.
Cruz is a loose cannon and they never could have stopped him. I’m not saying the party should shun Paul and Rubio, I’m saying they should have kept them out of it long before they announced…offering them some bait to stay in the senate.
I totally agree, but in spite of my opinions about each one of them, I’m interested in a serious debate between the parties that helps move serious issues forward. I don’t think we are going to get that the way the party is conducting itself. I think if both parties had serious candidates only, it would be good for everyone in the US. We might actually see substantive issues being discussed. Right now, we are going to get a circus. The serious candidates won’t even be able to be serious.
To give a direct example, why is it that Chris Christie is not a serious contender in the primaries? It’s because he worked with Obama during the hurricane in spite of his support for Romney. That’s how government SHOULD work, of course. But for all of their talk about wanting bipartisanship, the Republican primary voter paints anyone who practices it as untouchable. Granted, Christie has had some political fallout since then, but I don’t think that’s why he isn’t polling higher. What the electorate wants is the other side to bend to its will and that causes them to act irrationally. I think they could win this, but they won’t because even though the loons are getting smaller in number, they are getting louder. Their voice isn’t big enough to win in the general.
Give them a basic high school science test. The ones that fail the sections on evolution, age of the earth, origin of the universe, climate change, immunizations etc are not allowed to run.
All interesting suggestions. I have another one. Show them three case studies where various amounts of money and various policies and corrections thereof have been implemented. Ask them to rate the ones where money appears to have been well spent and advise why and then advise what they are going to do in areas where billions and trillions of dollars have been spent to no avail… totally in vain… where these projects have failed abysmally to deliver on any of their stated promises/aims/objectives. I am sure that this will cause thinking and policy-making to evolve with the whole climate of discussion getting a boost in the arm. Whadya think?
All interesting suggestions. I have another one. Show them three case studies where various amounts of money and various policies and corrections thereof have been implemented. Ask them to rate the ones where money appears to have been well spent and advise why and then advise what they are going to do in areas where billions and trillions of dollars have been spent to no avail… totally in vain… where these projects have failed abysmally to deliver on any of their stated promises/aims/objectives. I am sure that this will cause thinking and policy-making to evolve with the whole climate of discussion getting a boost in the arm. Whadya think? [/quote]
Um…George Bush’s Iraq policy; the militarization of policing; the F-35; abstinence education; the War on Drugs; the highest incarceration rates in the world; private medical systems… any more?
How much is George Bush’s Iraq policy continuing to cost? As to the rest, yeah, a good start, but are those REALLY the areas where the expenses are greatest? REALLY? as to private medical systems… I still have no idea what socialized medical care in the US is costing or will cost, do you?
I try to stay non-partisan, but the republican party and especially the people who seem to support the republican party have made me want to throw up every time they speak now. Going with Clinton who has the most experience with foreign policy because the US needs to get better at it to avoid more costly wars. Also, Clinton is ahead of the game focusing on the pacific rather then the middle east.
How much is George Bush’s Iraq policy continuing to cost? As to the rest, yeah, a good start, but are those REALLY the areas where the expenses are greatest? REALLY? as to private medical systems… I still have no idea what socialized medical care in the US is costing or will cost, do you?[/quote]
The Bush Iraq policy cost about 1.1 trillion in direct costs, some estimates say it will be 3 trillion by 2017, when factoring interest and veteran claims. No drop in the bucket. And Bush no. 3 has already said he’d do it all again.
But I am more interested in what you think of this field of republicans since you have already expressed you are likely to cross to the dark side and vote for hrc.
No, but we know the cost curve is bending downward, and it seems Obamacare is making a contribution to that. We also know that the US pays from 50% to more than twice what any other developed country for health care, with no better ( and mostly worse) results.
Here’s someplace where current US government policies are pushing up costs for no benefit- college tuition.
The Feds make student loans available, the unis respond by jacking up prices to get their share of the money pool, parents respond by yelling at politicians who make more loan money available… The extra money mostly goes to more and more administrators and officials being more and more highly paid, while professors’ salaries- the few superstars notwithstanding- remain fairly stagnant, and more of the teaching load is carried by poorly-paid non-benefit adjunct lecturers.
[quote] “Kotlikoff [Boston University economics professor, Larry Kotlikoff] wants the administration to calculate unfunded obligations using the “infinite horizon,” which accounts for funding after 75 years. Under this accounting system, SSA’s projected unfunded liabilities would be $24.9 trillion (instead of the $10.6 trillion projected in 2088).”
Presumably the point is to make readers really scared with a liability of $24.9 trillion! Scaring people could be the only possible motivation, since almost no one reading this piece has any idea of how much money $24.9 trillion is over the infinite future.
It would not have been difficult to make the number understandable to readers, since it can be found expressed as a share of GDP right in the trustees report. Table V1.F1 shows that $24.9 trillion is equal to 1.4 percent of future GDP. By comparison, the increase in military spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was equal to 1.6 percent of GDP at its peak. [/quote]
He also notes that in 2008 [quote] the Trustees (Table III.B10) projected it would be $34.4 trillion (in 2008 dollars). The most recent report puts the shortfall at just $1.9 trillion (in 2014 dollars) or 0.1 percent of GDP. The change implies a reduction in the infinite horizon shortfall of almost $36 trillion (in 2014 dollars). This should be cause for real celebration for those arguing that infinite horizon projections are the way to go.
[/quote]
[quote] “Kotlikoff [Boston University economics professor, Larry Kotlikoff] wants the administration to calculate unfunded obligations using the “infinite horizon,” which accounts for funding after 75 years. Under this accounting system, SSA’s projected unfunded liabilities would be $24.9 trillion (instead of the $10.6 trillion projected in 2088).”
Presumably the point is to make readers really scared with a liability of $24.9 trillion! Scaring people could be the only possible motivation, since almost no one reading this piece has any idea of how much money $24.9 trillion is over the infinite future.
It would not have been difficult to make the number understandable to readers, since it can be found expressed as a share of GDP right in the trustees report. Table V1.F1 shows that $24.9 trillion is equal to 1.4 percent of future GDP. By comparison, the increase in military spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was equal to 1.6 percent of GDP at its peak. [/quote]
He also notes thatspeaking of the shortfall in Medicare funding, in 2008
[quote] the Trustees (Table III.B10) projected it would be $34.4 trillion (in 2008 dollars). The most recent report puts the shortfall at just $1.9 trillion (in 2014 dollars) or 0.1 percent of GDP. The change implies a reduction in the infinite horizon shortfall of almost $36 trillion (in 2014 dollars). This should be cause for real celebration for those arguing that infinite horizon projections are the way to go.
[/quote]
I’m surprised they’re having six Democratic debates. Hillary’s voice is like nails on a chalk board and she does this “crazy eye” thing every time someone asks her a remotely difficult question. Yet I don’t think any of the existing candidates can beat her. So she’s basically going to embarrass the heck out of herself.
I don’t understand how we can have a Republican primary debate series right now, you couldn’t fit them all onto one stage. It’ll need to be some kind of round table format or something.
My pick for President: Ben Carson. Won’t happen though. I’d like to see Condi Rice accept a VP position.
Some people here won’t let dead horses lie. Is it time to bring back the Onionoffailcare threads?
I’ve seen a ton more bad news on that front since deciding the point had been adequately made. Yes, it still sucks something awful. I was going to wait until they started calling for a massive bailout to say ITYS on the death spiral, then talk a bit about all the state exchanges that are in big trouble, and then let the dead horse lie in peace again. But if people want to talk about it again now, perhaps we shouldn’t wait?
There are reasons the government has been less than forthcoming with hard data. The information from secondary sources points to the reasons.
So how many who still think Odammitcare is not so bad were flummoxed by that last election cycle? If you won’t face the truth about what’s going on now, you won’t see the future coming.
[quote=“rowland”]Some people here won’t let dead horses lie. Is it time to bring back the Onionoffailcare threads?
I’ve seen a ton more bad news on that front since deciding the point had been adequately made. Yes, it still sucks something awful. I was going to wait until they started calling for a massive bailout to say ITYS on the death spiral, then talk a bit about all the state exchanges that are in big trouble, and then let the dead horse lie in peace again. But if people want to talk about it again now, perhaps we shouldn’t wait?
There are reasons the government has been less than forthcoming with hard data. The information from secondary sources points to the reasons.
So how many who still think Odammitcare is not so bad were flummoxed by that last election cycle? If you won’t face the truth about what’s going on now, you won’t see the future coming.
Say, what was this thread about again?[/quote]
So you’ve seen this bad news but you can’t share it with us because Obama will send Special Forces Death Squads to hunt you down?
Hey, when all those righties were cheering Chris Kyle gunning down all those Iraqis, did they know the sequel would be “American Sniper II: Texas Tea Party”?
It’s gonna be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
-Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mario Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee can demonstrate enough support to get on the list.
-Maybe Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Ben Carson too.
-Santorum…well, he won the Iowa caucus last time, and came in second overall, so he should be up there.
-They’ll want to keep Trump off, and they’ll be desperate to get Carly Fiona on stage so it doesn’t look like the boys all picking on a girl- problem is there’s no possible metric she can qualify under except affirmative action that doesn’t let half-a-dozen other no-hopers in.
And that’s causing a problem:
