Could Rubiio be the candidate to watch?

[sangha]

Republicans wont win because they dont offer gifts to the masses

Scott Pelley: Universal health care?

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?

Donald Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably--

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: --the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

Trump gets down to business on 60 Minutes - CBS News

 

[The Prophet]

I don't know about the fair-hared boy. I think his amnesty push in Congress a few years ago will doom any support he will get from conservatives. I think nominating him would be a repeat of Romney, with the exception that Marco would get a few more hispanic votes.

 

[upsideguy]

Funny you mention angry old white folks, you must be talking about the dem field of candidates.

A tax cut is not a gift, its taking less of YOUR MONEY. Only a leftist would see that as a gift.

What gifts are the dems promising? How about " "free"college, "free"healthcare, "free childcare". These are a few.

Easy path to citizenship for illegals

What you posted was a bunch of opinions on why the gop needs to become democrat in order to win. You may be right, but as i said i dont have much hope for a win due to the reasons stated

This notion that its "your money" is a bit ego-centeric.

Let's start with the notion that one earned "their money" because of laws, courts, regulations, national defense, etc... various services that are provided by government that ensured an environment that one could earn a living AND be certain they were paid. These governmental services have a cost, which is shared by the participants of the society (the citizens). To the extent these costs exist, the citizens required contribution to meet those costs in the form of taxes is NOT "their money", but society's money.

Sorry, but there is a certain amount of "off the top" that all us must pay to live a society. This is a notion as old as time (ie tithing to a church). Society needs some resource to have a society, and we are all beneficiaries of that. Hence, a certain amount of the "off the top" is not your money at all, but what you must give for the good of all (including yourself). The issue, of course, is the extent of those goods and services that are the domain of government (this is why we have politics and elections, do determine such) and what they cost.

When a government is in deficit (taking in less than its costs) and chooses to declare a tax cut, its "giving" away its money; its a gift.

We can have a discussion about government purpose, the functions it should take upon itself and what the cost and how people should be taxed to pay that cost... in other words, we can discuss what portion of pay is your money and what portion belongs to the society, but it ain't all "your money"...

 

[cpwill]

I don't know about the fair-hared boy. I think his amnesty push in Congress a few years ago will doom any support he will get from conservatives. I think nominating him would be a repeat of Romney, with the exception that Marco would get a few more hispanic votes.

Rubio is the one guy left in the top tier of the race capable of unifying the party. He's also the best communicator on either side of the political aisle. Against Hillary, her best argument would be "He's Really Young", which could be easily solved with a good VP pick.

 

[haymarket]

Rubio is the one guy left in the top tier of the race capable of unifying the party. He's also the best communicator on either side of the political aisle. Against Hillary, her best argument would be "He's Really Young", which could be easily solved with a good VP pick.

While I would disagree about the best communicator label - Rubio is good and has a bit of the young JFK about him - I agree on much of what you have said. Rubio is the best hope for the GOP next November and Clinton will probably go much younger for a Veep pick.

 

[cpwill]

While I would disagree about the best communicator label - Rubio is good and has a bit of the young JFK about him - I agree on much of what you have said. Rubio is the best hope for the GOP next November and Clinton will probably go much younger for a Veep pick.

I understand it's going to be Castro. :shrug:

 

[haymarket]

I understand it's going to be Castro. :shrug:

Castro???????? :shock:

 

[cpwill]

Castro???????? :shock:

HUD Secretary.

 

[haymarket]

HUD Secretary.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[cpwill]

Thank you for clarifying that.

[emoji38] yeah - the young one, not the old one.

 

[305rob305]

I understand it's going to be Castro. :shrug:

Heart says yes but my brain says no. He has no experience as congressman, senator, or governor.

 

[cpwill]

Heart says yes but my brain says no. He has no experience as congressman, senator, or governor.

All those things are irrelevant to the decision making process. He is a young, telegenic Hispanic. = Hillary's Running Mate.

It's not about competency. It's about identity.

 

[Sabanist]

This notion that its "your money" is a bit ego-centeric.

Let's start with the notion that one earned "their money" because of laws, courts, regulations, national defense, etc... various services that are provided by government that ensured an environment that one could earn a living AND be certain they were paid. These governmental services have a cost, which is shared by the participants of the society (the citizens). To the extent these costs exist, the citizens required contribution to meet those costs in the form of taxes is NOT "their money", but society's money.

Sorry, but there is a certain amount of "off the top" that all us must pay to live a society. This is a notion as old as time (ie tithing to a church). Society needs some resource to have a society, and we are all beneficiaries of that. Hence, a certain amount of the "off the top" is not your money at all, but what you must give for the good of all (including yourself). The issue, of course, is the extent of those goods and services that are the domain of government (this is why we have politics and elections, do determine such) and what they cost.

When a government is in deficit (taking in less than its costs) and chooses to declare a tax cut, its "giving" away its money; its a gift.

We can have a discussion about government purpose, the functions it should take upon itself and what the cost and how people should be taxed to pay that cost... in other words, we can discuss what portion of pay is your money and what portion belongs to the society, but it ain't all "your money"...

Thats a long statement to make and say completely nothing. But ill agree the money i make is mine and and if the government takes less of it its not a gift. Anything else is just bull****

 

[sangha]

Thats a long statement to make and say completely nothing. But ill agree the money i make is mine and and if the government takes less of it its not a gift. Anything else is just bull****

The taxes you pay belong to the govt. If you don't believe me, try taking "your" money back from them.

 

[Sabanist]

The taxes you pay belong to the govt. If you don't believe me, try taking "your" money back from them.

Moving the goal post. Ofcourse it is. You liberals go on thinking what you make belongs to the government and ill go on with reality.

 

[sangha]

Moving the goal post. Ofcourse it is. You liberals go on thinking what you make belongs to the government and ill go on with reality.

And right wingers can go on thinking that govt is free.

 

[upsideguy]

Thats a long statement to make and say completely nothing. But ill agree the money i make is mine and and if the government takes less of it its not a gift. Anything else is just bull****

All right, I will shorten it for you: Not all the money you make is yours. You have a social obligation that includes paying for the things that protect your property. Even your Bible will tell you that all money is not yours (in fact, your Bible will tell you that NONE of the money you make is yours).

When the government returns taxes that are less than its expenses, it is acting irresponsibly and giving you a gift.

 

[cpwill]

All right, I will shorten it for you: Not all the money you make is yours. You have a social obligation that includes paying for the things that protect your property.

That is not the same thing as "all the money you make not being yours". It is your money, which we do take, to pay for things that we are willing to take money to pay for.

Even your Bible will tell you that all money is not yours (in fact, your Bible will tell you that NONE of the money you make is yours).

Now that's interesting. I know that it is the Christian position that all of this ultimately belongs to God - where in the Bible is it that explicit?

When the government returns taxes that are less than its expenses, it is acting irresponsibly and giving you a gift.

A) yes, it is acting irresponsibly - it should reduce expenses
B) no, it is not a gift. "Not Taking", even if you have a legal basis for taking, =/= "Giving"

 

[Sabanist]

And right wingers can go on thinking that govt is free.

No, but you want gov to have a blank check while i want it to work withini our means. More liberal loony land stuff from the left

 

[Sabanist]

All right, I will shorten it for you: Not all the money you make is yours. You have a social obligation that includes paying for the things that protect your property. Even your Bible will tell you that all money is not yours (in fact, your Bible will tell you that NONE of the money you make is yours).

When the government returns taxes that are less than its expenses, it is acting irresponsibly and giving you a gift.

I dont know much about the bible, but thats a common stereotype liberals put on conservatives. But you truly are batty if you are saying the money you earn isnt yours, its the governments. Your wrong, dead wrong. Its taken from you.

If you were paid cash under the table you would have no taxes deducted, illegal yes, but it makes the point the money is yours until the government takes it. Now how is it a "gift" if the government takes less of my money. Its not, not like the gift of free stuff from the dem party.

Free education, sorry, that money was never close to yours, but the gov gifted it to you.

Lower taxes? Thats taking less of my money.

I dont expect anyone that isnt earning a living to understand

 

[ludin]

All right, I will shorten it for you: Not all the money you make is yours. You have a social obligation that includes paying for the things that protect your property. Even your Bible will tell you that all money is not yours (in fact, your Bible will tell you that NONE of the money you make is yours).

When the government returns taxes that are less than its expenses, it is acting irresponsibly and giving you a gift.

umm no. the money you work for is yours. the government letting you keep more of your money is not a gift.
the money I work for is not the governments.

 

[ludin]

In any event Rubio is the candidate to watch and his star is rising each and every debate.
I liked him from the get go and he is still on my radar as my number 1 choice.

I honestly think he is going to gain ground on everyone else before the end of it.

 

[Sabanist]

In any event Rubio is the candidate to watch and his star is rising each and every debate.
I liked him from the get go and he is still on my radar as my number 1 choice.

I honestly think he is going to gain ground on everyone else before the end of it.

I will support rubio should he win the nomination but as it stands he is weak on substance and strong on rhetoric. I suppose rhetoric wins out over record

 

[jpn]

I agree the democrats will win but not because the republican field is weak, its because they offer freebies and the media controls the message. If they ever find themselves in doubt the media will run another slam piece and then say republicans are whiners if they get called out. Republicans wont win because they dont offer gifts to the masses and tell people they should be more self reliant.

Yeah, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Carson, won't offer "freebies." Oh, no. Instead of "freebies" which the self-reliant conservatives would scorn, they'll offer massive tax cuts that will be "paid for" by undisclosed mysterious "cuts." Wow, how self-reliant! How responsible! :lamo

 

[jncsd15]

His focus on family values on the last debate definitely strengthened his image as a "family man". His message is becoming clearer now and I like his debating style. He speaks with passion, can't wait to see more from him!