Trump Versus Rubio!?

So I was watching some analysis of who has to win what on the Republican side to win the nomination.  What I saw surprised me, but was overall interesting.  The analysis comes from Glenn Beck and his crew at the Blaze and also from Fox News.  Here is the summary of what the pundits think has to happen for Trump to stand the greatest chance to win the nomination. 

Trump has to beat Rubio in Florida to kick him out of the race.  The reason is that Florida is Rubio's home State and that if he loses the support of his home State, then he will be seen as incapable of winning the election and thus lose his support.  As to why it is so important for Rubio to lose is simple.  If the nomination goes to the Republican National Convention, the delegates will choose Rubio as the de facto establishment Republican who has the greatest chance of winning the election.  You see the delegates for the Republican Party are there to act as a counter to insure the candidate chosen is not too radical.  As such when a delegate is chosen, those votes to choose a delegate to represent republican districts in Blue States like New York have a greater value.  In other words you can have a Republican Primary or Caucus vote in New York with a population of two thousand versus a heavily Conservative district in Alabama with over 200,000, but still wind up with the same number of delegates.  The logic is that Blue State Republicans are more to the center.  Needless to say, these delegates favor Rubio according to the pundits.

If Rubio loses Florida then it means that Trump has to only take on Ted Cruz for the nomination as they are the top two non-establishment candidates with the greatest chances of winning. As such, outside of Kasich, there will be no more establishment candidates left.  It is important to note that if Cruz loses his home State of Texas then he would also be out, but he is not as important at the moment with respect to who Donald Trump has to defeat in the near term.  The analysis from the Blaze and Fox News says that if Rubio bows out after losing Florida, then the delegates will favor Trump over Cruz.  As such, Trump has an easier time versus Cruz so long as he keeps up his popularity with the establishment and the voters.

Final Thought:  So this is what I heard.  I am repeating this like a parrot, except that I condensed it to make it less boring.  Anyway, this also highlights how undemocratic the nomination process has become with respect to parties nominating their candidates.  It is kind of sad, but if Trump or Cruz gets the nod, then the system will change again with the party attempting to adjust to prevent candidates like Trump and Cruz from gaining power ever again.  Needless to say, I am favor of Cruz, but a vote for either means sticking it to the establishment.  Rebel my fellow Conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists.  Rebel by voting for Trump or my guy Cruz.

Guantanamo Bay!?

So apparently the Guantanamo Bay prison complex is still open.  And I think this is a good thing.  While I understand people's view that it has become a symbol with respect to the waterboarding happening there I would like to keep it open.  For those who do not know, people considered waterboarding, which simulates drowning, a form of torture.  Now we could put the people housed there in mainland U.S. prisons as we already house domestic and international terrorists in both State and Federal prisons in the United States, but these individuals are prisoners of a form of warfare which has yet in my opinion to be truly understood.  We exist in a world today where small terror groups can actually topple nations, and it is just those type of people who are being held in Guantanamo Bay Cuba (the part we own).  It functions as a prison for these enemy combatants that have been apprehended on the battlefield or are under suspicion of being collaborators or terrorists themselves.  Some are U.S. citizens and others are foreign nationals.  Truth be told, while I want transparency with respect to what goes on there, I think a facility like this is needed.  Not to mention the fact that if not this facility another one will be made somewhere else out of the public eye where worse things than waterboarding can possible occur.  As such, by keeping it open and monitored by the public we can ensure no torture actually takes place, or if it does take place that it is warranted beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Final Thought:  I had nearly forgotten about Guantanamo bay.  Reason being was that the incident was so long ago and no other such incidents have occurred since to my knowledge.  So the CIA/Military have been on their best behavior, or should I say the real truth, they are following orders.  They followed orders when they performed the act of waterboarding and now they follow the order saying that it is not allowed.  Basically they follow orders, and it is the government's fault when our military is made to look bad with respect to the issue of torture.  People are forgetful save the people who have a passion for something like getting this prison shut down.  But, with lives of terrorists so finite, and the world's attention span so short, it is not a symbol of torture, but a symbol of what happens when government goes too far to protect us.  Don't shut it down, for it is the embodiment of a lesson that needed to be learned by my country, The United States.

Reaction to Democratic Town Hall.

So I was watching the Democratic town hall and here is my reaction.  Bernie Sanders was excellent with respect to his responses.  He knew what he had to say and said it.  He addressed a number of issues which primarily seemed to revolve around his economics principles.  What is key about Sander's though is that his economic and social views are intertwined.  As such, the reason he wants free college is because he believes people should support each other.  That we do not live in a vacuum and what affects one person affects everyone else.  So if a negative thing happens to a person, it affects their families negatively, their friends, and then ripples out.  Therefore providing healthcare, raising the minimum wage, free education, etc. all contribute to saving people from being broken down by the negatives of debt, inadequate health care, and not being able to afford a higher quality of life.  If it was not for the fact that his solutions scare the heck out of me due to how he would tax us all more and that our freedom of choice would be limited, then I would probably have voted for him.

Hillary on the other hand seemed to meander through some of her answers.  Her questions focused mostly on social issues like the white black divide with "Black Lives Matter", Social Security reform and women's issues.  All her answers though had no specifics and took on a shotgun approach in their attempts to give a satisfactory response.  I think this was due to two things.  The first is that there is no easy answer to solve these issues and thus trying to solve issues with white on black crime and bringing up women are almost impossible to give a quick answer too.  It would need something like an interview to answer.  However, the short answers that give no specifics give Hillary an advantage as she need not be beholden to any specific solution and that giving a specific answer can be political suicide.  Imagine if she answers with specifics, but the American people or worse "her backers" for her campaign don't like it.  She would be out of the race.

Final Thought:  This was one of the few times I was able to watch a Democratic town hall, and I was pleased.  Bernie shows why he is popular as he is the outlier that people want because he is completely away from the establishment and represents what the people in the Democratic Party want.  Hillary could have answered more concisely as she seemed to lose me at points with how she meandered through each question.  Needless to say she tried and lost none of her supporters to say the least.  Overall a good town hall.

Candidates attacking each other.

I am probably preaching to the choir, but I am sick of the political attacks.  If candidates speak truthfully and explain their differences with their opponents that is one thing, but now the candidates in the Republican debate seem to be eating their own.  They are openly calling each other liars, cheats and are just dragging each other through the mud.  This however does not do the Republicans any good with respect to showing that they are above the influence of party politics and mudslinging.  Carson and Kasich seem to be the only ones who seem to be above it all, but they are generally not attacked because they are not front runners at the moment.  Carson however is the only one with the right to criticize anyone with respect to the Cruz campaign claiming he was out of the race back in Iowa.  You see, while history shows that these attacks are not uncommon in elections, we have seemed to devolve back into the almost vicious nature of them with candidates calling each other liars and cheats.  As such, they feed the people's perception that politicians are nothing, but conniving and dishonest men and women who solely want power.  This perception is not entirely wrong, but it is not entirely right either.  Truth is, many politicians seek power to do the right thing, but either get stuck in the quagmire of political power struggles or are pushed out.  We the voters however seem to fail to see the good from the bad as we seem to be losing our ability to judge people of character.  What we need is a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type, along with an Eliot Ness Untouchable.  This means an actually honest politician who stands for what is right and a person who can receive donations and aid from anyone, but will never take a bribe.  But our Republicans, and to an almost equal extent the democrats fail on both counts. 

Final Thought:  Attacks on each other and on opposing members of the political party are symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself.  We need people like Carson, and Sanders who refuse to run attack ads so that one part of the symptoms of corruption is held back long enough to push back the tide of electioneering, and party segregation that occurs in Washington D.C.  We need term limits, we need a truly fair tax system that does not enslave the citizens, and to have a nation of people with character and are not ideologically separated.  In the same way atheists claim that religions start conflicts, so too does ideologies like liberal and conservative, republican and democrat.  As such I personally call for a nation that rejects ideology, but returns to the principles of the rule of law.  What the Constitution says goes as it is the law, but if there's a problem, change it.  It is that simple.  After following the rule of law, it all becomes about freedom.  And freedom is what all people should seek.

Jeb Bush is out! It's a Three man race!

So Nevada and South Carolina happened just this weekend.  For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders with MSNBC attributing the victory to the Black American vote in Nevada.  Interestingly though, Clinton was campaigning in Nevada with an eye toward the minority vote in general and a portrayal that Bernie did not represent minority groups, but was the "old white man representing white values" in the democratic party.  That analysis comes from a Fox News contributor.  Basically if Hillary had lost she could portray Bernie as a guy who represents just the white members of American society.  

As to the republicans.  Carson, Kasich and Jeb were the overall losers.  With a poor showing there, Jeb left the race which means the top three contenders will benefit with respect to the next set of Primaries and Caucuses.  Those top three are Trump, who actually lost some of his lead in South Carolina (it was reduced by half), Rubio who is the only establishment candidate left that matters, and Cruz who is tied with Rubio and is the only other non-establishment candidate in a lead position.   Kasich and Carson both are waiting to see the results of Super Tuesday (when the largest number of Primaries and Caucuses occur at the same time) to decide if they are going to leave the race.  

I feel bad for Carson because he is a good man who at this point, based on what I heard him say, wants to change how elections are done.  He wants to prove that a clean campaign without attacks and built on real debate can win and thus eliminate the status quo of lies, cheats and attacks done in elections.

Final Thought: I hope Carson pulls through enough to show that you can do well without the need for attacks and lies, but unfortunately it is a three man race.  With each establishment candidate leaving one by one, both Trump, Cruz and Carson benefit, but if the Republican leadership has its way, the candidate would be Rubio and not Trump, because in case you have not noticed, Trump is practically uncontrollable.  I think Trump has matured though and has gotten better as a candidate overall, but I am still fearful of the possible consequences if he should win the White House (that and the democrats have attack ads and documentaries waiting to crush him).  So now we wait till this weekend with another debate (yea another one) and the next primary occur.

Justice Scalia and Privacy rights.

I felt one more issue on Scalia was warranted due to his opinion on privacy rights.  In this case he said the fourth Amendment did not protect one's right to privacy.  Interestingly though, he ruled in favor of people's rights to privacy on many occasions including the cases of police using thermal imagers to see into people's homes, DNA swabs and placing tracking devices on people's cars.  He also ruled against the police with respect to them searching a car after a traffic infraction in the search for evidence of another crime and against the use of drug sniffing dogs without a warrant.  In all these cases Scalia noted that while it is noble for police to want to try to solve crimes, exceeding the limits of a warrant or an infraction violates the people's right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers and effects."  However, he was not opposed to wiretapping.  The reason being that conversations are not protected by the Constitution as they are considered public.  As such, he deemed that phone calls were public conversations in the same way a conversation may be carried out in public at a restaurant or park.  However, emails in my opinion, including text messages count as papers for they are not spoken allowed and act like letters in the mail thus legally protected if we apply his textualist views.  Likewise, espionage and eavesdropping laws would not be protected if you apply Scalia's view of the United States Constitution and shared his disagreement with the 1965 Griswold case which decided that we have a right to privacy. 

Final Thought:  I find myself agreeing with Scalia here with respect to anything verbally spoken not being protected. As a matter of fact it brings to question if anything transmitted through the internet to another is considered private as the internet can be considered part of the public square.  As such, Facebook, Twitter, and anything publically posted is absolutely without protections. But our bodies and the things on us, our homes and what goes on in it, and our other property like our cars and the items in them are protected due to the 4th amendment and its specifically listing these as protected from search and seizure without a warrant.  So if Scalia and his legacy is used as a springboard for a more textualist view of the Constitution, it may bring forth an entirely new approach to rulings in the Supreme Court and the rule of law.  In fact it may create a link between liberal and conservative judges like it did between Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  If used as such, the liberal conservative divide can be shrunk!  I look forward to seeing the results of Scalia's legacy in politics and law.

Justice Scalia and Guns.

After Scalia passed away I looked into some of his more interesting ideas on what the Constitution says.  In the case of Guns, he said that they had to be hand carried.  Scalia based this in the second amendment saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms.  In other words they must be man portable and able to fit in one's home.  As such he rejected the idea that Americans can own something like a cannon due to it not being able to be hand carried (though this is changing with future technology).   However, he said things like rocket propelled grenades and other recoilless weapons that could potentially take out an airplane or even a tank where not known to be protected or not under the second amendment.  He said he looked forward to such a discussion.  However, the fact that our weapons rights are limited to hand carried weapons in Scalia's opinion shows something of Scalia's conservatism and jurisprudence.  It was that he was a textualist.  Therefore if the Constitution did not specify something more substantial than a rifle or that cannot be hand carried, then it was not a part of the people's right to keep and bear arms.  I personally believe that he potentially would have ruled that RPG's and similar weapons were legal, but with restrictions.  With respect to guns as a whole, I personally think there are no true restrictions on what weapons can be owned so long as you use them to defend your family and your country, but that's just my two cents.   

Final Thought:  Scalia was an interesting man, and for people who love political science and enjoy politics, whether you agree with him or not, he was someone to be listened to and even admired.  Thank you justice Scalia for your service, I hope your successor is as excellent as you.

Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative force in the Supreme Court.  He upheld conservative principles and was known for fiery dissents when his side on the court lost. This lion of the court even sponsored a school of thought amongst constitutional lawyers that seeks to uphold the original intent of the United States Constitution by ruling based on the powers and abilities given.  That school of thought having been lost back in the late 1800's into the modern era by the progressive movement.  Scalia said that there was no right to privacy in the United States Constitution, that Abortion is not protected and more and he did it all in his dissents.  However, his death in an election year brings about turmoil.  While his work on the Supreme Court is legendary, his passing means that the battle for the Presidency has even greater stakes than before.  While alive he was one of four conservatives on the court that balanced the four liberals, with Chief Justice Roberts being the moderate.  Now the court is off balance.  Republicans and Conservatives are calling for the appointment to be delayed by President Obama who said he will in time nominate a successor, but Obama's appointment is sure to be liberal and thus not respect conservative values derived from the Constitution.  Republicans have thus sworn in the Senate that they will block any appointment by the President (As they have the final say on the choice of Supreme Court Justice) so that the next President, whom they hope will be Republican, will be the one to choose Justice Scalia's replacement.  Not to mention that other Supreme Court Justices are likely to leave next year as well leaving more vacancies which the Republicans hope to fill with more Conservative members of the legal community.  So now the Republican Candidates will be questioned more on their constitutional standings to see if they have the "right stuff" and the political will to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who can properly replace Justice Scalia and thus once more balance the court.

Final thought:  We as citizens can look forward to a proverbial shooting gallery over the next few months till the election is over.  The Senate will block Obama's court nomination (mind you the supreme court was never given a size limit so appointing one is not crucial) which will be a big fight and thus party politics will surely rear its ugly head.  The court will still see cases as well, with the big ones being issues on abortion, and affirmative action.  Presidential candidates will have their work cut out for them as appointing a judge in our system of governance takes a lot of political capital and thus may make whatever promises they made during the election unattainable, assuming that the Senate succeeds in blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment.  

My reaction to the Debate reaction.

So I did not actually watch the debate this time.  Instead I went to see "Dead pool" because, well even I needed a break from the debates and Dead pool is one of my favorite superheroes.  As such, once I got home I read and watched the post-debate reactions by critics and analysts (mostly from Fox News and some from the Huffington Post).  To my horror, all I heard about was the candidates attacking each other.  That was all the analysis was about.  It was the Republican Candidates lashing out.  Trump against Jeb Bush over President Bush Jr. and the Iraq war. Cruz and Rubio arguing about speaking Spanish?!  Kasich tried to keep the peace, but obviously failed.  Carson was completely ignored in the post-debate analysis save for Huff Po saying he tried to keep the peace once.  Basically though, according to Huffington Post Trump and Jeb Bush were the winners of the debate, with Cruz and Rubio having mixed results and Carson the loser.  They seemed to have ignored Kasich in their article besides the mention of him trying to call for peace.  Kasich though according to Fox benefited from the debate and his New Hampshire successes because some polls put him in second. Now I will say there is nothing wrong with Kasich and he would make a fine President due to his experience as Congressmen and then Governor.  However, Kasich, Rubio and Jeb are all establishment Republicans while Cruz is a rebel, and Trump and Carson being complete outsiders.  And that was the entire breakdown of the debate that I got the night of when I got home.

Final Thought:  The only actual substantive thing I heard about the debate was on the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  It was the Republicans asking for the vacancy in the court to be kept till the New President is elected.  The purpose being that Scalia was a Conservative and balanced the court with respect to liberal and conservative views.  After that there was nothing of use to show how worthy any of these potential presidents are of the office.  I am glad I skipped this one.

Women and the Draft

During the Republican debate in New Hampshire the draft and having women register for it came up.  Many people on the Republican side thought they should register.  However I have a different opinion.  My opinion is that the draft is a relic of the past that forces young men into battle.  It is basically a form of slavery if men and women would be forced to fight against their will.  Yes, I know the argument well that they protect our nation, but placing people in a military who do not want to be there increases desertions, decreases moral, and jeopardizes every single member of the military with respect to safety and their mental state which is already strained due to the stresses of battle.  A soldier does not need to be think that his buddy is going to abandon him in the middle of a fire fight.  So I say end the draft completely.  Our military is much stronger with those who join because they want to and not because they have to.

Final thought:  I believe in freedom and if the draft is kept, then let women register, but not with the force of law demanding they do so against their will and threatening fines and jail if they do not (yes jail and monetary penalties are there as a threat for those men who do not sign up).  However, like I said, I believe in freedom and I respect our soldiers.  As such the draft should be removed as nations as advanced as ours have to look, act and be above such a ridiculous and outmoded tool for making a military.  In fact, our military is living proof that an all volunteer force can and is superior to any conscript army.  So I say end the draft, it is not needed anymore.

Post New Hampshire Primary reaction.

So Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won.  I personally am not a fan of either one as they are both not fit in my mind to be president.  Trump due to attitude and personality and Bernie because Socialism always leads to economic decline, the sinking of quality of life and ultimately the death of a nation.  But this is just me and I base this opinion on what I learned and studied as a political scientist both in college and my continuing education via news, books and research up to this point. 

Now, as to why these guys won.   Trump is easy to explain because New Hampshire is not a religious oriented State like Iowa.  As such the Evangelical vote that went to Cruz there in Iowa was because Cruz appealed to people with religion.  New Hampshire is a coastal State as such it is more built around people just living life.  People there tend to be more liberal or even libertarian.  Basically they value freedom and promises of freedom.  Sanders won partially because of this as well.  However he was helped by the fact that Hilary is seen as a liar, a member of the establishment, and power hungry.  Democrats I have talked to say they would vote for Trump before they would vote for Hillary.  Basically this is the reasons they won.  People believe Trump is good for the economy, which means jobs, and thus vote for him.  Sanders is believed in for the free stuff he promises and his honesty (he still says he is going to raise everyone's taxes FYI).

Trump was not a surprise and Sanders winning was just cool to see as I don't care for Hillary or her politics either.  Kasich was the major surprise coming in second.  He normally just rattles off on Ohio this and that.  However, Kasich is a very experienced governor and decently conservative and leans libertarian enough freedom wise to get a nice chunk of the vote to take second place.

Additionally Governor Christie and Carly Fiorina took sixth and seventh place respectively which unfortunately disqualifies them for the Saturday debate for the upcoming South Carolina Primary for Republicans.  Also Rubio is fighting it out with Cruz and Bush for third.

Final thought:  We live in interesting times and this selection process is far from over.  As such, this may only be the beginning of the surprises we may see in this election.

On illegal non-citizens being penalized

It is in my opinion that non-citizens who came illegally here to the United States should not be kicked out.  Truth be told it would take 40 years according to the pundits to process each and every person who came to this country illegally.  This is assuming no more come in and because they are entitled, based on Supreme Court rulings, that they get a trial/hearing.  So what can be done to fix the problem?  How do we punish them without being a bad guy?  Here is my answer assuming a few conditions being met first.   

The first condition is as follows.  One is that the immigration system changes to a family based system.  In other words the entire family enters together.   So this means the immediate family, the grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.  It is the family unit coming in, not just individuals who may be leaving all those they care about behind being made citizens in a real first come first serve system.  A real line of sorts to just bring in people who care about each other and can support each other in times of need.  Basically the idea of bringing in families is because they will be able to support each other as they adapt to their new country.  

Condition two is the elimination of the Federal income tax.  For one, the current tax code punishes success.  As such it makes it harder for people, especially immigrants and our poor, to rise up economically.  We need a sales tax which eliminates the need for complicated tax codes and makes collection of money easier.  This revenue, combined with money from taxes on imports should allow the Federal government to get the magic 17% revenue stream from the gross domestic product (GDP).  (Note: 17% of GDP is the max number of revenue a government is capable of collecting in taxes per year as no matter how high taxes are raised that percentage remains the same).

If those conditions are met a penalty can be placed only on the illegal immigrant without harming the whole family.  What I mean by this is that the penalty will be like the income tax, but only for the individuals who came illegally.  It will not be applied to any other family member of the person who came in illegally and will not impact the rest of the family of that illegal migrant coming into the country as they apply and get in line with everyone else (so no inhibitions on other people coming in if related to an illegal migrant).  Also, if the person who came illegally is a child, and it can be proven that they came as children, then they are exempt from the penalty also.   Now, the penalty will be simply 10% of the person's income for a max of 25 years.   That is it.  No other penalties or other fines will be required.  This ensures that it is payable and does not impact the rest of the family unit.  Detail wise, that individual does not become a full citizen until the penalty is paid and that if they are without income for a year, then that year will not count toward the 25 years’ worth of income taxes. So, either they never work to avoid paying the tax like fine and thus not become full citizens, or they work to be able to vote and have access to other privileges of citizenship.  

Final thought:  So what do you think?  Yea, you are probably saying that without an income tax the government would collapse (which as far as I know is not true).  But you all (hopefully) like everything else.  The idea is to punish without complicated trials and hearings, and no costs to deport non-violent illegal immigrants who came simply for opportunity and jobs.  We are a compassionate nation and thus here is my idea to bring compassion to dealing with the illegal immigrant issue.

New Hampshire's God Debate

Loved it.  The candidates went into a lot of specifics and it seems Rubio was on Governor Christie's hit list with respect to leadership ability.  Christie saying that being a Governor dealing with real issues and problems shows he is better able to run a country than Rubio who while supporting bills that were passed into law, did not do anything to deal with a real crisis.

Cruz and Carson hashed out the controversy over the Cruz campaign saying Carson was leaving the race in the Iowa Caucus.  Cruz re-apologized, but Carson still seems to be angry at least at Cruz's campaign staff and to a degree at CNN who failed to even check with the Carson campaign to verify the authenticity of the statements.

All agreed that ISIS was a threat and that they would basically try to wipe them out.  However, Cruz clarified for what seemed like all the candidates that the Kurds will liberate their towns and cities and the Sunnis will liberate theirs or else sectarian violence would erupt.  Trump also added that they will take the oil too.

Also, all agreed, or all who were asked agreed with an exception, that they would bring water boarding back as according to what Cruz said, by definition it is not torture but its use should be limited and as such be used selectively.  Trump distinguished himself though to say he would not just use waterboarding more but also use torture making Trump the only one on the stage to literally do anything to stop terrorists even if it is something immoral like actual torture.

On illegal immigration, Kasich said he would not deport illegals and then Cruz was asked the same question to provide contrast.  Cruz would deny welfare to illegals, no money for sanctuary cities, build a border wall with more troops and technology/resources, use e-verify to ensure that illegal citizens cannot get jobs over Americans, an electronic ingress egress system to track people coming in and leaving the country and finally he would enforce the law by deporting illegals that have been found.

On health care they would all get rid of Obama Care with Cruz allowing the buying and selling of healthcare across State lines to lower costs and help to institute the decoupling of health insurance from jobs so that it becomes affordable to each and every individual.  Additionally health savings accounts would be used as well to afford the more costly medications and medical visits.  Carson wants to get rid of Obama Care after the new system is put in place though while providing a cradle to grave inheritable savings account called a "Health Empowerment Account" to help pay for catastrophic health incidents with a separate system, which he could not get into due to time, for all other health care needs.

Jeb Bush clarified that we as conservatives want more millionaires.  That taxing them more hurts the country and as such we need to make it so that the country has more economic mobility.  Governor Christie supported Jeb here saying they once taxed millionaires more in Jersey and thus the State of New Jersey lost millions in taxpayer money as the millionaires left the State.  As such Christie says use New Jersey as the litmus test to know why taxing the rich more will only hurt our nation.

The debate turned to infectious diseases with all sides saying they would restrict travel and Carson saying that rapid response teams should be created to combat Ebola and other diseases led by the CDC.

Next topic was on women registering for the draft.  In which case Rubio seemed to dodge it and said that he will rebuild the military to make it stronger.  Jeb says he is in favor of women registering but will not institute a draft, though he will rebuild the military as well.  Carson used this question to springboard the discussion on veteran affairs where he advocates for better treatment for veterans via support groups that follow the career and post military career of soldiers to help them acclimate into society.  Kasich said he wants to give more benefits to veterans including giving community college credit to veterans for things they did in the military mimicking what he did in Ohio.  Rubio added further that he wants to make it so that soldiers can see any doctor and go to any healthcare facility they choose which means veterans’ healthcare becomes much more portable. None said if they would privatize the VA or not.

There next question was on paying ransoms to terrorists including allowing families to raise money to pay for ransoms to rescue family members citing the death of the kidnapped the son of the Foley family.  Cruz said that as a nation by paying a ransom it would put a target on the backs of every single member of the military and thus he would not allow it, but instead will launch raids to get the kidnapped victims back.  Trump followed saying that while he did help raise money for the Foley family to get their son back, he said after that experience he would do basically as Cruz said.

Final thought:  They all did well.  Jeb and Kasich did say a lot more to make them memorable.  Christie started strong but seemed to fizzle a little bit toward the end.  Rubio initially struggled against Christie, but as time went on he finished strong.  Cruz held his own and was not the subject to as many attacks compared to last time he was on stage, but Trump was only attacked on his support for eminent domain.  Carson had some renewed vigor, though he was his calm usual self.  Overall a good debate and an influential one for New Hampshire's primary this coming Tuesday February 9th.

P.S.  I think Trump and Cruz tied overall with the runners up being Rubio and Jeb.

Debate Format From the Fox/Google debate

I really liked last Thursday's debate format.  The idea to use clips of the candidates speaking what they believe served to provide us a window into who the candidates are and prevent the candidates from equivocating or even lying.  Also, it served to help frame the questions and even demonstrate how the candidates’ views have evolved over time.  I think this idea stemmed from the debate between Romney and Obama back in 2013 elections.  The moderator fact checking the candidates, while seemingly against tradition before, now seems like one of the best ideas due to our country's lack of attention spans. 

It serves the country well to get things fact checked right on the spot or even to prevent the need for fact checking with sound and video clips as most people in my opinion will not bother to check what their favored candidate has said.  Heck, I doubt many people watch the post-debate interviews.  Mind you, those post-debate interviews and the focus groups that followed serve to provide analysis to the thoughts and attitudes of the American people and for candidates to expand on what they want to say (more details on policy and positions) and to correct any errors they thought they made.  Also, the post-debate analysis with the political analysts also serves to aid people in understanding the economic, domestic, and international effects of what these candidates want to do when they get into the white house. 

Even having three debate moderators serves a purpose.  Each one taking the role of the softball questioner, the hard ball questioner and the intermediate questioner.  And each one will be a different one for each candidate potentially (though the idea of tripping candidates up after a series of softball questions seems like fun too).  Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier even had different sets of questions in case Trump Showed up and of course as we saw in Thursdays debate for when he did not show up.  In this instance the use of the three moderators and their varying levels of questioning aids to through a candidate on and off guard with respect to the level of difficulty for each question enabling people to see how a candidate deals with this form of pressure.  

Final Thought:  I hope this format carries over into the actual Presidential debates later on this year and that the media becomes more robust with respect to fact checking and the use of the candidates own words to clarify the candidates’ views and narrow their ability to answer the question to addressing the question directly rather than dodging.  But this remains to be seen.   I still want a double blind debate though where we do not know who is answering the question till the end, but I doubt that will come to pass anytime soon.  Cheers to hopefully a more interesting and "accountable to their own words and actions" debate format.

How Ben Carson Could have Won.

Ben Carson is one of my favored candidates.  He is, what appears to me, an honest and heartfelt person who really has no agenda save helping the American people.  One of his primary criticisms though was that he lacked political experience.  As such people thought him ill equipped to handle situations like ISIS, Russia and to a certain extent some domestic policy issues.  Therefor people think he will be eaten alive by Hillary Clinton (the assumed winner of the Democratic nomination).  

So what could Carson have done to bring him out of the shadows and to the limelight again long enough to show that he is smart enough and Presidential enough to be our President.  In this case he would have to do something unusual.  He would need to select his cabinet.  The men and women he would appoint to head the department of defense, Secretary of State, Treasury and so on.  By choosing those he can trust but are more capable than himself he could show the nation his judgment of people and because he surrounds himself with the best and the brightest that he is the man to pick.  This is what I believe he should have done when his numbers started to wane when Cruz and Rubio started to overtake him.   He would have gotten a lot of free press and it would have enabled him to go and talk more to the people via the media as a result thus maximizing his exposure and allowing people to see him as a leader.   He could have announced two at a time in fact or even said who he would not select as a member for his cabinet for whichever department he plans to be rid of like the department of education.  Thus he could have maximized his exposure time in the media.  

Final Thought:  Even a Vice Presidential short list would have gotten him air time enough to help him stay in the front.  Sure, not saving these choices later for a bad debate assuming he got the Republican nomination could hurt him in the long run, but it is a calculated risk that would need to be taken to stay on top.  And in a Presidential debate, it is all about the calculated risks to show that a candidate has the grit and the guile to be the leader of the United States.

Reaction to the Iowa Caucus

So I thought it would be a tougher race for Cruz and Rubio when going against Donald Trump.  But Cruz pulled out the win.  However, some interesting things happened during the caucus.  For one Cruz won with the most votes cast in Iowa's history for a single candidate.   This shows in my opinion that people want a strong conservative in the Republican Party as a whole.  Also it shows that Trump does not hold a lock for the win.  

Governor Mike Huckabee has exited the race as well as Martin O'Malley.  They realized they were never going to win, but there exiting is important.  For one, Martin O'Malley's supporters are likely to go to Hillary which is important for the Democratic nomination with respect to the upcoming New Hampshire primary.   Likewise Huckabee's supporters are likely to support Trump or Rubio which can potentially hurt Cruz, but if Cruz's supporters in New Hampshire are as strong as they were in Iowa, then maybe it will not matter how many more supporters Trump and Rubio may get.

Now to the even bigger news of the day.  Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton tied in Iowa.  This may be due to the student support "brand new voters" who largely support Mr. Sanders.  However, neither achieved a victory despite getting the delegates needed to ultimately decide the nominee.  But you have a Socialist (a real one) versus Hillary who is progressive.  It is a referendum on the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.  Whoever wins will set the course for what the future of the Democratic Party may look like.  

Final Thought:  Records have been broken, and there was a tie between the democratic contenders.  This is shaping up to be a very interesting and wonderful Presidential race as we have people with diverse ideas and ideologies coming together to butt heads and help carve out the future direction of the United States.  I look forward to what is essentially a three man race with the Republicans (Trump, Cruz and Rubio) and the battle of ideologies in the Democratic Party with Hillary and Sanders.  As a person who enjoys politics, this is going to be fun.

Last Republican Primary debate reaction.

Ok I waited several days to digest the debate because I was not confident on what I saw last Thursday.  But now I am ready to give my reaction.  That reaction is as follows.

For one, Trump not being there was a blessing.  Donald Trump being who he is, is a total disruption and distracts from everything policy wise due to his rambunctious bomb throwing personality.  As such, we got a real debate on policy issues and what the other candidates would do if they became President.  Most of the talk focused on ISIS when it came to national defense, with the other topic being addressed being and tax reform.  However Rand Paul being back on stage was something of a canary in the coal mine.  Many of the pundits agree with me, or maybe I should say I agree with them, that Rand provided constitutional context to any policy as he was the go to on stage for constitutional questions.  As such he acted as a bomb thrower saying "ok, you can do this, but not that due to the Constitution" or his applying the economic and social freedom arguments to his answers which forced the other candidates to respond in ways that they did not appear to be prepared for.  

As to the candidates individually, while I do not agree that he will make a good President with respect to my own differences in politics, Chris Christie, I believe, with his passion and vigor would make him a great choice as attorney general (he is a former prosecutor as I understand).  Jeb Bush as usual was soft spoken, but whether it be him, or his advisors, he was more passionate and pushed his way into the limelight giving a good showing.  So it was his best performance yet even if it was not enough to win the nomination.  Kasich I really did not hear anything of substance and seemed to be ignored most of the debate.  Ben Carson spoke up and had a few zingers, but sadly he will not be nominated as the Republican base (or should I say leadership does not think he can win if pitted against Hillary.  Rubio and Cruz had a great tit for tat on their records and Rand Paul served as the individual to confirm if what they were saying about each other was true or not (they are all after all Senators who work together regularly).  At the end, Rubio and Cruz tied it up in that debate as Rubio made himself look more electable, and Cruz successfully fending off most attacks save on the issue of immigration reform where he looked as if he was caught up in a lie or an act on the issue of amnesty something his voting record clearly shows he is not in favor of.  

Post-debate interviews were great as they allowed candidates to clarify their answers from the debate and more time to speak their piece.  Most of these interviews after the debate though focused on parrying the attacks made on the candidates and clarifying their record.  Cruz used this most successfully to try and fix the perception that he was pro amnesty as Fox News/Google (the debate hosts) played clips of the candidates speaking on issues in testimony while in Congress or from interviews.  Basically it made it impossible for them to lie on stage if they were intending to in the first place.  Needless to say post-debate interview wise Cruz being the person in second place nationally used this interview well and Megyn Kelly even clarified that Cruz's voting record showed he did not support amnesty, but that the clip that Fox/google showed made him look a bit dishonest, as if he was acting out a part while giving that testimony.  Cruz struggled a little with how to answer when presented with this, but ultimately after Megyn Kelly pushing him answered that he was using the opponent’s words against them (the opponents being pro amnesty Democrats and Republicans).

Final Thought:  The debate was overall successful and enjoyable especially the fact checking and the video clips used by the debate hosts.  I wish I could have heard more from Rand Paul as he is my number one candidate with Cruz and Carson being numbers two and three.  With the Iowa voters gearing up today, we are sure to have an enjoyable news day for those like me who like Presidential horse races.