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.