Interesting responses, so I hope you don't mind return comments.
OCCOM BILL wrote:okie wrote: ob, I find your list interesting, so will try it. I am limiting it to Romney, McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani, as I don't think the other Republicans have a chance: For Dems, it would be Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I don't recommend Clinton or Edwards for anything.
Thank you and thanks for participating in earnest. I hope you don't mind if I respond to some of your thoughts as freely as you did mine.
okie wrote: Immigration:
Only Republicans are serious about really fixing this, and not all of those are. McCain isn't really serious, although he says he got the message. Romney the best on this. Thompson good but he has no chance.
There is little, if any, difference between McCain and Rudy here. Both are smart enough to know there will be no round up of 12+ million people. Both are smart enough to realize the 2 million or so truly undesirables will be easier to round up, if they can't hide within the ranks of the balance. Only far right Republicans are too stubborn to admit this obvious truth
to the detriment of national security.
A solution similar to yours was tried once already about 20 years ago and it didn't work. We don't have to round people up. If jobs are unavailable and government perks are unavailable, they will return to their home country to apply legally. I don't think you realize even yet how much people are fed up with this problem. Also, in addition to my previous post, Tancredo talked with all the other candidates when he dropped out, and endorsed Romney because he thought he had the best stand on this issue.
Quote:okie wrote: Iraq: McCain strongest on this, but Romney will do.
If you pull the focus back from Iraq alone, and look at the greater "war on terror", Rudy is probably even stronger than McCain... though Romney remains the weak party line yes-man
with no apparent purpose of his own. Just thought you'd like to know.
I am going to say something here I've not said before. I have a few trepidations here that Giuliani may be too hawkish for my liking. He is pretty much a one trick pony so far, a one issue man, terrorism, and we have alot of other problems too, and I don't want a president that feels like he has to prove something on that one issue just to be validated. It could lead to an overextension of the wise and prudent policy. I have supported the Iraq war, as Congress did, for all the reasons discussed at length, but I think we will be well served to back off a bit, carry a big stick, but use it very sparingly. This issue is one reason I am leary of Giuliani, so I don't consider it a strength of his necessarily.
Quote:okie wrote: Taxes2:
Death taxes are not a big issue. We already exclude amounts down to a million or two. In regard to farms and other businesses, raising the limit could avoid selling and ending up with assets flowing to larger companies. Keep them in the family is better. I don't know which candidate is better on this, but most assuredly Repubs are better on any tax issue. Romney is smarter with business and has the best grasp on this issue.
Why not legislate a specific exemption for small farmers, if this is your intention... rather than throw bones at the entirety of the richest 1%? I understand the strict objectivist point of view here easily enough
but there's little rational rationale left for anyone else (beyond the 1%, of course).
We could exclude small farmers, but why not exclude any business, and differentiate business from investments? This is a very casual question, and I really would need to study this issue further. I have no real strong opinions on it now.
Quote:okie wrote: Energy: Any Republican is better on this, Romney probably the best because he has the best grasp of facts, figures, and the realities of business and energy.
Your Romney-man-love is beyond evident by now, but on this issue especially. Romney differs from Rudy how exactly?
The Romney-man-love comment wasn't needed. Yes, I am leaning to Romney now, but to be honest I haven't made up my mind. I could eventually vote for somebody else. I don't know any of these guys that well. I base my opinion now on the debates. He strikes me as the smartest, most balanced, and most energetic candidate that comes close to my views. So far.
Quote:okie wrote: Abortion: Republicans oppose murder of unborn, so no question who is better on this. The issue is the protection of life, the most sacred thing we have.
Rudy disagrees, Romney is a flip-flopper, and McCain has wavered as well. At some point; the majority of Republicans will realize they've permanently lost the middle if this is a litmus test. Or they'll struggle in impotence until they do. Until such time as another Lefty makes it to the Supreme Court: I, for instance, will have a very hard time voting Right
and will probably not be voting any Righty's but moderates
almost regardless of who the Left puts up. Please hear this loud and clear.
Why are you so hell bent on the right of women to kill their own offspring? What is it with the liberal mindset on this? Do you have children? Have you been around when a child was born? Long time ago, I was undecided about this, but not anymore, after children and grandchildren. I admit this is a cultural problem that needs to be fixed before it is a legal problem, but we need to use the bully pulpit on this. The president has no authority anyway, beyond nominating judges to apply the current law or interpret the constitution as a Supreme Court justice.
Quote:okie wrote: Scumbag Quotient: I will mention Obama as a decent man along with all four Republicans I list.
Decent of you to include him. I would encourage all active democratic primary voters to take notice of the incredible bias shown by the middle and even the Right towards Obama. The man has something special
and it seems to be getting noticed by all political walks of life.
He is a good talker, but can he make decisions, and has he shown us the capability of making decent decisions. I am not convinced, and even if he does, they are all liberal policies that I don't agree with. When I watch him work a crowd, it struck me the other night that it reminded me of the head salesman at a multi-level marketing sales convention.
Quote:okie wrote: Last note, our enemies around the world would love nothing better than to see a Democrat elected. What should that tell us?
I would think so too, but stopped saying so when someone pointed out there is zero evidence to support this contention. I also think it's only fair to point out that at this juncture: Our friends around the world would love nothing better than to see a Democrat elected
as well. I'm not sure, but suspect, this would be easier to prove
though I have zero intention of trying.
I think some of the propaganda about Bush being despised and ruining our reputiation is a myth held in the minds of liberals and liberal leaders, but it doesn't hold in the minds of people the way it has been portrayed. People respect anyone that has principles, and Bush has shown that he does. A better judgement of Bush will be written by history many years from now, not in a liberal New York Times column today or yesterday.
Quote: Advocate wrote:Under a sales tax system, the misers would make out like bandits. The spenders, who spur the economy, get killed.
Only if you lack a healthy death tax to balance the equation.
Cyclo: there is no reason to believe the retiree-savings issue couldn't be included in the equation. Further; a progressive system sold on the solid principles that those who profited most from deferring bills to the next generation are do to pay the piper. This should, theoretically, sell pretty well (though Phoenix seems not to want to respond to the idea at all). I know I owe.
We need to encourage savings more than we have. I am not against a death tax, just an appropriate minimum. And we can make a sales tax progressive to some extent.
My point is: Sales Tax only works with a substantial death tax. Re-read with that in mind.