|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Ready for 2016?|
Ready for 2016?
Posted - 1/3/2013 8:49:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
Okay, so it's a bit early. But, here are my GOP picks:
Chris Christie for President
Marco Rubio for VP
Chris Christie has repeatedly shown that he is more than willing to bridge the partisan divide and do what is best for his state. I have no doubt that he would do the same for the country. He is a man of his word and he speaks his words clearly.
I think that with all of the division and bitterness in this country, he is a politician who could actually bring people together.
Marco? What more can I say? Each time he speaks I remember the America that I believed in as a kid. The country where anyone can rise to the top if they are willing to work for it. It's an America which I actually haven't heard much about since Reagan.
They would be a dynamic team who could move this country forward.
Posted - 1/3/2013 10:20:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Christie's star has been rising of late--because of the good press stemming from his political courage. Rubio on the other hand...
...He would have been better of by just coming right out and saying 'I'm sucking up to the Teabaggers because I want to be VP some day'.
He says he voted against the Fiscal Cliff deal because it would hurt small business. Huh?? 98% of small businesses out there don't net $400-$450K. Big businesses and hedge funds maybe, but not small businesses. Besides that, if you've got a net profit of >$400,000 from your business and you're still filing it under your personal income instead of filing under the company, you're an idiot.
Rubio also voted against the Veterans Jobs bill in September. He also voted against the Jobs Bill in July that was designed to provide additional tax breaks to small businesses that hire new workers. (NYT piece at the time: “Republicans are blocking this bill for no other reason other than that they think passing it might help the president and help the economy,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)"
He even voted against the Senate Disabilities Treaty. The one where that McCain and the great Bob Dole argued for. Even though Rubios father was disabled with polio. Why? The hated UN was involved. jeez.
Rubio is showing his true colors. He doesn't want to create jobs--he's only interested in the one for himself 4 years from now.
Sorry my friend, but that's the way it's going down.
Posted - 1/3/2013 10:45:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Besides that, if you've got
a net profit of $400,000 from your business and you're still filing it under your personal income instead of filing under the company, you're an idiot."
It's obvious that you know ZERO about business accounting. Sub-chapter S corporations account for their business revenues and expenses on the OWNER'S personal tax return. Most...if not all...sole proprieterships account for their business revenues and expenses on the OWNER'S personal tax return. This covers a HUGE percentage of the small businesses in the country.
Sub-chapter C corporations...usually bigger businesses and EVERY business that issues stock...have their own corporate tax returns that are separate from those of the owners/stockholders. But even a corporation that is wholly owned by a single individual can be a C corp. It is a choice made between ownership/management and its accountants.
There are distinct advantages to sub-chapter S corporations. The owners are NOT idiots.
And it's none of your business how they choose to do their accounting. Once again you're shooting off your mouth without the requisite knowledge to back it up.
Posted - 1/4/2013 5:53:04 AM | show profile | flag this post
..would never survive the RINO litmus test in primaries. The baggers and opponents will tear him apart. But he's a smart, and clearly ambitious, pol ... I think he's setting himself up for a senate run, (would easily knock off one of the dem seats) and then as deal making moderate. He knows the GOP crazy radicalism will only last so long, will need to move to the centre again, and will be positioned to cash in. I'd say in 8, not 4 ... Plus he has to get his health in order.
Yeah ... I hear y'all saying there's these great young GOP Latinos... but it is still a white, male, party. That is who votes. That's why they'll never be a presidential candidate, but a sure clinch VP pick. .. Including for Christie if/when he runs.
Posted - 1/4/2013 9:29:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
Christie is a good politician...
but I have to agree with the above assessment -- he can't survive the GOP primaries. Unless we see a slew of TEA Party-friendly candidates split the vote like we did in 2012. He would make one of the strongest nominees for the GOP -- but a lot can change in four years. His weight issues would also be a problem for him. The physical demands and stress of a Presidential campaign could likely kill him.
Rubio would be a failure for the GOP. Lots of Republicans think if you put a black person on the ticket -- black voters will rally around him. Just like they thought Sarah Palin would win over Hillary supporters. Same with Latinos. Rubio is CUBAN-American. That means every hispanic who is not Cuban-American automatically distrusts him. There is a huge divide, with most Hispanics seeing Cubans having preferential treatment on immigration related issues. He only drives home that division by failing to support the immigration policies other Hispanic-Americans favor. Again, minorities vote based on issues and how candidates support issues they favor -- not on the basis of a person's skin color.
Right now, it's Hillary's race to lose. She's been the most admired woman for years running, has the highest approval rating of any politician in the U.S. And she's retiring from the government -- a move that will put all those positive numbers into suspended animation until she should choose to run for office -- giving her a huge advantage.
She also has the benefit of America's most beloved former President -- and favorite Democrat -- as her husband, able to campaign for her 24/7. And, with the deals made in 2012, has access to the Obama voter database -- the superweapon the Republicans are no where near replicating.
And the demographics are breaking her way.
Posted - 1/4/2013 1:07:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
all of this assumes there will still BE a tea party...
influence come 2016..
i'm not at all sure there will be.. at least, not enough of one to make any difference..
the way the two fiscal battles about to start eventually turn out will tell us what we need to know about the future of the tea party right..
and i don't think it bodes well for the far right..
Posted - 1/4/2013 3:26:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
A few thoughts on your responses:
mp, I am aware of many businesses that are still S-corps once they pass the $400-$450 a year mark. Notably, attorneys and doctors. I don't think it's crazy at all since the designation provides certain tax advantages. It makes perfect sense for Rubio to stay true to his beliefs and vote against tax increases.
Also, you say in regard to a "Jobs' Bill": "(NYT piece at the time: “Republicans are blocking this bill for no other reason other than that they think passing it might help the president and help the economy,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)" Why in God's name would any self-respecting conservative believe anything coming from "Sunday Schumer's" mouth. (He's known for holding pressers nearly every Sunday in NYC, knowing that it's usually a slow news day.) The assessment of a far left-winger hardly proves your point.
Shame on those of you who think Christie has a definite "health problem" just because he is heavy set. He survived the rough and tumble of Tri-State politics and it's arguably the toughest political market outside of D.C. Yes, I hope he loses weight since weight CAN be associated with health risks, (emphasis on CAN.) Will Hillary now be "a health risk" as a candidate due to her blood clot? A potentially deadly clot, that was, thank God, caught in time, seems like a higher risk to me. And, if you are talking weight, she could use some trips to the gym herself once she recovers.
cdn, the GOP has more white males, yes, but that's only because white males have, so far, been the most successful as a group. The GOP is a party that promotes success and I believe that they will rally 'round the candidate with the best ideas and philosophy for helping Americans achieve success, not through government, but through their OWN initiative.
Regarding hispanics voting for Rubio, I've debated this point before. I think it was Grateful who asked me why, if I would not vote for a candidate based on race or ethnicity, why do I think that hispanics would? The answer is simple. It's the same reason that close to 100% of black voters voted for Obama - twice! When a group perceives itself to be the underdog fighting for respect, they are more likely to vote for one of their own who will represent their "emerging power." Since whites have traditionally had the power, this is not as much of a concern for them. That's my take on it. Also, I am not convinced that other hispanics resent Rubio for being Cuban. Even if they do resent Cubans, I think that they will grow to respect Rubio as a person for the traditional values which they share.
As for Christie, I agree with mp that he has "political courage." Again, with our deep divisions, our country needs someone with that quality.
But, yes, a lot can happen in 4 years.
Posted - 1/4/2013 5:48:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
Health is a legitimate issue. The office of the president isn't a governorship. Obama and Bush are athletic and looked 10 years older and greyer after 4. Clinton was out of shape, and after 8 years he looked 20 years older and had a bypass afterward. (his health now, given good diet and exercise, a lesson to all of us)
We don't know Christie health status, but lets not pretend it won't be an issue for GOP, Dems, and the public alike. If Dole's age was an issue, so will Christie's health. He can't dismiss it as politics.. He'll have to convince the electorate. And it is something other candidates won't have to deal with. (And I'm sure people will bring up Hillary's age.. Almost 70).
That's not bias or weight-ism. (Or ageism)
And the GOP white male isn't necessarily racism. It is simple electoral numbers. Voters, and particularly conservative voters, are more likely to cast for the familiar. The GOP voting record does not show a propensity for diversity in ethnicity, or gender. I think a lot of moderate republicans would welcome it. But the raw numbers are against it. Wishes ain't reality.
Posted - 1/4/2013 7:14:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
Okay I was wrong
Shouldn't have said "a net profit of $400,000 from your business and you're still filing it under your personal income instead of filing under the company, you're an idiot." My bad.
It is none of my business. But, and here's the but--I like stopbs example of a small doctors office or small law firm. Suppose they did net a half million for the year? After over-head the three or four partners split the profit. Fine. Then none of them personally made over the $450K did they?? See that's the point. 97% of all small business out there make less than the tax hike threshold. So for Rubio (and others) to even HINT that the Fiscal Cliff tax hike would kill small business is a LIE. (Even Boehner admitted that)
He's pandering to the TeaBaggers stopbs. That might get him the VP nomonation. But it may also come back to bite him in the ass.
And just because you don't like Chuck Schumer doesn't take away from the fact that Rubio (and others) voted against Jobs Bills. Votes like that will also come back to haunt you. At least we all agree "a lot can happen in 4 years."
Posted - 1/4/2013 7:44:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Regarding hispanics voting for Rubio, I've debated this point before. I think it was Grateful who asked me why, if I would not vote for a candidate based on race or ethnicity, why do I think that hispanics would? The answer is simple. It's the same reason that close to 100% of black voters voted for Obama - twice! When a group perceives itself to be the underdog fighting for respect, they are more likely to vote for one of their own who will represent their "emerging power." **
Really? REALLY? I'm Hispanic, I'm ethnic, I love my family and friends, and I wouldn't vote for Rubio only because he's Hispanic. You sure do have a shallow view of us!
Posted - 1/4/2013 8:47:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
"97% of all small business out there
make less than the tax hike threshold"
And you would know this...how, exactly? The FACT is you DON'T know...you're speculating...but making a declarative statement to make yourself appear "right" on this issue.
Posted - 1/4/2013 9:59:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Such a tool.
The 97% figure has been around for a long long time. And that was for $250,000 and above, which is what the president campaigned on; it's been verified many many times. Raising taxes on small buisnesses that make $450,000 shrinks it even more.
Even Bohner admitted that on Face the Nation.
The President has been saying it for over a year, and no one disputes it. “Now, we can already anticipate — we know what those who are opposed to letting the high-end tax cuts expire will say,” Mr. Obama said at the White House. “They’ll say that we can’t tax ‘job creators.’ ”
But most small-business owners would be exempt, he said, because “97 percent of small businesses fall under the $250,000 threshold.”
Mr. Obama is correct that only a tiny sliver of business owners make enough to land in the top tax brackets. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan Congressional office, estimated last month that 3.5 percent of taxpayers with business income in 2013 would fall in the tax brackets that would rise under the president’s proposal."
The WH has more details: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/09/extending-middle-class-tax-cuts-98-americans-and-97-small-businesses
Why you just admit you hate Obama so bad if he said it was daylight out you'd run to the window. Or look it up yourself. but stop whining.
Posted - 1/4/2013 10:27:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
No matter how you try to change the subject
the real issue is you don't have a clue how business accounting works...and the differences between C-corps, S-corps, sole proprietorships, etc. And...you're right about this...I wouldn't trust Obama's figures on the percentages of the businesses he's trying to screw.
All the other crap you've been posting since yesterday is to obfuscate the egregiously wrong assumptions you made.
Posted - 1/5/2013 11:50:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
yeah,lets take tax advice ..
... from an economics "expert" that says government isn't part of GDP.
.. a weapons "expert" that says the AR-15, designed by the military, for mil specs, is meant for small game hunting.
.. a global warming "expert" that cant tell the difference between weather and climate.
A politics "expert" that knows Romney was going to win, all polls are wrong, Akin loves women, and Gay marriage swings votes.
All Hail cruiser ... the King of ...!
Posted - 1/5/2013 2:35:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
"You sure do have a shallow view of us!"
I think I have a realistic view. I'm looking at this from a sociological standpoint, not the view of one hispanic. I don't think we can extrapolate your view to every hispanic voter in America. But, given the position of this country's hispanics as a whole, who largely want to make it in America, I do think we can look at the position likely to be adopted by the majority.
How do you explain nearly 100% of blacks voting for Obama? Certainly some of those voters believed that he was the better candidate, but all of them???? Nearly every black voter in America??? None of those voters chose Obama because he was black? I think it would be very naive to take that position. Colin Powell supported him because he was "transformational." I have to agree with that. As the first black president, he was transformational. And that is the reason I think that so many (nearly 100%) of blacks voted for him.
Many on the left have suggested that Romney did not appeal to blacks and hispanics. He didn't "get" their "specific" needs. You can not just pull out demographic considerations when they are convenient and ignore them when they don't fit the image you want to create.
Posted - 1/5/2013 4:58:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
stopbs; you'd be wise
to quit while you're not quite ahead, ie., put down the shovel, ie, you're starting to sound like a confused Karl Rove, or Dick Morris, or Mitt Romney, or, pretty much anyone on on Fox.
Where'd we go so wrong?? What happened?? How did we lose so badly when we were paying ourselves millions telling ourselves we were winning???
"How do you explain nearly 100% of blacks voting for Obama?" Wow. Real brain teaser there. Because, oh I dunno, maybe because the GOP/conservatives/wingnuts make it clear they don't like black people? (the 47% speech, Black Panthers and ACORN stealing elections, 'food stamp president', welfare bums, not to mention the incredible rise of white supremecists, the astounding amount of racist anti Obama websites and death threats, not to mention MAJOR GOP politicians babbling on about "his Kenyan roots and philosophy".
Same pattern with the latinos. Same pattern with the gay community. Same pattern with women. Romney lost these groups not just because he's "associated" with these bigots--and he is--courted them in fact--but because he didn't "condemn" them either. Why the HELL do you still sound confused??
"He didn't "get" their "specific" needs??? Seriously?? Like trying to appeal to American voters??? Because that's what they are, American voters. And if future GOPers follow the model of appealing to their base of rich white bigots (Queen Ann anyone?) they may not be in the Oval Office again for decades.
Posted - 1/5/2013 6:03:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
plus, stop..people seem to have a habit of lumping..
ALL spanish-speaking peoples under the rubric of "hispanic"..
but the hispanics don't..
they tend to see themzselves as mexican, honduran, guatemalan, argentine, chilean, peruvian, cuban..and on and on..
unlike african-americans, hispanics are separate nationalities..and as a general rule aren't all that happy to be lumped in, one with another..
Posted - 1/5/2013 6:48:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** I think I have a realistic view. I'm looking at this from a sociological standpoint, not the view of one hispanic. I don't think we can extrapolate your view to every hispanic voter in America. But, given the position of this country's hispanics as a whole, who largely want to make it in America, I do think we can look at the position likely to be adopted by the majority.
Excuse me, but I don't live in a one-Hispanic bubble. Your entire premise is faulty. Your view of Hispanics ("who largely want to make it in America") is belittling and ridiculous -- "make it in America?" You mean like we just landed on the shore yesterday? And like it's a terrible struggle for all of us to be American, even though our ancestors predate the arrival of Leif Ericson?
Because you seem to think we are one big Hispanic blob, I'm willing to bet that you have had extremely limited exposure to actual, live Hispanics face to face -- if any at all -- or face to face with any actual, live African Americans. I feel stupid even addressing you because you're so pathetically ignorant of the subject about which you're making pronouncements!
Posted - 1/5/2013 7:09:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
FWIW to stopbs (fullaBS?) --
-- Obama won among every age group except 65 and over.
-- Obama won in every ethnicity except white
-- Republicans voted for McCain, Democrats voted for Obama, and the majority of independent voters voted Democrat.
-- More women voted for Obama, more men voted for McCain.
-- Kerry won the under-30 vote, Bush won the over-30.
-- Kerry won every ethnicity except white.
-- Republicans voted for Bush, Democrats voted for Obama, and the majority of independent voters voted Democrat.
-- More women voted for Kerry, more men voted for Bush.
-- Gore won the under-30 and 50-and-over vote, Bush won the 30-49 age range.
-- Gore won every ethnicity except white.
-- Republicans voted for Bush, Democrats voted for Gore, and the majority of independent voters voted Republican.
-- More women voted for Gore, more men voted for Bush.
It would appear that for more than 12 years, non-white voters have voted Democrat *** no matter what the skin color of the candidate was.****
Posted - 1/5/2013 10:37:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
I think what you see here stopbs
(My friend) is that when you say, in all naive honesty "I think I have a realistic view." Some of us shake our heads and ask, 'view from where?'
Grateful expertly laid out that it's not just one "group"...it's practically all ethnic groups, it's age groups, it's middle class and poor families, it's independents, it's WOMEN, and they're not even a minority. You CANNOT insult all these groups and play the Massa 'I know what's good for you even if you don't' routine. (State sanctioned rape anyone??)
It's party philosophy of "looking ahead" instead of "Keep things the way they are, even if it's bad". It's party philosophy of 'science makes sense' instead 'this is what I believe, so it must be fact'. And perhaps, most important, it's party philosophy we're all in this together' instead of 'It's every man for himself'. That's why Romney lost and Obama won.
If the GOP wants to be the party of old rich white guys, fine. Knock yourselves out. Replace the Elephant with a Dodo Bird for all I care.
And as historically AWFUL the 112th Congress was--the 113th ain't shaping any better. Bachman is PROUD that the first bill introduced was to repeal Obamacare for the 34th time. No one even gave it a thought that maybe, just maybe, a JOBS BILL would be a good idea?? And now we're going to go thru (possibly) another fight over the Debt Ceiling?? Money these guys already spent?? I was TOTALLY against re-electing Reid and Pelosi as Dem Leaders after what I considered piss-poor performances. What does the GOP do?? They re-elect Boehner (sniffle sniffle)
That 18% approval rating is going to get even lower in the next two months. In my opinion.
Posted - 1/6/2013 8:46:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
Check this out:
H.J.Res.15 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15] (Introduced 01/04/2013)
Obama in 2016???
Posted - 1/6/2013 8:57:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
Didn't find that little gem anywhere on an MSM website.
Posted - 1/6/2013 10:15:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
It was reported in several of the Sunday papers, and I saw it on Mediate and the Examiner. Other websites (including The Blaze) also reported it.
The Congressman has introduced it every other year going to back to 1997. Even Mitch McConnell sponsored the same thing in '95. It never goes anywhere.
But it might be a good arguement for term limits on Congressmen.
Posted - 1/6/2013 11:39:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
yeah, i saw it several places..
it's one of those things that gets dropped in the hopper every opening of a new congress..
it never goes anywhere, and it won't this time..or any time in the future..
sorta like michele bachmann is apparently planning to do with her repeal obamacare bill from now on until the citizens of her district wake up..
which, with any luck, will be 2014..
Posted - 1/7/2013 12:03:36 AM | show profile | flag this post
Sounds good, will not happen.
Rubio will not carry the American latino vote. I am going to let you in on a little know secret, most of the hispanics in the US do not like the Cubans in America. There is resentment of the Cuban's special treatment by US immigration, and their arrogant right wing tendencies. It appears Cubans only look out for other Cubans.