Monday, April 4, 2016

Kasich Tells the Truth, He's the Best Hope for Republicans to Regain the White House...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth



Irrespective of Trump's constant babble about being a winner the reality is as Kasich states it. Trump is a sure loser against Hillary Clinton, so, if republicans are to stand a chance of winning the Whitre House Kasich is their best bet.

The Hill - Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said he thinks he has a good chance at a contested convention this summer.

"I believe that a convention will look at somebody like me, and that’s why I think I’m going to be the nominee," the Ohio governor said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

Kasich said he expects to continue gaining momentum and picking up delegates until the convention.Kasich then touted his poll numbers in head-to-head match-ups against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, saying he beats Clinton in "virtually every poll."

"I'm the only one that does it on the Republican side," he said.

He also talked about his record on job growth, adding he has international foreign policy knowledge and the experience to be a competitive candidate.

"We just have to keep going, and we’re going to have an open convention," Kasich said.

"It’s going to be so much fun. Kids will spend less time focusing on Bieber and Kardashian and more time focusing on how we elect presidents. It will be so cool."


Via: Memeorandum

30 comments:

  1. If Kasich is who the voters want - they should have said so by voting for him in the primaries. As for your article excerpt - Kasich did lie in it. That "kids will spend less time focusing on Bieber and Kardashian" is total BS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It may be. That simly falls into the category of hyperbole.The substance is in fact true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kasich may be the best hope for Republicans (and he is certainly the most moderate in the field), but it begs the question. Is he the best hope for the country? My single greatest concern among all GOP candidates is the catechism of supply-side economics. It has been a disaster for the middle class and a boon for oligarchs. Until the party as a whole abandons trickle-down, I cannot be comfortable with any of them.

    (I should note parenthetically, it doesn't help to trash teachers and organized labor either).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forgot to mention Social Security. I'd fight to the death if any Republican tried to privatize it or weaken it in any way. As a whole, the GOP gives too much attention to "money" and not enough on human rights and human welfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Octo... I think they've abandoned the term privatize, preferring instead personalize, because apparently, if you name crummy ideas with nice names, it makes them so much better.

      Delete
  5. I have become a cynic (O)CT(O)PUS, believing there is really no one who would be good for the country. I simply do not trust HRC and Sanders is too progressive (the excesses of the republicans should not be offset by excesses of the progressives).

    Until a candidate that believes in addressing the national debt, controlling deficits, ushering a tax policy that supports the middle class and rewards businesses for investing in America, and has a rational foreign policy agenda (neo cons are the most irrational) the country's inhabitants will continue to get screwed over.

    In a nutshell, it's really, realy slim picking this year.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On social security (O)CT(O)PUS, I essentially agree. With the caveat that continuing on its present course the combination of medicare and social security will bankrupt this country unless something is done. It would make sense to stop raiding the SSTF (Social Security Trust Fund), gradually increase the retirement age to 70, require everyone pay SS tax on every dollar earned, and restructure benefit calculations for those 45 and below. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that could be done to keep SS solvent for years to come. Long Aafter we're dead and gone.

    It makes sense for the government to create incentives to encourage younger folks to invest in their own retirement throughout their life. Social security was supposed to be supplemental to other retirement savings. Not a persons sole retirement income.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN... the numbers I have seen say that if we just increased the income level for Social taxes to about 150K, we'd be flush with cash for years to come. If we taxed all income, as you recommend, we'd be in fat city.

      But no Republican is gonna vote for this. Even Reagan supported and signed a Tax Increase to preserve Social Security. Think any GOP leader will do that today?

      Delete
    2. No Dave and it borders on criminal.

      Delete
    3. Sounds un-Libertarian to me. RN is in favor of increasing the nanny-stateish entitlements? Another Libertarian's view on this is that "lifting the cap entirely would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history". This Libertarian says "I would vociferously oppose such as redistributionist/Robin Hood approach to governing". And he might conclude by telling RN to "keep your paws off of other people's fortunes and strive to create your own".

      Gary Johnson is in favor of all the worst ideas there are for "reforming" SS. Which would be raising the retirement age (Johnson says to 70 or 72), privatization, block granting to the states, getting rid of the payroll tax and replacing it with the "fair tax" (a boon for the wealthy), and means testing (source/source).

      I couldn't find him saying anything about the cap, but I assume he'd be against either removing or raising it. Proof of this would be that he "believes in continuing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for people who have already paid into the system", which is code for phasing it out (which I know was Ron Paul's position. And he phrased his response the same way).

      Just one reason I'd never consider voting Libertarian.

      Delete
    4. Sounds un-Libertarian to me. RN is in favor of increasing the nanny-stateish entitlements?

      Social security is not an entitlement. Your own hard earned money deposited into a federally managed trust fund to be withdrawn when you retire is hardly an entitlement Dervish(it is the MISMANAGEMENT of the SSTF by the federal government that is the problem).

      It is interesting you chose those words. So, now, you explain why you think is an entitlement.

      Delete
    5. I'd be interested in knowing why you think SS is not an entitlement. Especially given the rest of your comment. You refer to "your own hard earned money", but then take umbrage when I suggest people are entitled to anything? Weird. Not as weird as his un-Libertarian support for "taxing all income". Quite at odds with his acceptance of the demonization of the word "entitlement".

      Anyway, how is the SSTF "mismanaged"?

      Delete
    6. Youdo not answer a question by asking a question Dervish. I shall await your answer.

      As for qweird? Naw, never mind.

      I await your answer. One which I know will likely no be forthcoming.

      LMAO!!!



      Delete
    7. dictionary.com: Entitlement (definition) "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation".

      Apparently RN has his own definition.

      Delete
    8. Apparently.

      Since 48 years have been spent paying social security taxes (some years to the maximum)and there was no choice given it is reasonable to expect a return on my investment taking care of prior generations.

      Since the government gave me no choice it is reasonable to receive the same treatment or be reimbursed in full all that was taken from me by force.

      So I guess it is accuratre to say I am entitled to a return on my investment.

      Delete
    9. So I guess it is accurate to say I am entitled to a return on my investment.

      Gary Johnson says no. Or, he reluctantly says yes, but wants to severely reduce your ROI.

      Delete
    10. Dervish, the problem, if the system continues on its present course, is that the baby boom generation is seriously taxing the system. Unless logical decisions are made to put the SSTF on stable footing it will collapse. Medicare and Medicade is a huge ever growing cost as well.


      It would make sense to stop raiding the SSTF (Social Security Trust Fund), gradually increase the retirement age to 70, require everyone pay SS tax on every dollar earned, and restructure benefit calculations for those 45 and below. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that could be done to keep SS solvent for years to come. Long after we're dead and gone.

      It makes sense for the government to create incentives to encourage younger folks to invest in their own retirement throughout their life. Social security was supposed to be supplemental to other retirement savings. Not a person's sole retirement income.

      Delete
    11. RN: Unless logical decisions are made to put the SSTF on stable footing it will collapse.

      They were already made. The SS system was always supposed to be a pay-as-you-go system (with current workers paying for the retirement of past workers). The ENTIRE reason there is a trust fund is because this problem was anticipated and taxes were raised on the baby boomers. You're buying into a Rightwing talking point when you suggest there is more than a minor problem. Also a Rightwing talking point is your statement that the SSTF has been "raided". The fund is invested in government bonds. The retirement age should be lowered, not raised.

      BTW, I'm less than 45, but don't anticipate living to 70 (for reasons I'm not going to get into). So I get nothing under the RN plan. Which is the whole point. More people paying in but dying before they get the return they're entitled to.

      Delete
    12. Dervish, I am fully aware of how the SSTF was set up, how it is supposed to work and a lot mare YOU apparently choose to ignore.

      Your last comment is bullshit Dervish ans as such this discussion is closed.

      Delete
    13. OK. Discussion closed. I don't see how anyone can have a rational discussion when someone says facts are bullshit.

      Delete
    14. I do not take issue with facts.

      I said your last comment was bullshit. Which is the whole point. More people paying in but dying before they get the return they're entitled to.

      People are living much longer. Look it up Dervish.

      There is a reason Joe said what he did. I'll leave it at that.

      Delete
    15. Article: We Know About Income Inequality. Now It's Time to Talk About Lifespan Inequality.
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/03/17/lifespan_inequality_the_rich_are_living_longer_lives_than_the_poor.html
      Once they reach age 65, men who are in the top half of earners live about six years longer today than they did in the 1970s. But men who are in the bottom half of earners only live 1.3 years longer than they did 40 years ago. (The Social Security Administration hasn't analyzed data for women, because of their changing work habits.) For all we hear about rising life expectancies, the reality is that only half the population seems to be reaping the gains.

      Joe didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Looks like RN doesn't either, as he (apparently) believes that 1.3 years is "living much longer". That, or he thinks poor people don't deserve to retire and should work until they die (or work themselves to death). Even though these people often work harder (manual labor) jobs, so they might not have the physical stamina (for old age/health related reasons) to continue in their jobs.

      Delete
    16. No Dervish, Joe (Truth 101) KNEW EXACTLY what he was talking about, so have others.

      I have reached my limit with respect to your groundless allegations. Your twisting to make everything fit your world view is no doubt fun and rewarding for you but it frankly has ceased to be interesting.

      Good Day sir.

      Delete
    17. So, the statement from the article I linked to that said "men who are in the bottom half of earners only live 1.3 years longer" is bullshit? It is in line with what I've heard on this issue in the past, so (the info as presented) is what I genuinely believe to be accurate. I wasn't attempting to "twist" anything. For the record, I absolutely do not find YOUR groundless allegations fun or rewarding. Joe (lies 101) was wrong and frankly I am more than a little tired of hearing about his BS.

      Delete
    18. That, or he thinks poor people don't deserve to retire and should work until they die (or work themselves to death).

      Bullshit Dervish, pure and simple.

      Joe (lies 101) was wrong and frankly I am more than a little tired of hearing about his BS.

      Are we are tired of yours Dervish. BTW, Joe tells the truth.

      Delete
    19. Re: "Joe tells the truth"... so, that means you must be convinced by his pro-Trump arguments (given your assertion that Joe tells the truth about Trump)? If so, why so many anti-Trump posts on this blog (if you're a big fan like Joe is)? Also, your quote was one of me guessing. If you refuse to address the facts I'm going to guess why. Something, if you don't like, could EASILY be prevented by you addressing the facts. Something you still have not done (and I'm going to guess that you WILL NOT). BTW, someone throwing out a guess is NOT an "allegation".

      Delete
  7. You get a Republican in the White House, Les, and either this year or in 2018 have a GOP Senate, I absolutely guarantee that they will not do any of the things you want. By your own calculations, Clinton or Sanders would be better, all things considered.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jersey, I am not advocating for any candidate at this point. What is sad is that I have felt it important to advocate against the greatest of evils.

    HRC is not to be trusted in my opinion and Sanders is too far left for my tastes.

    Probably won't make my decision until I'm in the voting booth and I'llk likely end up listening to my gut. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I guess if Kasich is to stand a chance, we will need to rely upon the better instincts of California, New York and New Jersey republicans. While that sounds a little bit hopeful on the surface, I'm not sure that there is any appreciable difference among any republicans in the U.S. across the board. There seems to be that stubborn thirty percent or so that love Trump. Good luck sane republicans.

    JMJ, the last time I spoke with you, (last fall?) I couldn't believe for the life of me that republicans would let this happen to their party. Guess I'll have to eat my hat.

    Personally I am pro-Hillary since 2008. Reports of her untrustworthiness are only a testament to how people will believe just about anything if they hear it a thousand times every month.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.