I kinda thought so, given your overly simplistic commentaries on the candidates. I found it amusing that you wrote:

 

about Chris Christie. He does not say the right things, such as when he told someone critical of his recent handling of a storm in New Jersey, in areas previously damaged by Sandy, "What do you want me to do, go in there with a mop?"

You also wrote that nobody believes him (Christie). Now, if a guy always says the right things, who in their right mind wouldn't believe him?

 

If Obama, whose birthplace is still quite nebulous, can get elected - why should it matter where Cruz was born?

Harry, Congress is a bicameral legislature; it consists of the Senate and House of Representatives, When one says Congress, it means both Houses. There are 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and 6 non-voting members.

Trust me, they all understand how it works. That's the problem.

Of course people still don't believe he's born in the USA :'D

I'm sure he was born right next to Bruce Springsteen.

That was a deliberate poke at Harry who indicated that Cruz is "just barely a native born American".

Just checked out the Cruz thing.

Not sure why there's muddied waters. If he was entitled to US Citizenship from birth (seems he was) then it looks like that's fine, is that correct?

Yes he is as far as I can tell.

I was just poking a little fun at Cruz though, especially after the fuss over Obama.

We get a lot of women from mainland China coming to the us during their 8th month of pregnancy in order to give the kids citizenship and go on the dole.  It is kind of annoying.

The reason I say he was sort of "on the edge" is:
- He was born outside of the US
- His father was not a US citizen
- He kept his right to dual citizenship all the way up until he ran for President

His Mother's US citizenship passed the test.

I really don't care what religion someone is, nor what country they are from.  I do care about people using dual citizenship to avoid taxes and call themselves something at convenient moments.  In my mind, once a person is 18, they should make a decision on their single country citizenship.  I cannot understand how it is possible to pledge allegiance to more than one country.  This is especially true if you are a government representative.


 

Hi Fixrman,

I might have been too subtle about Christie and you missed the point:

He tries to portray to the mid west that he is pro rights of the individual, but everyone there knows that he isn't any better in this area than Clinton.  The laws in NJ reflect this.  It would not be much different than our own Gov here in CA trying to pretend that he supports individual rights and is honest - pretty similar.  Romney had the same problem, which is why we have Obama today.

There is no campaign that can make Christie a viable candidate that can pass the muster of the republican primary process and a general election. 

As far as cleaning up from after the storm and his "mop" comment, actually, it was probably more true than not.  Snow + rain + low elevations make floods, and NJ has all of that.


 

Fixrman, if you have a candidate that you feel is worth expanding on their credentials and a reason to vote for them, feel free. 

I am going to vote for Rand Paul, at least in the primary, as he is one of the few with a viable tax plan, concern about government privacy intrusion, and supports more rights of the individual than most of the others.   As a practical matter, who knows which candidates will still be on the ballot by the time the primary in CA rolls around.

 

I like Rand Paul (he's the only GOP candidate I *do* like). I may not agree with much of what he says but he is clearly intelligent, thoughtful and a person of integrity. He (as he should as a public servant) tends to put what he believes is right ahead of his personal religious beliefs (which is where the other GOP candidates tend to falter with regard to their religious beliefs and the 10th amendment/states' rights).

But I'm not sure I'd call his tax plan viable. He's published a balanced budget proposal, which is maybe what you mean, but he's proposing a flat income tax of (if I recall correctly) 10%, which is sheer insanity. It's a proposal that sits well with the Republican base (those to whom he's trying to appeal currently) but, aside from amplifying an already out of control wealth gap, would never fly during a general election. I'm sure he knows this and would drop it the instant he got the nomination. Not that he will, of course, sadly.

Here is a link to the Rand Paul tax plan.

https://randpaul.com/rand-pauls-fair-and-flat-tax-op-ed

For me, this is how it breaks down:

For my business, which is a small C Corp:
- the tax rate is 40%. 
- Compare this to what google, HP, and GE pay by playing tax games and moving production offshore - essentially 0%.
- The plan would have both my small company, and GE paying 14% - seems reasonable to me.
- 40% is such a high number, that it just isn't viable.

Personal Income
- Most workers pay 6.5% into social security (payroll tax) and the employer also pays in 6.5%.
- Since I am considered self-employed, I pay both sides (13%)
- On top of this, I pay income tax to the Federal government, plus others.  For better or worse, this number has not been all that much lately, but hopefully will rise by making more money
- If your income is $10 million in payroll / similar, the payroll tax only affects the first $100 - 200K, and people end up spending enormous effort to keep their income "appearing low" with deductions, foundations, trusts, etc.
- The Paul plan would make this "total" 14% for everyone.  Again, this is a reasonable number.

Romney got in trouble with his election over the tax issue.  He was complaining that lower income people paid very little income tax, but he would not acknowledge how much they pay in payroll tax. (he paid zero since he didn't take his income as payroll and it was defined as capital gains).

If instead of selling "hardware / software" products like I do currently, I worked for a hedge fund or stock broker, my income would be considered capital gains, so the tax rate is much lower, just because I work on wall street and sell the "right" product.  Seems unfair to tax one kind of income differently than another.  Like the saying, a dollar is a dollar.

Partnerships, LLCs, and similar structures
- More of less, these are just artificial tax constructions focused on one or two industries and complicates the tax code.
- In my simple mind, all we need are C corps and personal income categories, the rest of the versions can be eliminated.
- The accounting in a C corp is much more straight forward and "honest" than some of these strange LLC and partnership arrangements.  That is one reason I like them.

Personally, I think the ideal tax system is a retail sales tax (not VAT - which is perhaps the worst possible system), but that is really unlikely to happen.  The reason I like it, is that it removes the unfair competitive advantage that imports have over local production.

That's pretty much it.

No, thanks. There's already too much shite and stink flying around in the air. I'll let others froth at the mouth awhile; when it all settles down to four, we'll see where it all stands.

So it "suddenly" seems quite likely that Trump could get the Republican nomination. Wow! It'd be like us electing Boris for something serious. Eesh, I wish I knew where I'd like to emigrate to.

Greenland?

OK, Alec.

You are so very twisted. LOL

No more Clintons!

We already had one cost the tax payers $40 million over a lie and a blowjob.

What is she going to cost us?

I'd vote for a crossed eyed chimp before I'd even think about voting for her.

If we're going to have a woman in the white house, my vote is for Roseanne Barr. I'd love to see her take on those stuffed shirts.

Just this woman's opinion. :)

I'd lean more toward him being a douche bag.

You've just been incredibly mean to the world's idiots by including him in their number. :)

40 million? Gosh. Big number!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Mesmerising.

I agree.  I follow the ABC rule - Anyone but Clinton.