Kasich Tells It Like It Is...

[japantiger 4,051]

I love the characterizations for fiscal responsibility, strong border policies and a responsible broad based tax system "all or nothing" or "fringe". It was a huge majorities of the voters that turned the house and senate over to Republicans in the last elections to do just this...yet, somehow, that is fringe...I guess the majority of American's are these fringe voters then...it was Republicans, Independents and Democrats that voted this way.

If Kasich doesn't like what has happened to the GOP, then he should look in the mirror. He's like the Dad who's kids all turned out to be juvenile delinquents ringing his hands and looking at his neighbors saying "what happened to this family". If Kasich wants something different, then it is incumbent on him to sell that to the American people. But the reason outsiders are doing well is because the establishment, of which Kasich is the poster boy, have failed to deliver on what they promised to get elected. He needs to stop belly-aching and get his message out...so far, with his vast low single digit support, he appears to be the definition of fringe.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Reagan would have zero chance of getting the nomination with this bunch of blowhard ideologs. He'd be toast.

Nonsense.

Not at all! This all or nothing approach is killing the GOP. The only person on that stage who can move us forward in unison is Kasich with a slight possibility to Rubio. Cruz can't win a general and none of the others can either. There's not enough GOP voters out there to overtake majority/minority party if the candidate is all or nothing.

Absolute nonsense. The political landscape has changed since the 1980s. There's no more Soviet Union, though Putin is trying to revive Russia it's former status. Point is, if you go back and listen to Reagan's speeches from the 60s and 70s, you can see a very common theme which matches almost identical to the TEA party of today. Smaller government, more individual responsibility, and more freedom from a tyrannical government.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Also, I believe Cruz and Rubio crushed the debate last night. Jeb is reeling. Trump will fade, as people begin tire of his bloviating. And though I like Carson a lot, I believe the mainstream media will attack him on his lack of experience & his religion , much like they did with mitt Romney.

[homersapien 11,353]

Also, I believe Cruz and Rubio crushed the debate last night. Jeb is reeling. Trump will fade, as people begin tire of his bloviating. And though I like Carson a lot, I believe the mainstream media will attack him on his lack of experience & his religion , much like they did with mitt Romney.

The main street media just needs to cover him. No attack required.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Right. Because freedom of religion can't apply with our elected officials. The Main Stream ( not street ) Media will see to that.

[homersapien 11,353]

Right. Because freedom of religion can't apply with our elected officials. The Main Stream ( not street ) Media will see to that.

Is someone restricting Carson's religious practices? I must have missed it. :-\

[AURaptor 1,121]

You usually do miss it, Homer

[homersapien 11,353]

You usually do miss it, Homer

Well, can you please direct me to it?

[autigeremt 6,569]

Reagan would have zero chance of getting the nomination with this bunch of blowhard ideologs. He'd be toast.

Nonsense.

Not at all! This all or nothing approach is killing the GOP. The only person on that stage who can move us forward in unison is Kasich with a slight possibility to Rubio. Cruz can't win a general and none of the others can either. There's not enough GOP voters out there to overtake majority/minority party if the candidate is all or nothing.

Absolute nonsense. The political landscape has changed since the 1980s. There's no more Soviet Union, though Putin is trying to revive Russia it's former status. Point is, if you go back and listen to Reagan's speeches from the 60s and 70s, you can see a very common theme which matches almost identical to the TEA party of today. Smaller government, more individual responsibility, and more freedom from a tyrannical government.

Reagan worked with others to get his agenda through. End of discussion.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Reagan worked with others to get his agenda through. End of discussion.

Well, not end of this discussion, sorry.

But you're right. Reagan COULD work w/ the Dems of the 80's. Obama simply refuses to do the same w/ the GOP today.

" We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

- Barack Obama.

( Shouldn't spoil it for anyone, but it's funny who ends up taking control of the ship )

[homersapien 11,353]

Yeah right. The lack of compromise in today's politics is all Obama's fault. They want to work with him.

[AURaptor 1,121]

The closer a bus gets to the edge of a cliff, the louder the voices of the passengers are to stop and turn this bus around.

The 'crazy' talk from the Right is coming from folks who see the looming cliff that the driver is taking us all towards.

Kasich , like so many w/ the DC mindset, is too busy texting and tweeting , and isn't paying attention to what's ahead.

What compromise is there to be had w/ such folks ? Whether to speed up or slow down ? That's hardly a choice at all.

The clear decision is to change drives. Sooner, rather than later.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

He took a state deep in the red fiscally and balanced their budget to where they now have surpluses.

They were losing jobs and now they are firmly back in the positive in job growth.

He cut taxes.

He was a huge part of the last effort in Washington in achieving a balanced budget. We haven't had one since.

He's proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and has toured 34 states trying to get other states to join Ohio in balancing their own budgets.

He opposes ethanol subsidies, seeing it for the boondoggle it really is.

Proposes no income taxes on small businesses and corporations up to $2 million.

Eliminated Ohio's estate tax.

But yeah, he's just texting and tweeting and driving the bus over the cliff.

[AURaptor 1,121]

I'm sorry, but sidle up with Obama care and common core is doing exactly that. Tweeting and texting and not paying attention.

And if cutting taxes and being fiscally responsible is so "crazy", then why is he bashing conservatives are doing exactly what he's done?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I'm sorry, but sidling up with Obama care and common core is doing exactly that. Tweeting and texting and not paying attention.

He didn't "side up" with Obamacare, he did the math. It was going to cost his state far more money to reject it and go it alone than to accept the Medicaid expansion AND still not have people covered and going to the ER for care (while as a result of Obamacare, those hospitals would be getting less money for seeing such patients). You don't have to like a law to deal with the reality of what is rather than what you think it should be.

Common Core? Meh. That's like 36th on a list of 37 items that I'm measuring any Presidential candidate on. Common Core isn't all bad. The implementation in some areas is silly. But regardless, it's not enough of a thing to write off everything else he's done extremely well.

And if cutting taxes and being fiscally responsible is so "crazy", then why is he bashing conservatives are doing exactly what he's done?

He's not bashing them for cutting taxes and being fiscally responsible. He's bashing them because their math doesn't add up and they evade the questions that attempt to dig into how they are going to make the math work.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Him claiming that the math doesn't work is exactly what the mainstream media/Democrats are saying. Its using their talking points. It's like Rubio set of Jeb, that attacking them somehow wins him the election. It doesn't.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Him claiming that the math doesn't work is exactly what the mainstream media/Democrats are saying.

It's not just the "mainstream media" and regardless, math is math. The numbers they do detail don't add up. They just refer to some nebulous savings they'll somehow achieve through mostly unspecified cuts and hoped for but unproven economic growth.

Until they can provide detailed numbers, the critique is spot on.

And it's not like Kasich is proposing raising taxes. He's actually proposing cutting them and balancing the budget. He just disagrees with the plans Cruz and Carson are putting forth - with the current level of detail given.

[homersapien 11,353]

Him claiming that the math doesn't work is exactly what the mainstream media/Democrats are saying. Its using their talking points. It's like Rubio set of Jeb, that attacking them somehow wins him the election. It doesn't.

It also happens to be the truth, which obviously carries no weight with you.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Yeah, math is math. . Just like when George HW Bush tried to besmirch Reagan and his "voodoo" economics. Except the math does work.

Just a question, where were all these math geniuses when Obama -

care was being discussed? It's clear that the math absolutely does not work yet we're being told it does. Double standard much?

[homersapien 11,353]

Yeah, math is math. . Just like when George HW Bush tried to besmirch Reagan and his "voodoo" economics. Except the math does work.

Ah yes, the Carly Fiorina defense:

The Washington Post noted that Fiorina's assertion that 92 percent of the jobs lost during President Barack Obama's first term belonged to women was a recycled charge from Mitt Romney's campaign in 2012. Politifact had ruled that claim "mostly false" when the Romney staff touted it.

Other economists also discredited the claim. Politifact added that "timing was important. And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total."

Appearing on CNN Tuesday morning, Fiorina was asked about the Washington Post report. "This is the same conversation we had after the last debate," she said. "Everybody came out and said I was using wrong data -- no, I’m not using wrong data."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-debate-factcheck-women_563209c8e4b063179911006d?utm_hp_ref=politics

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Yeah, math is math. . Just like when George HW Bush tried to besmirch Reagan and his "voodoo" economics. Except the math does work.

No, it doesn't. Not with the level of detail they've released so far. You'd never accept such fuzzy numbers from a Democrat.

Just a question, where were all these math geniuses when Obama -

care was being discussed? It's clear that the math absolutely does not work yet we're being told it does. Double standard much?

That is another discussion, one I'm sympathetic to. But you don't get to rail about Obama or Sanders or others' fuzzy math on spending proposals then accept such plans on taxes when your team does it.

[AURaptor 1,121]

One thing, we're over year out from the election. And who cares of the math doesn't work out now? Why don't we just passed a bill first and then find out what is in it?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

One thing, we're over year out from the election. And who cares of the math doesn't work out now? Why don't we just passed a bill first and then find out what is in it?

Again with the deflections.

We're trying to winnow the Republican field. Does it not make sense for Republican voters to analyze their claims and the numbers for the plans they put forth to see if they are realistic?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Kasich hasn't put forth specifics and numbers for his plan in these debates.

I'd say Trump can actually take more credit for creating jobs than Kasich can because Trump has to put his own money and capital into creating a business. Even though I don't like Trump and won't vote him unless he wins the GOP nomination, I'd take Trump over Kasich, Bush, or Christie.

Kasich is a more energetic version of Jeb Bush imo.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Kasich hasn't put forth specifics and numbers for his plan in these debates.

The qualifier "in these debates" isn't the standard we're measuring by. Kasich has put forward more detailed plans and his criticism was of the other's plans that were far less detailed and whose numbers releases thus far don't add up.

I'll also say, given his experience doing this previously on the federal level, I'd lean more toward him truly understanding what it takes to realistically balance a budget over Trump or anyone else.

I'd say Trump can actually take more credit for creating jobs than Kasich can because Trump has to put his own money and capital into creating a business. Even though I don't like Trump and won't vote him unless he wins the GOP nomination, I'd take Trump over Kasich, Bush, or Christie.

Kasich is a more energetic version of Jeb Bush imo.

Trump is supremely awful in so many other ways even if you admire his business acumen that there's no way on earth I'll support him. I will write in a candidate or simply not vote for President if he's the nominee.

It's amazing to me how we point to someone's experience as a governor, for good or bad, but the second he or she steps out of line on any sacred Republican cow, suddenly it isn't that important.