How does a Walker- Carson ticket sound?

Would it be too strange of a power consolidation to have a Walker-Bush ticket, since they are relatives? I rarely hear the family connection mentioned, but I always felt like it was part of the reason Walker "won" so many elections .....

www.dailypaul.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I will still disagree of the fast-slow point. We've been on the XL Pipeline how long? Since that one started, Obama has been delivering body-blows at a non-stop rate to this nation. Slow is a weak counter to what's been done by the opposition.

This is what makes politics such a mess in the US, the only thing most people can go on is ideology. Things happen slowly, and by the time the effect of a change has been made everyone has put their fingers into it and the person who originally made the change is out of office. Lets use the President because it's such a visible office. Their budgets are written two years in advance and any outcome is the cumulative effect of multiple years of budgeting. Now lets say we want to go back to the moon. The President today has to authorize the budget increase, it goes into effect two years from now, and then it takes 6 years from that point for NASA to actually get back to the moon. In that time we'll have had two or three administrations, 5 congresses, 2 heads of the science committee, and everything else. Each person will claim some of the responsibility and in the end the true cause and effect of what made it possible is obfuscated.

We can apply this to XL as well, Obama blocked it on feelings and if he was wrong and it's beneficial we're not going to know for years, and it's going to be extremely difficult to isolate what if any benefit it creates.

This is a real issue in our system and it's a result of short terms compounded by long return times and complicated systems. 10 years from now no one will be able to point to XL and say with 100% certainty if they were right or wrong. If we could, we could easily avoid similar debates in the future.

On the Corporate/Bank support for the Tea party, my understanding is the opposite. (largely due an almost lock-step opposition to Obama's immigration reform?) With Chamber of Commerce and, as a result, big business support, the Tea Party is largely stuck with a grass-roots individual donations/support. Apparently, that's what the increase of Corporate Contribution bill was about, Republican establishment's first move was building it's own donations to an almost insurmountable level over the Tea Party's.

In a post Citizens United world my understanding from looking at financial disclosures is that the Democrats are leading in donations among large business and upper class households while the Republicans are leading among small business and the ultra wealthy. I have no problem with people donating money but I do have a very serious problem with individuals or small groups giving more than everyone else combined. For example with the Koch's pledging 1 billion to the 2016 campaign (as much as was spent total in 2012), I feel that I have no voice. How can I compete with that type of influence? It's the same in the Tea Party, the bottom 90% of the donations only make up 10% of the total donations. That 90% therefore has no voice.

Giuliani-Walker? Visa-versa? hmmm......

I would vote for that ticket.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
OK. It's way too early to call this in any form. However, Romney's departure from running for President opens interesting possibilities.

The general consensus is this move is some pre-calculated effort to ensure Jeb Bush's nomination for President. An irritating thought and perhaps true.

Yet, in Romney's statement he referred to allowing the 'next generation' of leaders who hadn't yet promoted nationally, to have their opportunity to establish themselves and perhaps have an even better chance at winning the Presidency.

That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for Bush.

Looking at this in a positive light, there is one less 'establishment' candidate and that means more exposure for the Paul, Carson, Walker crowd. Like it or not, fair or not, the Romney and Bush efforts imply same old, same old, both within the party and amongst the general public.

I know the skeptic feel it's all pre-arranged. Yet, Reagan certainly wasn't an establishment choice and he made it. Soo it's not an impossibility that that could occur again.

The key is exposure and discussion of the new guys....

Why Carson? Maybe I'm not supposed to ask that question. What has Carson ever done that qualifies him to be a heart beat away from the Presidency? I just read his bio on Wikipedia...he's basically against everything the "New" American society has evolved into believing is good; he's against gay marriage, he's against legalizing pot...the list is endless and worse, he's a "Christian" and in 2014 was added to the Southern Poverty Law Centers domestic terrorist list. All of which is to say that he isn't a book end to Walker; he's the ideological mirror image to Walker.

What Walker would need is a Republican "Lite" like Rubio!

a reply to: TonyS

I put his name up there from the viewpoint of his medical knowledge and insight into the flaws of ObamaCare. Frankly, I don't know much about him, but considering what's now "only a heartbeat away from the presidency" and has held that dubious honor in the past, he's no worse, in my estimation.

Oh yes, his name has been removed from that list you referred to. One doesn't criticize Obama without some consequence.

I'm not a practicing Christian but compared to what's been running the show, I will take one any day of the week...

a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for this enlightenment on the mechanisms of it. I will add a middle finger salute for depressing me even further...LMAO.

Perhaps the distinction on the Koch Brothers is it isn't going to an individual's campaign fund and as they have announced it in advance and publicly-therefore watched carefully- you may be over-reacting a bit. At the least, they aren't back-door financing State Electoral College referendums (referenda?) or 2nd amendment issues , environmental bills, et al.

As I am more issue orientated, like most, results become the measuring bar for those 'issues'.

I also see your point on the XL issue, yet, one cannot discount the individuals in play. Buffet, BNSF and Obama...

I would also rebut that how it's viewed in 10 years also depends on the 'viewers' as much as fact. The fact is it adds jobs, increases competition between the pipeline interests and the railroad interests...always a good thing avoiding even local monopolies, yes?

In light of your posts, I suppose I've been romantically ensnared by the 'Tom Clancy" version of a benevolent dictatorship that cuts through the 'Gordian knot' with a sword... It's not happening, is it? LOL

A least short of some very undesirable national trauma.....

a reply to: Ksmo17

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

I will say I do not support Jeb Bush, at least at this time and do support Walker. Like most, I look at who I think is more beneficial to the country.

Celine Dion is related to Madonna.......

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TonyS

I put his name up there from the viewpoint of his medical knowledge and insight into the flaws of ObamaCare. Frankly, I don't know much about him, but considering what's now "only a heartbeat away from the presidency" and has held that dubious honor in the past, he's no worse, in my estimation.

Oh yes, his name has been removed from that list you referred to. One doesn't criticize Obama without some consequence.

I'm not a practicing Christian but compared to what's been running the show, I will take one any day of the week...

Thanks...you're response got a smile outa me and its been a not so good day, although, a friend of mine used to remind me that any day above ground is better than one below it.

The few times I've seen him on TV, (and they don't do that often), Carson has struck me as an extraordinarily principled and intelligent fellow. I admire him for that, but...one of the tricks in politics is to not turn out the opposition. I see running Carson as something like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull.

My "wish", if I could have it, would be that an Iraqi War/Afghan War veteran could run for the Presidency and win it. I'd like to see someone in that office who has first hand experience with what it means to declare an "undeclared" war; someone who's seen the horror's of combat and who knows what all that means. I'm fed up with "chicken hawks" getting the US into wars without understanding anything about what that really means; people who've never served, never faced making the ultimate sacrifice.

And, I'm probably revealing too much of myself in saying this, but in my little town, I saw a bumper sticker that made me hang my head in shame for not having one just like it. It read:

"Never Forget Benghazi"

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Perhaps the distinction on the Koch Brothers is it isn't going to an individual's campaign fund and as they have announced it in advance and publicly-therefore watched carefully- you may be over-reacting a bit. At the least, they aren't back-door financing State Electoral College referendums (referenda?) or 2nd amendment issues , environmental bills, et al.

This isn't a good thing. If all this money were going to one candidate that would be one thing. We would know theyre corrupt and bought out. It also means influence would be limited to that one person. Instead it's portioned out, 1 million here, 1 million there. Virtually every Republican to win a race in the past 10 years has done it in part (and sometimes fully due to) the Koch money. It is completely pervasive. They've literally bought an entire political party to get all the legislation they want. In this case what they want is massive tax breaks, spending on infrastructure for their business, and a dismantling of the federal government. Now, these topics are great things to debate and I would happy to talk on any of them. XL is an improvement so lets do it, the tax breaks he's talking of are ridiculous so lets pass. And as far as the feds go, I do not fear a large government what I fear is a government that is out of reach of the people. To me the feds should be acting as the coordinators of state level issues, and that we need to return to the proportional representation of 1:20,000. We have the technology to do so. What the Kochs want is something else, I seriously believe they're guilty of sedition.

Lets take Giuliani. He turned NYC around, once thought to be an unfixable problem. He lowered crime, lowered homelessness, created jobs, made it safer for police, and beat the mafia. He did this without gutting government, he simply ran it efficiently and put good people in the necessary jobs.

Now lets take my governor, Kasich (who I detest). Homelessness is going up, state budgets on everything are crashing to the bottom, education spending is almost gone, college tuition is rising 10% a year, crime is up, effective police are down, and so on. It's because Kasich has eliminated what he sees as government bloat... except he never put anything there to cover it when government is gone. Instead there's a power vacuum which targets the people.

I would also rebut that how it's viewed in 10 years also depends on the 'viewers' as much as fact. The fact is it adds jobs, increases competition between the pipeline interests and the railroad interests...always a good thing avoiding even local monopolies, yes?

I'm fine with XL, I think the benefits are overstated but the drawbacks seem to be non existent so I don't see what the problem is. The environmental impact seems to be overstated, and the pipeline gives us the opportunity to upgrade the rail thats currently in place. If it's not apparent from my posts yet, I take a long term view on things... it's just the way I think, I rarely think in terms of 1-5 years but rather look at 20-30 years. I want high speed rail in the US, it's something the nation desperately requires (especially industrial rail). Building XL is a step in the right direction to getting that.

In light of your posts, I suppose I've been romantically ensnared by the 'Tom Clancy" version of a benevolent dictatorship that cuts through the 'Gordian knot' with a sword... It's not happening, is it? LOL

I would be careful what you wish for in a benevolent dictator. Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Pinochet were all benevolent dictators. It may seem inefficient because they get little done but leaders like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison are much more effective because they sought the will of the people, even though the process itself certainly looked much worse. These guys hated each other, and as the saying goes (which CSPAN later proved true) there's two things you don't want the public to see get made: sausages and laws.

a reply to: Aazadan

First point. That's the weakness in a benevolent dictatorship, keeping it 'benevolent'.

Your examples, however, are NOT, as you say benevolent dictators. Obviously. You know better.

Your point on Giuliani is spot on. I've been to Hunt's Point and have seen the results. Outstanding.

While I have learned from your points, and it is appreciated, I've also been curious where you are coming from, so to speak. Professional background, political 'cubby-hole', education-wise, so on.

Humor me on the following, if you would.

As one can surmise by my 'handle' , I am not 'well' educated. perhaps better read than many, but certainly not in your league. I do, however, enjoy the benefit of an empirical education. One, I suspect, that you do not.

Being in my 65th year, having trucked in 49 States, 7 Canadian provinces and a territory- not flown over, travelled through and worked with the locals-I have a perspective that's outside the norm, to say the least. (It won't get me invited for 'brandy and cigars' any time soon, but it has some merit.)

You do not fear big government. I surmise your are part of the system, either directly, as a 'member' of it-probably professionally- or indirectly as a beneficiary of that system via some enterprise.

( No! I am not a Libertarian, LOL. That is an ill-thought out, contradictory group infested with anarchists, secular-humanists and national marijuana party members that I wouldn't let run a landscaping company, never mind a government.)

A balance of power between the three branches. A restraint of the Federal government via a Constitution. A system. All massively thrown out of balance by the current President. Virtually every department of that Government has been given a carte blanche authorization to implement every 'wish-list' agenda in their respective closets in an apparent quid pro quo for support of Obama and his personal agenda.

Nothing 'slow' about it. it boggles the mind trying to envision what 30 years of this would result in.

He has stretched the 'envelop' well past the breaking point.

As basic physics shows, an equal and opposite force must be applied to return to the original point. This isn't permitted, by law, within our system. The system is one of balance. It's very structure doesn't allow for a returning of that balance without violating itself to equal the original violations that knocked it out in the first place.

Yes , I know he didn't 'start' it. He's merely raised the bar past any previous level. Way past any previous level.

Just in the transportation industry, I see the effects of 'big Government'. at least this unrestrained version. Immigration, EPA, direct regulatory restraints growing on almost a daily basis. Transportation is just small segment-though vital-reflection of that unrestrained big government.

While my view of this is base, it is, in fact, where the rubber meets the road,().

I'm sure you have well versed rebuttals to this. I ask you to consider, newly, the consequences of these acts and whether 'business as usual' has any chance of success.

I do not.

a reply to: nwtrucker

All of those dictators I mentioned were initially benevolent for their people. I don't think a benevolent dictatorship is sustainable, sooner or later power corrupts.

My background is nothing impressive, I've done some teaching work and some software development here and there but primarily I'm a student, my ultimate goal is game design but being good at that, particularly in the small studio/independent realm that I want to do requires a lot of education. Right now I'm finishing up my schooling for it, I hold 3 associates and a bachelors, and my current schooling will give me one other bachelors degree when I finish in 1-2 years (this last one is mainly focused on game specific programming, efficiency is a big part of it and not something taught in more traditional programming fields).

I've had the benefit of travel in my life, not much in recent years but I have been to all 50 states as well as Canada and Mexico.

The reason I don't fear big government is that the voters have control over it. High taxes aren't shown to impact quality of life provided that money is spent well. However, government large or small only remains in control of the public as long as things are transparent and there aren't large controlling interests with huge sums of money. The party I identify closest with is the Pirate Party which seeks to balance things through a democratic process and the ability for voters to be informed. Where government control becomes a problem is when those in power can use the power of government as a weapon and this is an issue whether it's large or small. For example, TWC/Verizon currently using the government to try and shut Netflix and Google out of the internet market, or insurance lobbyists convincing Obama to mandate purchase of their product. When government is small this still happens with defense contractors or even local governments giving contracts to companies. It's practically written into our system even due to the earmark process.

As far as an opposite force goes, politics don't obey the laws of physics. In politics objects enter motion under their own power, an idea merely has to sound good to enough people in order to be implemented, and those objects build their own momentum, there is rarely an outside force to propel them. That's all I wish to talk about physics though, I've been spending 40+ hours per week writing physics engines for games lately and the subject makes my brain hurt.

As far as trucking goes, I have nothing against truckers but I do see the profession as a reflection on government having let the people down, and if we had more transparency/better candidates such a thing wouldn't have happened. The profession is exploding in popularity due to the need of business to move their goods. This wouldn't be the case if we had more of a distributed manufacturing base in the country and had a solid rail system to move goods. If that were the case, trucking while still needed would operate primarily on moving goods over short distances rather than long. Such a change would have resulted in no need for EPA regulations in the first place,

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, thank you for your explanation.

In truth, the trucking industry has been moving in the direction you mention for decades. The loss of manufacturing traffic opened the door for container movement in the rail industry. There's been a number of mergers a couple of decades back between trucking interests and rail.

It is more efficient.

I disagree with your assessment that any of those 'Dictatorships' where benevolent even in their inception. They may have been gift wrapped in a benevolent mien. The intent never 'changed' and was manifested almost immediately after power was attained.

I do agree that the mechanism of government is largely the same whether large or small. However, the current mess is in no small part due to size. There is so much going on at all levels of government that is virtually impossible for any one person-or group- to keep track of it all. never mind reversing it's course.

As Will Rogers said, Gov't is like a fire, when kept small and under control, it is a useful tool. If it gets too large, it's dangerous.

On the laws of physics which I am required to have a working knowledge of, one only has to look at the 'idea' of the Judeo-Christian moral code, the Constitution, so on and how long it took to first, question, then marginalize and finally suppress/invalidate those ideas...decades, actually generations. Momentum-inertia are huge issues in government and those 'ideas'.

a reply to: Aazadan

P.S. you've been to all fifty States as well? Knowing the logistics of that, I was wondering how the heck you pulled that off?

Either a quite a bit older than I assumed or you've been a busy boy....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

P.S. you've been to all fifty States as well? Knowing the logistics of that, I was wondering how the heck you pulled that off?

Either a quite a bit older than I assumed or you've been a busy boy....

Sorry, I would have replied earlier, it has been a busy weekend.

Growing up one of my parents was well off so we went on trips during my winter/summer breaks from school. After being grown I've played on the MTG Pro Tour off and on which includes air fare to the destination for the participants, what I want to do requires me to be pretty good at games (have to be able to anticipate what the better players will do) so when time allows I play some competitively, and that rounded out the travel destinations. Additionally, I've driven across the country 4 times, which probably isn't much compared to a trucker but a lot for someone who isn't driving for a living, that let me go to many places though I didn't spend much time in them.

As far as age goes I'm 30, so 50% being busy 50% being old enough.

If you want to continue with the physics analogies, what happens when you have a lot of momentum going in one direction, and then apply an opposing force to reverse direction? There is a whole lot of pain, when you're in a car or a truck and do that it is most often severely crippling if not fatal. Changes in the scale of government, making it larger or smaller is best done gradually. Rapid increases in the size of government left us with DHS and Obamacare. In the US we've never had a rapid contraction in the size of government to compare to, but we could look at a nation like Russia as they changed from communism to capitalism. They are still dealing with the aftermath of that rapid shift and it has been 24 years.

a reply to: Aazadan

Cool. Thanks. Your momentum analogy has merit. I see there' already been a fatality in the amazing 2015 Z06 C7 Corvette.

He went way too fast around a curve and wrapped it around a tree.

Also. you omit the 'other side's speed. (like ObamaCare). That one is like a flesh-eating bacteria . Get rid of it fast or you die. One puts the fire out...then institutes a '30 year' plan' to revamp the fire department, update it, sprinklers, alarm systems.....

Russia isn't the U.S.. There never was 'balance' in Russia. We know better than they, if for no other reason than we've experienced that balance. They never have. Equal and opposite force still applies. Where we differ is the time left to achieve it.

This one will push your buttons, I'm sure. Withdraw from the WTO. Place an immediate 10% import duty on all manufactured goods imported, exempting Canada and Mexico. Increase that duty by 10% in each of the next six month period to, say. a 30% max.

Industry will boom. Bye, bye, immigration problems. Bye, bye, gov't revenue problems. so long to low wages as supply and demand kicks in. We would flourish while suffering through the 'trauma' of too fast change......

originally posted by: nwtrucker
This one will push your buttons, I'm sure. Withdraw from the WTO. Place an immediate 10% import duty on all manufactured goods imported, exempting Canada and Mexico. Increase that duty by 10% in each of the next six month period to, say. a 30% max.

Industry will boom. Bye, bye, immigration problems. Bye, bye, gov't revenue problems. so long to low wages as supply and demand kicks in. We would flourish while suffering through the 'trauma' of too fast change......

I'm all in favor of that. Globalization is not helping us, we can't compete with the price of third world labor. The idea I've usually used has been slightly tweaked from that but it's the same idea. I've used the idea that we add a tariff to any product manufactured outside the US but sold inside the US. We can use access to US markets as a negotiating tool with corporations, if people want to sell in the US they need to provide jobs in the US.

That allows us access to products, provides jobs, and improves wages/working conditions.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hmm, that kind of flies in the teeth of gov't works best slowly.. An exception that proves the rule. I guess there is a radical side to you, after all.. I trust neither of us will hold our breaths on that one happening any time soon.

Yes, my version is 'in vignette'. Even the "U.S." manufacturers use parts imported in their assembly plants.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't expect it to happen but I do hold out hope. As far as things working best slowly, NAFTA and our other free trade agreements have generally been very fast actions that weren't well thought out. Just look at the current TPP which the public doesn't even get access to the text of. The market effects of globalization have happened gradually but the laws themselves weren't enacted gradually.

I don't really care on the details of such a law, but rather the outcome. Primarily I think we need to phase the tariffs in over a period of 10 years or so, in order for the market to properly adjust. It takes time to purchase and build the factories we would need, it also takes time to hire and train workers while letting them build up a skill set.

I actually run into the issue of globalization a lot in my field. It's a very tough field to be competitive in as an independent contractor because everything can be done online. Therefore I compete with people in India who can work for $1/hour and have a decent life doing so. There are solutions to that such as moving to areas which hire people onsite (Silicon Valley, Austin, LA, etc) but I have to finish my schooling before doing that. I don't think that aspect of my field will ever go away, or could even be addressed in the first place but we can certainly do something about manufacturing.

Aside from the economic impact I see it as a national security issue. If another major war ever breaks out we need the domestic manufacturing ability to build our own tools, weapons, and distractions. With the US so vulnerable to the disruption of oceanic shipping lanes this is more of an issue for us than for Europe for example.

a reply to: Aazadan

Actually, that makes complete sense.

However, if we wait too long, the skill set that remains -and it is still out there, at least enough to teach others those skills- will be gone.

Gradient-like implementation if started soon. Otherwise, as you say, in a war situation, we will be forced into 24/7 action.

A return of a little 'can-do' attitude might be what the doctor ordered.

I don't have much problem with NAFTA in general. That's why I suggested an exemption for both. Many aspects of NAFTA were in place decades prior to it's formalized version. Canada has both imported and built cars for the big three for a very long time. There's too much damage to both and to the U.S. by cutting them out, IMO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You have to keep in mind that much of the skillset is changing over time. For example, I picked up a degree in digital art just to do it as I already had most of the classes (I wanted to annoy an artist friend of mine that I have an art degree and he doesn't, plus I found it absurd that anyone would give me an art degree). I'm not an amazing artist but thanks to those classes and my own effort outside of class I know how to use the software and I know how to make objects. I've done things like model a house from blueprints and then set up a virtual tour using an Oculus Rift so that home buyers could walk through their new house and decide what they wanted changed before the foundation was even poured. They could paint their walls any color in real time, and decide exactly how the home would look when they moved in. As they walked through the home, I could change the model in real time and show changes to prefab sections.

I've used the campus 3d printer a bit as well, one of my hobbies is to 3d model and I've been building quite a collection of models (I plan to use them in my business one day), so I thought it would be cool to start printing them out.

What I can say is that 3d printing is the manufacturing technology of the future, and I keep up with the modeling/printing technology because I've always looked at it as a backup career for myself. This technology however needs training. You need mechanics for the printers, you need clay sculptors to built prototypes, you need material specialists to get you the right printer materials, you need designers to come up with the ideas, you need engineers to write the blueprints and draw the diagrams, and you need the digital modelers to put everything into the computer.

That is the future of manufacturing, when we shift back those will be the jobs in demand and it will require a lot of training. If you would like to see a company that has already taken this approach today check out the website www.shapeways.com I actually have a couple of pieces of jewelry listed on there. The whole concept of the website is that people create 3d models of items people want, then the company prints them in any material the customer desires, and they are shipped out.

a reply to: Aazadan

I hadn't considered that side of it. I'm not really exposed any of that technology in my areas of understanding.

Those follow more in new tech and implementing it would take serious training.

I'm struck by how little many, if not most, non-computerelectronic technologies have remained in their basic principals and applied technologies are largely unchanged.

I'm a big fan of fighters and the propulsion systems, for example. In that area, so much of the basic tech is unchanged. Nothing really radical from what I can see. Most advances could be described as 'tweeks'. Thrust increases, incremental range improvements and, of course, CPU'd control systems. Engines, 'guns' even the missiles nothing radical, whatsoever.

The Cummins engines in the class 8 trucks is another eg.. The basic block is largely unchanged in 40 years! Again, only tweeks and EPA imposed restrictions.

The old adage comes into play here as well, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

It's the basics I see as the problem rather than new technologies. Iron ore supplies, steel plants, et al. It was that area of skill-set that I worry about. Those skills are still out there. Not for much longer.....