My commentary on the second GOP Presidential debate. Again, I realize this happened a while ago, but wanted to provide my commentary I wrote up at the time.
Marco Rubio – He tries so hard. Too bad his opening joke fell flat. I want to like him, but he seems like the awkward teen just trying to fit in. He seems like a nice guy, he seems pretty smart, I just don’t ever really hear anything that’s really differentiating about him. He doesn’t have any “front-page” grabbing policy positions, so I’m not really into Rubio.
Mike Huckabee – The only thing about him I can support is that he’s in favor of the “fair” tax plan. While I’m not in favor of government taxes in general, we definitely should not be taxing production. If we’re going to have any tax, it should be on the activity that detracts from economic growth (i.e., consumption). However, we shouldn’t go so far as to create a value added tax (VAT) which taxes every step of production. I’m worried moving to a consumption tax will open the door to implementing that sort of tax regime.
Ben Carson – He has the best idea on taxes of the bunch. If we’re sticking with an income tax, that is. I don’t understand how we’ve changed the definition of equal. I looked up the definition of equal and it’s “being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.”. So if we take that definition and say same degree of taxation is necessary on income, then a flat tax would be the most equal way to tax people. I’m using equal because I hate the term fair. Fair is subjective. I don’t think it’s fair that Tom Brady got to play last week and beat the Steelers. Tom Brady doesn’t think it’s fair that he was facing suspension over circumstantial evidence. It’s all subjective, so fair is a ridiculous way to frame an argument. I guess “fair” in taxes means “I want my taxes lower, and everyone who makes more than me to have higher taxes”
Donald Trump – I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I haven’t heard anything new from him since he started his campaign. “I’m going to be so great…this country is going to be so great…” That sort of talk reminds me another president, Barack Hussein Obama. Wasn’t President Barack Obama going to transform America as well? Well, he’s proven rhetoric doesn’t translate into capabilities. President Obama has done a great job at accomplishing nothing. I hesitate to say that definitively, because the Iran deal could be a great thing. I don’t know why the United States of America feels like it can dictate to every other country what they can or can’t have even, even if we have it. The more and more I hear him, the only thing I can say I appreciate, is his ability to say what he wants. All his economic policies will be a disaster, he debates like the left, ad-hominems vs. content. I know he attacked Carly for running HP into the ground, but last I checked HP hasn’t file bankruptcy 4 times. Also, he used his foresight in Atlantic city as a positive for him, but also was defending why he filed bankruptcy in AC. That’s using the same incident to argue both sides of a position. It’s nonsense.
John Kasich – I take back my previous request for him to be positioned in the fall zone. He actually defended the Iran agreement more than Rand did, which is weird for the war party heavy (i.e., Republicans) vs. the war party light (i.e., Democrats). I have mad respect for anyone who would rather have negotiations over war. He’s very right, what harm can be done? If Iran doesn’t abide by the agreement, then let the war party march on, but if they do peace can win. I just don’t know why we’re so adamant about war. Well maybe because none of these people on stage actually have to get shot at. That makes the cost benefit calculation a bit different. No cost to me – possibly legacy benefit.
Rand Paul – How many questions did he get? Maybe 2 of them? Honestly, if he was more like Ron and present himself as a more pure libertarian, he would be stating more provocative positions and then the media would be asking him to clarify those positions. That would give him the opportunity to advance the libertarian position and explain it to the public. I did like that he actually knows the legal, constitutional, and historical perspective on how the 14th amendment hasn’t been definitively adjudicated to allow for birth-right citizenship. I tend to agree, after reading into the actual intent of the amendment, that was designed to apply to the children of slaves. Because the slaves weren’t citizens, the amendment allowed for their children to become natural born citizens. Not sure we can definitively say that means anyone who shows up on our shores gets citizenship, but we also seem to treat the equal protection clause of that amendment to mean “a judge can decide any group is not being equally protected and therefore judges can re-write any law”. If that were the case, then any discrepancies in conceal carry laws should be struck down because I’m not being as equally protected in NYC as I would be in Texas with regards to my second amendment rights.
Carly Fiorina – She seems really bright and well prepared. I’m sort of reserving judgement at this point on her, but I tend to lean towards supporting her. I do like that she goes on attack against Hilary and takes away the “first woman” argument. It would be quite difficult to launch the war on women attack against her…even if she has “binders full of women” too.