Jeb in SF: Answers questions on net neutrality and discrimination against gays

[CapoteMonster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gee, I guess Mark Halperin's been vindicated . In all seriousness it seems Jorb's been sticking to his words about being willing to lose the primary to win in the general.

Full article here.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_28494595/jeb-bush-takes-tough-questions-while-wooing-tech

[bedstuy]

No surprise that Bush is terrible on the net neutrality issue. 

[dudeabides]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gee, I guess Mark Halperin's been vindicated . In all seriousness it seems Jorb's been sticking to his words about being willing to lose the primary to win in the general.

Full article here.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_28494595/jeb-bush-takes-tough-questions-while-wooing-tech

I'm glad he is.

No surprise that Bush is terrible on the net neutrality issue. 

This is the second issue I disagree with him on (the first being common core).

[Likely Voter]

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash). 

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

[CapoteMonster]

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash). 

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

That's why I highlighted the other parts of the article.

[Mehmentum]

So wait, he literally just contradicted himself?

[Pyro]

"Stifle creativity," read: "Cable interests are paying us to think this way."

[dudeabides]

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash). 

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

This is a fundamental difference between the two political parties. The Republicans believe in limited government in which states have more power, the Democrats believe in the opposite. Show me where the word "marriage" appears in the constitution first of all. Secondly, anti-discrimination laws are necessary, but for the federal government to get involved in marriage is both unnecessary and not something the founders envisioned.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

They're not out of power. They showed their "small government" scruples when Congress just passed a much bigger military budget than Obama requested.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

They're not out of power. They showed their "small government" scruples when Congress just passed a much bigger military budget than Obama requested.

Exactly. They balloon up military budgets and take the axe to programs that benefit the common man.

[dudeabides]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

[Blair]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Bobby Jindal?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/bobby-jindal-campaigning-114948.html#.VawF7_lViko

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash).  

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

This is a fundamental difference between the two political parties. The Republicans believe in limited government in which states have more power, the Democrats believe in the opposite. Show me where the word "marriage" appears in the constitution first of all. Secondly, anti-discrimination laws are necessary, but for the federal government to get involved in marriage is both unnecessary and not something the founders envisioned.

Nope, Republicans don't believe in states rights in general. They only believe in state's rights where it helps Republicans. They are perfectly happy to trample state's rights if that helps Republicans. The latest example:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-bills-20150710-story.html

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So wait, he literally just contradicted himself?

No, he is defining discrimination differently than those on the left do.  To conservatives, there is a difference between discriminating towards individuals, and discriminating towards actions or events.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Some of those mistakes include a war entered into under false pretenses (Iraq), CAFTA, and a fiscal meltdown.  The fiscal meltdown was the product of Bush 43's "ownership society" which was a giveaway to realtors and investors in the form of mortgages on overpriced properties that the homeowners couldn't hope to pay for over time.

[dudeabides]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Some of those mistakes include a war entered into under false pretenses (Iraq), CAFTA, and a fiscal meltdown.  The fiscal meltdown was the product of Bush 43's "ownership society" which was a giveaway to realtors and investors in the form of mortgages on overpriced properties that the homeowners couldn't hope to pay for over time.

CAFTA has been a success, the world is better off without Saddam and the U.S. is safer for it, I agree with you on the ownership society stuff, but let's remember it was Clinton that gave us Fannie Mae.

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash).  

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

This is a fundamental difference between the two political parties. The Republicans believe in limited government in which states have more power, the Democrats believe in the opposite. Show me where the word "marriage" appears in the constitution first of all. Secondly, anti-discrimination laws are necessary, but for the federal government to get involved in marriage is both unnecessary and not something the founders envisioned.

Nope, Republicans don't believe in states rights in general. They only believe in state's rights where it helps Republicans. They are perfectly happy to trample state's rights if that helps Republicans. The latest example:



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-bills-20150710-story.html

A majority of Republican voters do. Your going by congress? Republicans don't even like Boehner. I have mixed feelings about him myself.

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Bobby Jindal?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/bobby-jindal-campaigning-114948.html#.VawF7_lViko

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jindal has done a good job in office - he passed merit pay for teachers, ethics reform, the largest tax cut in state history, and he's reduced state spending.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

If by "good job" you mean "ran the state into the ground," I suppose he did the job well.

[dudeabides]

If by "good job" you mean "ran the state into the ground," I suppose he did the job well.

Clearly, you are not really a Virginia Republican.

Look, Governor Jindal has not been perfect. He's not my choice for President. But, when you look at where Louisiana was and where it is today, one must conclude that he has been an impressive reformer overall.

Consider this from a local of Louisiana:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bedstuy]

Jeb Bush was Governor during the housing price bubble.  Florida had an artificially pumped up economy.  It's really unfair to give him credit for the economic growth that was based on reckless speculation and fraud, which promptly crashed after he left office.

Florida's growth and trajectory would have been a lot weaker between 1998 and 2006 if there was no out of control housing bubble, that's just a fact.

[dudeabides]

Jeb Bush was Governor during the housing price bubble.  Florida had an artificially pumped up economy.  It's really unfair to give him credit for the economic growth that was based on reckless speculation and fraud, which promptly crashed after he left office.

Florida's growth and trajectory would have been a lot weaker between 1998 and 2006 if there was no out of control housing bubble, that's just a fact.

While you are correct that the housing market had something to do with some of the economic growth under Governor Bush, a skeptical article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/16/a-housing-bubble-made-jeb-bush-look-great-and-then-it-tanked-floridas-economy/) still shows that even without the "housing bubble," GDP growth in Florida still would have exceeded that of the nation.

Furthermore, states like Nevada and Arizona were also part of the housing bubble. Yet, Florida ranked 2nd in economic growth during Jeb Bush's eight years as Governor.

Additionally, Florida is growing again. After the rough recession, Florida is making a comeback. Bush's policies have had a lasting impact on the state.

Leading a state isn't always easy. Many Governors are average, a few are below average, a few are above average. When I look at this presidential race, I see that. One must take into consideration the state in which one is governing, and that state's history as well as politics.

Jeb Bush is the only Governor running I consider to be exceptional, hence why I support him. He has a record of reforming a major entitlement program, medicaid, reforming education, cutting taxes, reducing the size of state government, protecting the Everglades, and the list goes on.

Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal have implemented important reforms in their respective states, and I think both have been above average overall. However, both have some budgetary issues they must work on. But both have sought to improve their state's business climates and reform education. Governor Jindal has been a reformer in the area of ethics as well.

George Pataki and Jim Gilmore have been average. I am not that familiar with Gilmore's record, but I know Pataki has a very mixed record. He both reduced and increased taxes, but he also signed into law some of the toughest gun control laws in America and I don't think he improved New York's business climate by much.

Rick Perry has been average as well to my knowledge.

Chris Christie was good during his first term in reversing the damage his predecessors did. He led his state through one of worst natural disasters very well. But, corporate welfare is at a record high, the state's credit rating has been downgraded multiple times, he expanded medicaid under Obamacare, he's re-appointed liberal judges, and he has not met the state's obligations completely, he's a below average Governor.

No Governor running this year has a worse record than Martin O'Malley. O'Malley raised taxes on just about everyone in his state, Maryland's pension fund is a mess, he abolished capital punishment, put new restrictions on the second amendment, he was an awful Governor.

I don't know enough about John Kasich's record in Ohio to comment, though I have heard positive things. Same with Lincoln Chaffee, though I know he did pass some excellent pension reform in Rhode Island.

[Milquetoast]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

With a Democratic President!!!!! Four sub-par governors is no consolation prize, my friend.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Some of those mistakes include a war entered into under false pretenses (Iraq), CAFTA, and a fiscal meltdown.  The fiscal meltdown was the product of Bush 43's "ownership society" which was a giveaway to realtors and investors in the form of mortgages on overpriced properties that the homeowners couldn't hope to pay for over time.

CAFTA has been a success, the world is better off without Saddam and the U.S. is safer for it, I agree with you on the ownership society stuff, but let's remember it was Clinton that gave us Fannie Mae.

Bush talks nice but when you ask him about policy how is he any different than any right wing Republican?  Even after saying you shouldn't discriminate against gays he then said that ENDA laws should be left to the states. So by 'period' he means 'unless the legislature of your state thinks you dont deserve protection'. And lets not forget he was one of the first to back Indiana's (clearly discriminatory) RFRA law (which was later amended after massive backlash).  

Up until the time Bush supports SSM and Federal ENDA he is just Rick Santorum with a smile.

This is a fundamental difference between the two political parties. The Republicans believe in limited government in which states have more power, the Democrats believe in the opposite. Show me where the word "marriage" appears in the constitution first of all. Secondly, anti-discrimination laws are necessary, but for the federal government to get involved in marriage is both unnecessary and not something the founders envisioned.

Nope, Republicans don't believe in states rights in general. They only believe in state's rights where it helps Republicans. They are perfectly happy to trample state's rights if that helps Republicans. The latest example:



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-bills-20150710-story.html

A majority of Republican voters do. Your going by congress? Republicans don't even like Boehner. I have mixed feelings about him myself.

Republicans only believe in "small government" when they're out of power.

Republicans won the 1994 elections on a fiscally conservative, anti-big government, anti-corruption platform. We were able to accomplish some important goals - tax cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget etc.

Unfortunately, we made some mistakes when we had full control of the federal government. But Republican Governors such as Tommy Thompson, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal have been able to accomplish some good things over the last three decades.

Bobby Jindal?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-bobby-jindal-wrecked-louisiana/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/bobby-jindal-campaigning-114948.html#.VawF7_lViko

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jindal has done a good job in office - he passed merit pay for teachers, ethics reform, the largest tax cut in state history, and he's reduced state spending.

I worked in the mortgage business in the 1980s, long before Clinton, and Fannie Mae was with us then, as was Freddie Mac, FHA and VA.  What you said about Clinton starting Fannie Mae is simply not true.

The world is not a better place with Saddam Hussein dead.  Saddam Hussein, repulsive as he was, kept order in the failed state of Iraq without having to sent our troops over there to invade, conquer, and rebuild.  Bush 43 lied to us as to why we had to go to war.  We blew off the sovereignty of a nation which never attacked us, and now, we have a failed Iraq whose army and security services won't resist ISIS.  This is all on W's tab, and to say otherwise at this point is Acid Trip Revisionism.