Bobby jindal president ?????

[rustyb]

Originally Posted by Clampy

If republicans keep rolling out this clown car of candidates you guys better get use to President HillRod

X2

[MathGeek]

I stopped looking for the perfect combination of policy, personality, and leadership intangibles many decades ago. We're choosing a president for 4 years, not a spouse for life. There are no perfect men, and there are no perfect candidates.

For me, good policy reflects good thinking and as such is good leadership. I'm looking for good policy (need not be perfect) plus a deep and abiding love for the US and committment to the Constitution.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by ThePinkBanana

Everything will change. Jindal hates Obama. He already has written plans on how to get rid of Obama care and common core education. If you followed Jindal and his policies over the years, you would know this. He's the best candidate if you're looking to get rid of all the Scars Hussein obama hAs left on this country.

Jindal was once an advocate of common core. He is only against it now because Obama is for it. He has only been playing politics these last 4 years.

He is making promises to the country now but he has forgotten about all the promises he made to the state. He has done nothing but campaign this entire last term

[Ragin_Cajun]

I say we put all candidates on "Celebrity Apprentice" and let Trump FIRE THEM ALL!!!!!!! lol

[jpeff31787]

Originally Posted by Ducktrickster

Based on what?

pretty certain that was a joke. Jindal sucks!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Jindal was once an advocate of common core. He is only against it now because Obama is for it.

A lot of state leaders and educators turned against common core over time as the intent and implementation of common core changed in important ways:

1. Over time, common core shifted from a state led initiative to a centralized authority.

2. Common core evolved into a tool for introducing politically correct positions on controversial issues like homosexual marriage and global warming into the curriculum.

3. Common core shifted to include centralized record keeping and cradle to grave privacy intrusions for every student.

4. On the assessment side, common core morphed into an unfunded mandate for excessive standardized testing.

5. Comon Core grew to include not just descriptions of what students needed to know, but excessively micromanages how it is to be taught.

In summary, Common Core had the support of many state leaders and educators when it was crafted and portrayed as a common curriculum to improve educational standards. It began to be widely rejected after it grew into an expensive and oppresive tool for centralized control, robbing states and local districts of freedom to craft and deliver curricula that best meet the needs of their students.

I applaud Jindal for rejecting Common Core. Sure, he should have seen it coming that it would change into a centralized power grab, but at least he abandoned it after it did.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm looking for good policy (need not be perfect) plus a deep and abiding love for the US and committment to the Constitution.

Which of those "republicans for smaller government" that you listed as your potential votes exhibit that through their policies?


I'm with RAND

[iaengineer]

He is running ads like crazy in Iowa now.

[Will"E"Fish]

Validating money for future war chest is what his present objective.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A lot of state leaders and educators turned against common core over time as the intent and implementation of common core changed in important ways:

1. Over time, common core shifted from a state led initiative to a centralized authority.

2. Common core evolved into a tool for introducing politically correct positions on controversial issues like homosexual marriage and global warming into the curriculum.

3. Common core shifted to include centralized record keeping and cradle to grave privacy intrusions for every student.

4. On the assessment side, common core morphed into an unfunded mandate for excessive standardized testing.

5. Comon Core grew to include not just descriptions of what students needed to know, but excessively micromanages how it is to be taught.

In summary, Common Core had the support of many state leaders and educators when it was crafted and portrayed as a common curriculum to improve educational standards. It began to be widely rejected after it grew into an expensive and oppresive tool for centralized control, robbing states and local districts of freedom to craft and deliver curricula that best meet the needs of their students.

I applaud Jindal for rejecting Common Core. Sure, he should have seen it coming that it would change into a centralized power grab, but at least he abandoned it after it did.

Jindal only did this because of politics. His last term he has been a lame duck. He doesn't care about common core, he decided to change his policy on it because it makes him look "conservative" to be against government oversight. Which is very ironic considering his record.

Can you name 5 things Jindal has done for the good of Louisiana off the top of your head without the aid of Google? It is easier to compile a list of negatives vs positives for me

[MathGeek]

Jindal:

1. Does anyone think Jindal's handling of Gustav was not markedly better than Blanco's handling of Katrina?

2. Jindal is the most pro-RKBA governor in the US. In addition to supporting the Constitutional amendment in 2012, he has signed numerous laws benefitting gun owners.

3. Lower taxes.

4. Opposition to Common Core.

5. Under Jindal, the Louisiana Department of Education allows home schools to operate as registered non-public schools, thus completely exempting them from Common Core requirements and giving home schooling parents greater freedom to choose their children's curricula, instructional methods, and assessment methods than in any other state in the US.

6. We all have quibbles about wildlife issues, but I see the extension of the state boundary out to 10.357 miles and the Louisiana state snapper season as a very positive effort to improve use of an abundant natural resource and well-considered resistance to an over reach of federal authority in poorly managing the fishery.

7. Small things, but I also appreciate the fact that boat trailers no longer need to be inspected and driver's licenses will last for five years. Fewer trips to the DMV is a sign of less intrusion and smaller government!

[Smalls]

He won't have my vote. I liked him at first, but too much has gone downhill for me to vote for him now. He doesn't stand a chance anyway.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

He won't have my vote. I liked him at first, but too much has gone downhill for me to vote for him now. He doesn't stand a chance anyway.

So if he got the Republican nomination, you'd vote for Hillary?

Everyone but Jeb is something of a long shot to get the nomination, and I think it's premature to talk about "electability" until there is more of a campaign track record and a couple of debates.

If the primary were today, I'd likely vote for Perry or Walker over Jindal, but they (along with Carson and Huckabee) all have 5+ months to convince me.

Given my strong belief in the separation of powers and federalism, I don't take actions as a conservative governor as a strong indication of how one would govern as POTUS.

A good conservative president should have strong convictions about the different roles of state and federal government, so I would not look for conservative candidates to necessarily take the same approach to federal issues as POTUS as they took to state issues as governors.

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Jindal:

1. Does anyone think Jindal's handling of Gustav was not markedly better than Blanco's handling of Katrina?

2. Jindal is the most pro-RKBA governor in the US. In addition to supporting the Constitutional amendment in 2012, he has signed numerous laws benefitting gun owners.

3. Lower taxes.

4. Opposition to Common Core.

5. Under Jindal, the Louisiana Department of Education allows home schools to operate as registered non-public schools, thus completely exempting them from Common Core requirements and giving home schooling parents greater freedom to choose their children's curricula, instructional methods, and assessment methods than in any other state in the US.

6. We all have quibbles about wildlife issues, but I see the extension of the state boundary out to 10.357 miles and the Louisiana state snapper season as a very positive effort to improve use of an abundant natural resource and well-considered resistance to an over reach of federal authority in poorly managing the fishery.

7. Small things, but I also appreciate the fact that boat trailers no longer need to be inspected and driver's licenses will last for five years. Fewer trips to the DMV is a sign of less intrusion and smaller government!

Very good points. If we wait around for a perfect candidate we'll never vote. Always seems to be the case of "well he ain't as bad as the other guy." Sad really.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by silver_snipe

I agree except for the Scott Walker comment.

Walker is one of only a few candidates consistently polling in double digits and is running second to Jeb in most polls. Election day is a long way off, but strong early polling is key to fundraising which, in turn, is key to surviving Super Tuesday.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

6. We all have quibbles about wildlife issues, but I see the extension of the state boundary out to 10.357 miles and the Louisiana state snapper season as a very positive effort to improve use of an abundant natural resource and well-considered resistance to an over reach of federal authority in poorly managing the fishery.

Could comment on all that list, but this is one that is laughable. Anything he wants to take credit for with fisheries management should be null and void when he raided the Rigs To Reefs Fund. He should probably be brought up with charges in actuality.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

So if he got the Republican nomination, you'd vote for Hillary?

Everyone but Jeb is something of a long shot to get the nomination, and I think it's premature to talk about "electability" until there is more of a campaign track record and a couple of debates.

If the primary were today, I'd likely vote for Perry or Walker over Jindal, but they (along with Carson and Huckabee) all have 5+ months to convince me.

Given my strong belief in the separation of powers and federalism, I don't take actions as a conservative governor as a strong indication of how one would govern as POTUS.

A good conservative president should have strong convictions about the different roles of state and federal government, so I would not look for conservative candidates to necessarily take the same approach to federal issues as POTUS as they took to state issues as governors.

No, I would not vote for Hillary either. I'd just vote for a third party guy, if there is one suitable. If it came down to Clinton and Jindal, with no other choice, then unfortunately, yes, I'd vote for Jindal.

But I hope he doesn't even make it that far. The guy raided every Dedicated Fund he could, and allowed the state budget to slip into this piss-poor state that it is now. Is he solely responsible? No. But he didn't do much to help it either.

And his bouncing around to other states instead of taking care of business here has won him no votes in Louisiana either. And honestly, I'm not quite sure how you can take anything else from what he's done. I have no idea how he would be as president, so I'm going to look at what he has done at Governor. He couldn't manage a state for 8 years, a state that, for the most part, supported him in his first term. How is he going to run a country that will be much more divided on what he does?

I look at the things he's done in the past several months, and see a man driven by public opinion. There may have been several people that turned on Common Core, but Jindal was a very vocal supporter of Common Core. Isn't his wife a teacher? Shouldn't he have known better? He went with what seemed like the majority from the start. Then more and more people turned on it, and he saw it as an opportunity to garner support by turning on it and fighting it. At that point he was screwed because BESE was not going to allow him to get rid of it.

Then the religious freedom issue. After everything that happened with that Bakery, he decides it would be a good move to try and pass a similar bill in Louisiana, and then when it doesn't, he uses his power to push it through (which he could not, according to the Louisiana Constitution).

All he is doing is bantering to people that will support those conservative moves. For what it's worth, I'm all for the abolishment of Common Core (because its a bad system) and the Freedom of a business owner to run his business as he sees fit. But Jindal didn't push for those things for those reasons. He pushed for them because he saw it as a way to gain favor with the voters.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

But I hope he doesn't even make it that far. The guy raided every Dedicated Fund he could, and allowed the state budget to slip into this piss-poor state that it is now. Is he solely responsible? No. But he didn't do much to help it either.

This seems to me to be the result of reluctance to raise taxes.

The reality of LA politics is you need a few years of piss-poor budgets to shrink the size of government to a level that will sustain lower taxes in the long run.

The idea that one needs to "reduce the size of government" to "pay for" tax cuts is inherently liberal thinking.

Jindal has taken the approach of reducing taxes to more reasonable levels and then forcing the government to shrink to match the available funds. It's turned out to be unpopular with many, but it is in line with conservative principles.

I'm no fan of raiding dedicated funds either, and would list these actions as my least favorite things Jindal has done. But I would raid our family's dedicated new car fund if a child was sick and we needed to cover medical bills.

No candidate is perfect. I'm interested in hearing what Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Carson have to say in the next five months as the process plays out.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

This seems to me to be the result of reluctance to raise taxes.

The reality of LA politics is you need a few years of piss-poor budgets to shrink the size of government to a level that will sustain lower taxes in the long run.

The idea that one needs to "reduce the size of government" to "pay for" tax cuts is inherently liberal thinking.

Jindal has taken the approach of reducing taxes to more reasonable levels and then forcing the government to shrink to match the available funds. It's turned out to be unpopular with many, but it is in line with conservative principles.

I'm no fan of raiding dedicated funds either, and would list these actions as my least favorite things Jindal has done. But I would raid our family's dedicated new car fund if a child was sick and we needed to cover medical bills.

No candidate is perfect. I'm interested in hearing what Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Carson have to say in the next five months as the process plays out.

Say what?!?!?!?

Did you just contradict yourself, or am I not reading this right?

In the first statement, you say reducing the size of the government pays for tax cuts, and this is a liberal concept; then you follow this with "Jindal has reduced taxes and forced the government to shrink" and called it a Conservative Idea.

I fail to see how either is different. So a liberal suggesting that the government should shrink to pay for tax cuts is different from a conservative suggesting that reducing tax cuts forces the government to shrink? I don't see the difference. It all results in the same thing: smaller government and lower taxes.

I've never heard any liberal suggest that the government needs to be smaller. Hell, they think it needs to support everyone that can't support themselves. I work with one, I would know. I hear it all the time.

Why did he have to raid the dedicated funds in the first place? What happened to that "surplus" that existed when he came into office?

I'm just not a fan of Jindal anymore. He's a puppet. Show him the hot topic and he will jump on it. He doesn't think for himself (then again, most of this country doesn't).

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Say what?!?!?!?

Did you just contradict yourself, or am I not reading this right?

In the first statement, you say reducing the size of the government pays for tax cuts, and this is a liberal concept; then you follow this with "Jindal has reduced taxes and forced the government to shrink" and called it a Conservative Idea.

I fail to see how either is different. So a liberal suggesting that the government should shrink to pay for tax cuts is different from a conservative suggesting that reducing tax cuts forces the government to shrink? I don't see the difference. It all results in the same thing: smaller government and lower taxes.

It's the difference between reading the menu left to right (looking at the entrees first) and reading the menu right to left (looking at the prices first).

I encourage my wife to read the menu left to right (without regard for cost) when I take her to dinner, because we don't get to go out much, we earn a good living, and the money we're spending is our own.

But in government, every tax dollar that gets spent gets taken from a hard working citizen under threat of imprisonment. This FACT necessitates that those governing should read the menu right to left.

Elected officials should first consider how much in tax dollars it is reasonable to take from their citizens at the barrel of a gun.

Then they should decide how to most reasonably spend those tax dollars to provide the best government to their citizens.

Reading the menu left to right is inherently different: First liberals decide how much government they need. Then they calculate how much to take from hard working citizens (at the barrel of a gun) to pay for it. This approach inevitably leads to bigger government and higher taxes.

Money gets taken from hard working citizens at the barrel of a gun to pay for every government program. Jindal recognizes this and worked hard to cut taxes knowing that limited cash would provide more leverage for the hard work of actually shrinking government (or at least growing it more slowly). Yes, there was pain and disagreement. But without this approach, we'd have a much bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive LA state government than we have now.