|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Fox News, which is hosting the first debate next Thursday in Cleveland, says that they will include the top 10 candidates from an average of the five most recent national polls. But Fox News isn’t saying which polls they will use to calculate their average, leaving the rest of us to play a guessing game. [...] Who's In According to an ABC News analysis of five recent major national polls on July 27 ... Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. Who's Out Another three candidates are almost certainly going to miss the mark. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham [...] Chris Christie and Rick Perry currently hold the last two spots on the debate stage. John Kasich, who just announced his candidacy last week, misses the debate stage by just two-tenths of a percentage point. Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal are close behind, but still watching from home on Aug. 6. FULL STANDINGS (as of July 27): 1. Trump – 18 percent 2. Bush – 14 percent 3. Walker – 11 percent 4. Rubio – 6 percent T5. Paul – 6 percent T5. Cruz – 6 percent 7. Huckabee – 6 percent 8. Carson – 5 percent 9. Christie – 3.0 percent 10. Perry – 2.2 percent 11. Kasich – 2.0 percent 12. Santorum – 1.6 percent 13. Jindal – 1.4 percent 14. Fiorina – 0.8 percent 15. Pataki – 0.6 percent 16. Graham – 0.2 percent [...] |
Also, I believe the losers get a pre-debate debate at 5 pm before the real one starts.
Interesting dynamics
Trump dislikes Jeb
Perry dislikes Trump
Christie dislikes Rand
Cruz and Trump like each other
No. There's no reason to publicly back anyone this early. And they have to know that Trump is about as certain to lose the general election as any candidate in the field.
it is going to just be a mess
everyone will just be attacking trump, and trying to be quoted with rehearsed soundbites
I still think Walker wins the nomination.
I think Trump is in it for Trump. It's kind of his thing. He doesnt give a half shit about the base or the party.
That's messed up. And people get mad when someone questions Hillary...
They've been awful this election season.
It actually wasn't a dig at her, but seeing as merely bringing up her name made you all frothy, can you imagine how you'd respond if I gave her a squirting flower and floppy shoes?
Notice how when you do the '....', it's implied you are saying more.
Quote:
That's messed up. And people get mad when someone questions Hillary...
Sucks when someone insults your candidates eh?
I don't think Trump lasts. I despises all the Bushes, & think Jeb can't hide his last name forever. Rubio scares me as a Democrat. Walker could be formidable.
August 6th will be interesting. I'm expecting people to go after Trump.
Regardless of people's civil liberties concerns, I don't think the average person is comfortable with Paul re: National Security.
Carson and Cruz are wasting everyone's time participating in the debate. Same-same Huckabee - but he's been there before.
Is it the oops thing? Did it prove what some people already thought?
He has this mirror like quality - he's more effective when reflecting off another candidate.
The smart ones will let him self-destruct. Clearly does not have any real vision or policy expertise. It's all about fireworks - and that is only entertaining for so long.
They've been awful this election season.
You mean they aren't toeing the line as usual? And Hillary deserves all the bad press she gets. She choose to put her emails on that server. I guess the fallout from it isn't as bad as if all her emails were exposed.
I don't have to make up any charges. There is plenty there already.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
The NYT was erroneous and (apparently under pressure from the campaign) corrected.
But it wasn't garbage to the extent that the IG did call for an investigation. A security investigation, not a criminal one. And Clinton was not named as a target. The did explicitly state that, in direct contradiction to her public statements, she had classified material on her email and that it was not classified after the fact but from the moment of inception. It does not mean anything criminal.
It's almost a split the baby for all sides, terrible writing giving a misleading impression, but not garbage either.
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
I still think Walker wins the nomination.
No, shitforbrains, you should leave for your constant "What a country" bitching.
Quote:
What are the charges? What are the nefarious things that HRC has done?
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
Quote:
In comment 12388479 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
What are the charges? What are the nefarious things that HRC has done?
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
I'd like to see the list. :)
Just a warning, I think Travelgate and Vince Foster make an appearance.
Not sure it's really that big of a deal though - these early primary debates aren't actually "debates". Theyre just an opportunity for the candidates to each have 4 minutes of time to give their sales pitch on television.
Everyone looking forward to that big Trump/Christie "showdown" are going to be really disappointed.
Not sure it's really that big of a deal though - these early primary debates aren't actually "debates". Theyre just an opportunity for the candidates to each have 4 minutes of time to give their sales pitch on television.
Everyone looking forward to that big Trump/Christie "showdown" are going to be really disappointed.
That's kind of too bad. They need to begin winnowing.
Once we get to the late fall and people start paying attention, the field will naturally constrict itself - but i think a lot of these guys will still be in play all the way through the convention. Its gonna be craziness for the next 14 months.
1. Will the candidates who Trumpified their campaigns to get air time get any benefir from it? The two main "culprits" there are Cruz and Huckabee.
2. Will anyone at the "Kiddie table" debate get some benefit? There will only be 6 on stage, so if the media pays any attention to it there probably a better chance to shine than in the main debate.
3. How will the moderators deal with Trump? With 10 candidates on stage this is the perfect venue for him to throw out unsupported negative one-liners with no time for refutation. Will he interrupt the other candidates and can they control that? Can they keep this as serious as possible given a 10 person field or will they let it become a reality TV clown show and revel in the ratings?
I can't see how there's going to be anything more substantial than a few sound bites.
Its an advantage for Trump. Hard to attack when you've only got a few seconds.
Its going to be a clusterF@#K. I will not bother watching.
. . . but that's not going to happen. I'm assuming more than one of those candidates will go into that debate with the strategy of getting into an exchange with Trump for the purpose of drawing more attention to themselves.
I think another challenge will be for the moderator not to antagonize him. Trump is very intuitive. If he gets asked a question that is the least bit slighting to him he'll sniff it out and go off.
Quote:
was garbage, or as a NYT writer put it, a 'mess'.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
The NYT was erroneous and (apparently under pressure from the campaign) corrected.
But it wasn't garbage to the extent that the IG did call for an investigation. A security investigation, not a criminal one. And Clinton was not named as a target. The did explicitly state that, in direct contradiction to her public statements, she had classified material on her email and that it was not classified after the fact but from the moment of inception. It does not mean anything criminal.
It's almost a split the baby for all sides, terrible writing giving a misleading impression, but not garbage either.
No Bill, the article was hot wet garbage that had to go thru multiple "corrections" where even the corrections are evasive. Moreover, the entirety of the article is written in what can only be described as a highly suggestive but substance free manner. Newsweek demolished the piece.
I cant prove it, but my gut tells me this report's source was Gowdy's committee, and he's being fed nonsense. It isnt the first Clinton-email story the Times has had trouble on this year.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 - ( New Window )
Rubio – intelligent and charismatic, interesting background
Paul – much more rational and less isolationist than people think
Kasich – touted as a moderate, but perhaps Fiorina or Pataki fit the bill better for this spot
Santorum – (or Fiorina?, she is a decent and smart person)
Jindal – (or Pataki? not a fan of Pataki, but he was surprisingly well spoken on local TV recently)
Its an advantage for Trump. Hard to attack when you've only got a few seconds.
More importantly when dealing with Trump, hard to refute when you've only got a few seconds
Its going to be a clusterF@#K. I will not bother watching.
Not sure I'll watch as well. Might give it a few minutes and turn the channel if my expectations prove true. After all, no Rangers games or Thursday Night Football as alternatives
Almost all of the Republican field could care less about anyone who isn't rich, white and Christian. That's a problem. We need a President who represents most of America not just one specific group.
The only guy I see that could come close to being somewhat moderate for the GOP is Pataki, that isn't what the Republican base wants though, they want Trump. A loudmouth who thinks everyone but him is a "LOSER" or an "IDIOT". This is why they won't win on the national stage without gerrymandering or passing laws right before the election to exclude certain groups of people who just happen to be heavily Democrat. That ISN'T the American way and should be frowned upon by everyone but it is instead embraced. I'm not saying Democrats don't pull the same crap because they do, either way it needs to stop.
By the way, I'm not a Hillary backer....Yet
Gonna have to see how this all plays out.
Its time for her to take on the tough questions. The public doesnt need to know about her party bus rides through the country. The pipeline is a big ado for me and others close to me, so I am curious on how she stands on the issue. Deflecting it on Obama and Kerry is not good enough.
And she might be right about the firing squad.
Bonus points for a Trump 3rd party run.
At this stage, it looks like it would take a real effort on her part to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
(a conspiracy to tie in with Fatmans thread)
And she might be right about the firing squad.
Bonus points for a Trump 3rd party run.
At this stage, it looks like it would take a real effort on her part to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Trump has no interest in a third party run. That would require real money and real commitment. He's still in it for ego and PR. DO you think he wants to serve this country, at $400K/yr?
I'm gratefull the constant hand-wringing and whining by the usual suspects is, for the most part, contained to these threads.
For some reason that I don't know myself, I can't get into Perry. But looking at his resume, at least as far as being qualified for President, there is no one Republican or Democrat who is better qualified. For some, I get they can't get past ideological differences, but as far as relevant qualifications and experience, I think he's tops.
10 people is too many for a debate. There will not be any discussion of anyone's points, nor enough time for anyone to say anything of meaning. IT will just be 10 egos competing for the most viral soundbite.
Is it the oops thing? Did it prove what some people already thought?
Because he is about as dumb as Bush II, the guy is a joke. He added glasses to appear more intelligent, so transparent, so dumb. I doubt I'll ever vote Republican, but please give me a better option than Perry. I heard Santorum on PBS News Hour a week or so ago and he sounded good, but I don't know much about any of the GOPs candidates policies yet. Kill me now if its Bush vs HRC.
See link. That was all I needed to see, forgetting what you are going to say is fine. Though its odd to see it happen to such an established politician, but that was a comedy of errors and far to George W Bush-esque for me. Bush was terrible and I can't support any remotely like him, guy had all the support in the world (including mine) after 9/11. Flushed that right down the toilet along with a ton of lives, respect, and money.
C'Mon Man - ( New Window )
Furthermore, I'll assess him as I see fit. Have you never referred to someones perceived lack of intelligence from your high horse? Ever?
Nevermind, he's said a bunch of stuff that will kill him come general election.
Howard Dean was derailed for much less. And what you call an oops, I call a candidate lacking eloquence who can sufficiently convey his policies to me. But we can continue this expose, two more gems in here.
etc... - ( New Window )
Sure pick and choose everything but the obvious red flags from the footage. Turkey has its issues past and present, but terrorists? And yeah, you're allowed to call urinating on corpses despicable. But we can debate the value of exaggerated statements and whether one should denounce defecating on corpses later.
Bill, it's nice to see Americans can still find common ground.
And what could be more American than that?
yep - ( New Window )
Oh did he? Rofl.
Something tells me he's not terribly second-chancey towards people whose mistakes are just a few degrees more severe than saying "Oops" on national TV.
I am truly stunned that this man was even brought up in here
I thought his candidacy was over after his McCain comments. I was wrong. This guy probably has staying power. If nothing else, he's entertaining as hell to watch.
I dislike him. Add I completely agree with Trump about McCain the senator and presidential candidate. Trump's a dick about the war hero stuff, though.
I thought his candidacy was over after his McCain comments. I was wrong. This guy probably has staying power. If nothing else, he's entertaining as hell to watch.
Can The Donald deliver Florida?
That puts him on the VP short list.
Correct.
And beyond that, none of the other candidates would consider him because you don't need a loose cannon with comments you'd constantly have to explain. And once he's out of the top spot the media would treat him the way they treated Sarah Palin after the convention. And just as Palin brought much of it onto herself, so would Trump.
Years ago she would say how Scranton was her hometown, and how it was dear to her heart, blah blah blah. Now she only has time to collect checks and not speak to the public. Thousands would have went to see her publicly, but she didnt have time for them.
Maybe sensibility will prevail after all..
I have told my class since last November its going to be Bush or Walker. If republicans push Trump and republicans vote for him, they deserve HRC.
Quinnipac has Bush ahead of HRC. Republicans should run with this.
Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?
Quote:
Please!
Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?
If Bush is the nominee, the Tea Party/Koch Brothers wing of the party will have a sh*t fit if Kasich is the VP. They would strongly push Walker, who I am not sure is willing to accept VP slot, or someone like him
But so will her money. It will be interesting. I still think, good or bad, his name still has staying power.
Link - ( New Window )
Back to the quinnipiac poll.... Bush +1 vs Hillary from quinnipiac today is a bit of an outlier though, Hillary does have him beat in most polls. In fact last night I saw a round of polling on one of the cable news shows (forget which one, and forget which polling outlet was responsible) where not only was Hillary beating all republican contenders in a head to head, but Bernie Sanders was too.
Back to the quinnipiac poll.... Bush +1 vs Hillary from quinnipiac today is a bit of an outlier though, Hillary does have him beat in most polls. In fact last night I saw a round of polling on one of the cable news shows (forget which one, and forget which polling outlet was responsible) where not only was Hillary beating all republican contenders in a head to head, but Bernie Sanders was too.
These polls will have more validity to me once the Rep. field shrinks. 17 of them is just ridiuclous. Instead of working together to form a candidate to beat HRC, they are fighting each other. Thats going to be their downfall.
I think intuitively and (I've read) mathematically this is wrong. Romney is a very smart, very decent guy. He may have even been a very good governor and a very good businessman. But he was a terrible candidate. The guy defines the 1%. Fair or unfair, most people probably remember his 2012 campaign for his corporations are people too moment, and the 47% video. All of that stuff would still be a problem today. And then there's the Romneycare problem. Moreover, his condescending tone probably didnt hurt him a ton in 2012 (Obama's got that bug too), but I think it would have really hurt him against Clinton. And his lack of authenticity would undermine what I take it is a GOP attack on HRC (I actually think she's surprisingly folksy, especially because you always expect her to be Cruella de Vil).
I cant find it (which really undercuts my point), but I've read an analysis that says that Romney's actual election day performance was about as bad as possible. Obviously there werent 100% of votes available -- 90+% are already decided by party affiliation etc.. Romney's 47% was either the floor or almost the floor of what he could have gotten.
It'd be a constant reminder of the established elitist class.
Would you consider voting for Kasich over Hilary SFGF? Curious just how tied to the party you are.
In comment 12393641 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Please!
Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?
If Bush is the nominee, the Tea Party/Koch Brothers wing of the party will have a sh*t fit if Kasich is the VP. They would strongly push Walker, who I am not sure is willing to accept VP slot, or someone like him
If Bush is the nominee I don't anticipate any of the other current candidates to get the VP nod. My 3 possibilities, and I'm sure there will be more, at this point are:
Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
Rob Portman, Senator from Ohio
Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire
His father was a President who could not win a second term (although now in hindsight is considered not such a bad President )
His brother GWB was ummm less successful as President
His awfulness will take a few years to fully be realized but will go down
but he is definitely in the running as the worst two term President in the history of the US.
With this track record Republicans want to nominate yet ANOTHER Bush
it is really amazing actually
Don't forget his $10,000 bet offer with Rick Perry live on a debate stage. He made it incredibly easy to paint him as some younger Mr. Burns character
It's compelling.
I think he'd be a formidable general election candidate.
Quote:
Please!
Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?
Jeb is a horrible candidate. He shows no enthusiasm for the job and has all his father's and brothers advisors, bad move. All he has going for him is money. The base doesn't like him. He will get killed in the general election.
Barring a crash of 'Edwards'ian proportions by Hillary, a bloodbath akin to 84' is likely, IMO.
I like Walker or Rubio. I also like Fiorina, but I doubt she would get the nomination, maybe VP. Rand Paul is interesting, but he tends to turn me off and I've read that his campaign is imploding from within.
I'm genuinely and excessively curious why so many people feel so tied and loyal to two parties that in reality give zero fucks about everyone as individuals.
Q is going to have to explain that massive shift in the electorate that they've modeled. I could buy the slight shift right (GOP relatively lost 2 fewer %). I cannot buy a +15 shift to Ind/Other. Rebalancing may actually help Bush (he's doing better on the partisan crosstabs), but it would add to the plausibility.
Also, any result that tells me Bush-Clinton is 42-41 is fucking irrelevant. The missing 17% is everything.
Plus, as bad as the two major parties are, voting for a candidate with extremely limited experience and no effective relationships just isn't all that attractive an alternative.
There would need to be a full-blown, well-functioning third party organization before anyone would even consider it. Would that be from the left or the right? Hard to tell. And sadly, whichever side it comes from would just guarantee greater strength for the main party in the opposing camp.
Quote:
I think intuitively and (I've read) mathematically this is wrong. Romney is a very smart, very decent guy. He may have even been a very good governor and a very good businessman. But he was a terrible candidate. The guy defines the 1%. Fair or unfair, most people probably remember his 2012 campaign for his corporations are people too moment, and the 47% video
Don't forget his $10,000 bet offer with Rick Perry live on a debate stage. He made it incredibly easy to paint him as some younger Mr. Burns character
Or binders full of women (debate line!).
Or his NASCAR team owner friends.
I for example, find a lot in the Democratic party to dislike, and at the state/local level usually vote Republican but on Choice, Supreme Court nominations, taxation and a host of other issues, I just can't pull the trigger to the right at the national level.
This is also based on the assumption that Hillary or any replacement won't suck as much as Obama on Israeli issues.
I would vote for another candidate like Bush 41, particularly with respect to foreign policy, in a nanosecond. I might even get enthusiastic about it.
Unless Trump runs a 3rd party campaign. Then all bets are off.
Quote:
No chance in hell HRC wins ala Reagan 84.
Unless Trump runs a 3rd party campaign. Then all bets are off.
Unless they're not nice to him.
Quote:
and he said he wouldn't.
Unless they're not nice to him.
Clinton 49 Bush 43 (Clinton +6) in a 2 person race. As for the effect of a Trump 3rd party run, they polled Clinton/Bush/Trump and it came out Clinton 44/Bush 29/Trump 20. So in the case of a Trump 3rd party run, Clinton wins by a landslide +15 margin, but doesn't come close to 50% because she is losing votes to Trump too (weird type of voter that is).
They poll Clinton vs every republican candidate, and it affirms most other polls with her beating everyone in the field. The Quinnipiac poll appeared to be an outlier at this very early stage. Here is Clinton's margin head to head vs everyone, of course Trump fares by far the worst in a two person race, just like every other poll. He has a clear ceiling because his unfavorability is so high
Clinton vs:
Trump +16
Bush +6
Walker +7
Rubio +5
Paul +5
Cruz +9
Huckabee +9
Carson +10
Christie +10
Kasich +10
Perry +7
Polls aren't worth toilet paper right now. Talk to me about a month from the Florida primary.
Quote:
And then throw all of his support behind Cruz.
you just described Hillary perfectly
I think Trump is in it for Trump. It's kind of his thing. He doesnt give a half shit about the base or the party.
Donald Trump
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Mike Huckabee
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Chris Christie
John Kasich
The odd 7 out are getting their own debate on Thursday, earlier in the day.
Ratings. If you have 2 debates instead of 1 it dilutes the final product.
That does not bother me at all with his goggle eye glasses.
Is it all the "oops" moment? Is that really the undoing of his whole candidacy?
"While FOX is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added.
Is it all the "oops" moment? Is that really the undoing of his whole candidacy?
The "oops" moment was a pretty big thing. It was embarrassing, and made him look incompetent. Perception is reality when it comes to politics, and I don't think Perry will ever be able to overcome the damage he did to his image in that singular moment no matter how fancy his eye glasses are.
"While FOX is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added.
I have no favorite candidate at this point, but I think this is a pretty fair comment.
You cant have a debate with 15 people. So who gets left out? People polling with 5x Santorum's support? Real sense of entitlement by Santorum there -- "Im a big deal!"
Republican voters determined that Trump, Cruz, and Carson should have a platform - and that Perry, Santorum, and Graham need to take a backseat.
If anything people should be thankful that Fox/RNC made the cutoff at 10 candidates, which is still an absurd amount, and not 7 or 8 which would have left off Christie and Kasich.
Dems are saying they did that to make the the statistical distance between Kasich and Perry greater. It certainly looks that way.
As far as why Perry doesn't get more respect, he really did start looking wacky back in 2012. It wasn't just the "oops" moment. He had an incident in Vermont or New Hampshire (I forget) where he looked kinda drunk. Once he started downhill back then, he never regained any respect, and I think that has carried over.
aren't we in EDT at this time of year?
Republican voters determined that Trump, Cruz, and Carson should have a platform - and that Perry, Santorum, and Graham need to take a backseat.
If anything people should be thankful that Fox/RNC made the cutoff at 10 candidates, which is still an absurd amount, and not 7 or 8 which would have left off Christie and Kasich.
This is a fair topic for discussion. There are a lot of grass-roots Republicans in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina who disagree vehemently with the Fox News process and are on the record as protesting it. There is more than one way to do anything, but the traditional route of trying to make connections with voters on the ground in the early primary states is being ignored. Now that may change when the primaries are actually at hand.
Quote:
Blaming Fox or the RNC is a bit of a cop out. They decided the 10 people based on polling . . . who do you think are the people that they're polling?
Republican voters determined that Trump, Cruz, and Carson should have a platform - and that Perry, Santorum, and Graham need to take a backseat.
If anything people should be thankful that Fox/RNC made the cutoff at 10 candidates, which is still an absurd amount, and not 7 or 8 which would have left off Christie and Kasich.
This is a fair topic for discussion. There are a lot of grass-roots Republicans in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina who disagree vehemently with the Fox News process and are on the record as protesting it. There is more than one way to do anything, but the traditional route of trying to make connections with voters on the ground in the early primary states is being ignored. Now that may change when the primaries are actually at hand.
I don't know if there is any practical way to do it. The number is unwieldy, not that that is a bad thing. Maybe some sort of playoff system could work where you do groups of 4-5 and come up with scores and rankings and then re-group for the next one. With 10, you will not get to know anything about anyone and will most likely just get canned answers without give and take. The other way to do it would be to have a swimsuit competition before you had the questions event.
"While FOX is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added.
Well, the runner up for the 2012 nomination hasn't done diddly this time around and didn't deserve a spot at the adult table. I watched the New Hampshire forum on Monday and he didn't help himself there as well. Combine that with low poll numbers and good riddance. In fact, neither did Perry, who I thought was mediocre on Monday.
Seems like they wanted Kasich in the main debate. The other 9 I think would have made it under almost any formula. That's only problematic due to the fact that Kasich didn't have a breakout day on Monday.
BTW- If it interests anybody, I graded the performances after the forum on Monday and put them into 3 tiers. It doesn't really match up with the polling, and may be skewed by my personal beliefs (though I have a higher opinion of Kasich than his rating) but here it goes:
Tier 1 - Rubio, Walker, Graham, Christie, Bush
Tier 2 - Kasich, Fiorina, Paul, Cruz
Tier 3 - Perry, Santorum, Carson, Jindal, Pataki
Is it all the "oops" moment? Is that really the undoing of his whole candidacy?
I agree with you, but he does nothing for me. And honestly, he was governor of Texas, which was ground zero for the oil/gas boom. Not sure he had that much to do with it sans not getting in the way.
Quote:
Blaming Fox or the RNC is a bit of a cop out. They decided the 10 people based on polling . . . who do you think are the people that they're polling?
Republican voters determined that Trump, Cruz, and Carson should have a platform - and that Perry, Santorum, and Graham need to take a backseat.
If anything people should be thankful that Fox/RNC made the cutoff at 10 candidates, which is still an absurd amount, and not 7 or 8 which would have left off Christie and Kasich.
This is a fair topic for discussion. There are a lot of grass-roots Republicans in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina who disagree vehemently with the Fox News process and are on the record as protesting it. There is more than one way to do anything, but the traditional route of trying to make connections with voters on the ground in the early primary states is being ignored. Now that may change when the primaries are actually at hand.
Those that made the cut are the correct ten. To say one poll was skipped for another so that the gap between Kasich and Perry was larger is BS because Kasich still had higher numbers.
As far as states disagreeing with the process, it is not their place to bitch. Who really gives a crap what Iowa wants or New Hampshire.
Aside from Dems and those looking for entertainment, does Perry vs Trump excoriating each other really have any relevance? Neither will be there at the end and it detracts from the real candidates time.
It's like people who support Trump. It's not really the person or even the policies, it's either their outspokenness (in Trumps case) or with Hillary, she represents the Democrat hierarchy. And the fact that we've become accustomed to politicians lying. Her husband was kind enough to lay the ground work for her in that regard.
Quote:
Maybe close to 60% see Hillary as a big fat liar and yet the majority still vote for her. That's why I see this more as a societal election in terms of what are and aren't important virtues, not in our politicians but ourselves.
It's like people who support Trump. It's not really the person or even the policies, it's either their outspokenness (in Trumps case) or with Hillary, she represents the Democrat hierarchy. And the fact that we've become accustomed to politicians lying. Her husband was kind enough to lay the ground work for her in that regard.
A couple differences I think. Politicians lie in terms of policy promises and in terms promoting their agenda to make it palatable or salable. If they lie because that's their character and their lie's are for other than political issues a la Bill, we usually know it after they are elected. This is neither of those.
Hillary is losing support because she doesn't take a stand on anything, i.e., Keystone Pipeline, Planned Parenthood (last week she was appalled, this week she supports). Talk about the Teflon Don....
I think Joe sees an opportunity and he jumps at it.
Why, because he is quiet? He doesn't stand out? No splash? I think Jeb is best of the lot.
I think he is beatable because his father and brother were President and that will be the hew and cry.
I don't like Walker because he voided a legal contract - sorry government employees I don't like what we are paying you so I'm rescinding your contract.
Quote:
and if Biden gets in, it could be very damaging to her. There was a report in the WSJ yesterday that her support among white women was plummeting. That's not good.
Hillary is losing support because she doesn't take a stand on anything, i.e., Keystone Pipeline, Planned Parenthood (last week she was appalled, this week she supports). Talk about the Teflon Don....
I think Joe sees an opportunity and he jumps at it.
In current-state she doesn't need to take a stand on anything until she gets the default win and the DNC's seal of approval. She's got no competition and unless all of the primary voters magically become 19 year old neckbeards and give Bernie Sanders the nomination, she can just smile and spout empty platitudes to give the other team nothing to work with until the race is actually on and she has a fight on her hand.
Biden likely changes the equation quite a bit, but he did rather disastrously on his last go round and is jumping into this a bit late. Spending 8 years as a VP changes things for him and I think most people on the Democrats side are desperately looking for a (viable) alternative to Hillary, but I'm not sure he's a slam dunk. Coupled with Clinton "inheriting" a lot of the Obama ground game that swept him into the presidency and I'm reserved on the prospect of Biden jumping in, especially if he wants to preserve a legacy he's just built.
I think the D's need some additional mainstream players involved in this process, but Clinton (even with the bad numbers on her favorability) is polling as like an incumbent right now.
is a joke
I would have respect for the candidates had they all boycotted it in unison.
Ronald Reagan proclaimed the 11 Commandment
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican
by cutting off at 10 candidates the RNC and Fox are implying some Republican candidates are more equal than others
What's maddening is that there's such an easy solution: Throw all 16 names in a hat. Pick out 8. They debate one night. Then, the other 8 debate the next night.
Quote:
why? He's acceptable to both the establishment and the conservatives.
I don't like Walker because he voided a legal contract - sorry government employees I don't like what we are paying you so I'm rescinding your contract.
And that union thing is his calling card. Walker is living a charmed life -- no one is talking about his fairly poor performance as governor.
I dont think you can really evaluate anyone until they have their "moment", especially non-Senators. That's when the other campaigns start dumping on them. Most semi- to well-informed voters dont really know a lot about these guys. We form an opinion based on stuff we do know about: (1) stated policy positions, and (2) how they carry themselves (charisma, public speaking, not taking of guff etc.). For a guy like Rubio, that's all there is to know -- the curse of being a Senator is having a voting records, but the blessing is not having a governance record. But the governors? Lets first see how they actually did. That's not happening yet.
Quote:
In comment 12402727 buford said:
Quote:
and if Biden gets in, it could be very damaging to her. There was a report in the WSJ yesterday that her support among white women was plummeting. That's not good.
Hillary is losing support because she doesn't take a stand on anything, i.e., Keystone Pipeline, Planned Parenthood (last week she was appalled, this week she supports). Talk about the Teflon Don....
I think Joe sees an opportunity and he jumps at it.
In current-state she doesn't need to take a stand on anything until she gets the default win and the DNC's seal of approval. She's got no competition and unless all of the primary voters magically become 19 year old neckbeards and give Bernie Sanders the nomination, she can just smile and spout empty platitudes to give the other team nothing to work with until the race is actually on and she has a fight on her hand.
Biden likely changes the equation quite a bit, but he did rather disastrously on his last go round and is jumping into this a bit late. Spending 8 years as a VP changes things for him and I think most people on the Democrats side are desperately looking for a (viable) alternative to Hillary, but I'm not sure he's a slam dunk. Coupled with Clinton "inheriting" a lot of the Obama ground game that swept him into the presidency and I'm reserved on the prospect of Biden jumping in, especially if he wants to preserve a legacy he's just built.
I think the D's need some additional mainstream players involved in this process, but Clinton (even with the bad numbers on her favorability) is polling as like an incumbent right now.
Sadly, you are correct. Her not taking a stand is not new but should be disturbing for Dems. What are they backing her for, because she's Bill's wife? She should be made to take a stance on a few issues.
She was gifted Moynihan's senate seat for standing by Bill and not walking out after Monica Lewinski. She was Sec State so Obama could control her (enemies closer).
I hope Joe jumps in just so she has to answer a question and at least take a position.
When the smoke clears, it's Jeb. Jeb and Hillary - once the clowns have been sent packing - as they are every campaign, they're by far the most popular and presentable.
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
It's always a media circus, but in the end, pretty predictable. America will get what it deserves. Bush/Clinton. About as exciting as the second Dallas Buffalo Superbowl, and it'll have a similar result.
I And honestly, he was governor of Texas, which was ground zero for the oil/gas boom. Not sure he had that much to do with it sans not getting in the way.
Sounds like governance at it's best to me
Quote:
Easily beatable.
Why, because he is quiet? He doesn't stand out? No splash? I think Jeb is best of the lot.
I think he is beatable because his father and brother were President and that will be the hew and cry.
Best at what? Right now, he's best at getting donations.
Quote:
why? He's acceptable to both the establishment and the conservatives.
I don't like Walker because he voided a legal contract - sorry government employees I don't like what we are paying you so I'm rescinding your contract.
I doubt you'd vote for any Republican though. And I was just saying who would be the nominee, not endorsing him.
is a joke
I would have respect for the candidates had they all boycotted it in unison.
Ronald Reagan proclaimed the 11 Commandment
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican
by cutting off at 10 candidates the RNC and Fox are implying some Republican candidates are more equal than others
What's maddening is that there's such an easy solution: Throw all 16 names in a hat. Pick out 8. They debate one night. Then, the other 8 debate the next night.
How is Fox News making this like American Idol? What is your method, picking out of a hat? That is ridiculous. They took a few different polls, not a poll on their website. The other candidates are getting a forum. It might be more interesting than the main debate.
Quote:
In comment 12402740 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 12402727 buford said:
Quote:
and if Biden gets in, it could be very damaging to her. There was a report in the WSJ yesterday that her support among white women was plummeting. That's not good.
Hillary is losing support because she doesn't take a stand on anything, i.e., Keystone Pipeline, Planned Parenthood (last week she was appalled, this week she supports). Talk about the Teflon Don....
I think Joe sees an opportunity and he jumps at it.
In current-state she doesn't need to take a stand on anything until she gets the default win and the DNC's seal of approval. She's got no competition and unless all of the primary voters magically become 19 year old neckbeards and give Bernie Sanders the nomination, she can just smile and spout empty platitudes to give the other team nothing to work with until the race is actually on and she has a fight on her hand.
Biden likely changes the equation quite a bit, but he did rather disastrously on his last go round and is jumping into this a bit late. Spending 8 years as a VP changes things for him and I think most people on the Democrats side are desperately looking for a (viable) alternative to Hillary, but I'm not sure he's a slam dunk. Coupled with Clinton "inheriting" a lot of the Obama ground game that swept him into the presidency and I'm reserved on the prospect of Biden jumping in, especially if he wants to preserve a legacy he's just built.
I think the D's need some additional mainstream players involved in this process, but Clinton (even with the bad numbers on her favorability) is polling as like an incumbent right now.
Sadly, you are correct. Her not taking a stand is not new but should be disturbing for Dems. What are they backing her for, because she's Bill's wife? She should be made to take a stance on a few issues.
She was gifted Moynihan's senate seat for standing by Bill and not walking out after Monica Lewinski. She was Sec State so Obama could control her (enemies closer).
I hope Joe jumps in just so she has to answer a question and at least take a position.
Ut oh...... the shiny armor knights are coming for you!
to hit Sanders now would turn off liberal wing
which she needs during the election
to tack too far left would hurt her in the general election
meanwhile she is getting hit by 16 different Republican candidates who are sucking up all the media coverage .
she really can't do anything - but keep her head down -shake a lot of hands in iowa and NH and hope some random hit piece does not get legs and derails her nomination
I am not a big fan of Biden - would prefer Lizzy Warren or Al Gore
as far as Republicans .. it should be Jeb but damn he just doesn't have the charisma of GWB .. so the combination of being boring and the Bush name might hurt him enough to prevent his nomination
Walker has lead a charmed life - if the definition of charmed life is being the handed picked Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers so yes I think he continues his 'Charmed life"
The thing that people are forgetting is the RNC tweaked the Primary system the past few cycles - they front loaded winner take all contests - the idea is that it is best to avoid a long drawn out primary , settle on nominee and start to attack democratic nominee as soon as possible.
But the irony of this system is a guy like Trump could take all the early primaries and get a huge delegate lead - this would ensure a battle till convention or the nightmare scenario Trump actually getting enough momentum to winning nomination.
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
Bill Clinton was not the favorite going into 2000, Jimmy Carter was not favored in '76, George McGovern moved ahead on an Ed Muskie screwup in '72, for starters.
Quote:
In comment 12402781 buford said:
Quote:
why? He's acceptable to both the establishment and the conservatives.
I don't like Walker because he voided a legal contract - sorry government employees I don't like what we are paying you so I'm rescinding your contract.
I doubt you'd vote for any Republican though. And I was just saying who would be the nominee, not endorsing him.
Really? I'm a repub, but not blindly so.
to hit Sanders now would turn off liberal wing
which she needs during the election
to tack too far left would hurt her in the general election
meanwhile she is getting hit by 16 different Republican candidates who are sucking up all the media coverage .
she really can't do anything - but keep her head down -shake a lot of hands in iowa and NH and hope some random hit piece does not get legs and derails her nomination
I am not a big fan of Biden - would prefer Lizzy Warren or Al Gore
as far as Republicans .. it should be Jeb but damn he just doesn't have the charisma of GWB .. so the combination of being boring and the Bush name might hurt him enough to prevent his nomination
Walker has lead a charmed life - if the definition of charmed life is being the handed picked Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers so yes I think he continues his 'Charmed life"
The thing that people are forgetting is the RNC tweaked the Primary system the past few cycles - they front loaded winner take all contests - the idea is that it is best to avoid a long drawn out primary , settle on nominee and start to attack democratic nominee as soon as possible.
But the irony of this system is a guy like Trump could take all the early primaries and get a huge delegate lead - this would ensure a battle till convention or the nightmare scenario Trump actually getting enough momentum to winning nomination.
"Tough Position"?? She doesn't have to do anything and likely has the easiest path to the nomination for a non-incumbent in decades. The excuses people come up with for her are ridiculous.
But nobody is talking about the health insurance cost savings realized by merely opening up the teacher's union pet insurer (WEA Trust) to competition. And sometimes, not always, the savings have been achieved with no change to the plan, just fee negotiation.
Linked is a Politifact article on the issue. While saying that Walker has overstated the benefits, it also points out the positive results from competition.
Link - ( New Window )
And spare me the puppet comments. There is plenty of evidence that Hillary dances to the tune of companies like UBS and Monsanto not to mention foreign companies.
Quote:
In comment 12402803 UAGiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12402740 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 12402727 buford said:
Quote:
and if Biden gets in, it could be very damaging to her. There was a report in the WSJ yesterday that her support among white women was plummeting. That's not good.
Hillary is losing support because she doesn't take a stand on anything, i.e., Keystone Pipeline, Planned Parenthood (last week she was appalled, this week she supports). Talk about the Teflon Don....
I think Joe sees an opportunity and he jumps at it.
In current-state she doesn't need to take a stand on anything until she gets the default win and the DNC's seal of approval. She's got no competition and unless all of the primary voters magically become 19 year old neckbeards and give Bernie Sanders the nomination, she can just smile and spout empty platitudes to give the other team nothing to work with until the race is actually on and she has a fight on her hand.
Biden likely changes the equation quite a bit, but he did rather disastrously on his last go round and is jumping into this a bit late. Spending 8 years as a VP changes things for him and I think most people on the Democrats side are desperately looking for a (viable) alternative to Hillary, but I'm not sure he's a slam dunk. Coupled with Clinton "inheriting" a lot of the Obama ground game that swept him into the presidency and I'm reserved on the prospect of Biden jumping in, especially if he wants to preserve a legacy he's just built.
I think the D's need some additional mainstream players involved in this process, but Clinton (even with the bad numbers on her favorability) is polling as like an incumbent right now.
Sadly, you are correct. Her not taking a stand is not new but should be disturbing for Dems. What are they backing her for, because she's Bill's wife? She should be made to take a stance on a few issues.
She was gifted Moynihan's senate seat for standing by Bill and not walking out after Monica Lewinski. She was Sec State so Obama could control her (enemies closer).
I hope Joe jumps in just so she has to answer a question and at least take a position.
Ut oh...... the shiny armor knights are coming for you!
You mean slimey armor.
Really? I'm a repub, but not blindly so.
Sorry, I though you were a Democrat. It's hard to keep track.
Quote:
Really? I'm a repub, but not blindly so.
Sorry, I though you were a Democrat. It's hard to keep track.
Why bother. It's hard to guess and keep track of.
There's really no other way this can play out if republicans want their best shot at winning the General election.
There's really no other way this can play out if republicans want their best shot at winning the General election.
LOL Right now, that's my preferred ticket unless they can convince someone like Condi to agree.
I disagree. I really think the last 8 years have changed (or at least put enough space) the perception of Biden. I think he's much more salable to the public.
to hit Sanders now would turn off liberal wing
which she needs during the election
to tack too far left would hurt her in the general election
meanwhile she is getting hit by 16 different Republican candidates who are sucking up all the media coverage .
she really can't do anything - but keep her head down -shake a lot of hands in iowa and NH and hope some random hit piece does not get legs and derails her nomination
I am not a big fan of Biden - would prefer Lizzy Warren or Al Gore
as far as Republicans .. it should be Jeb but damn he just doesn't have the charisma of GWB .. so the combination of being boring and the Bush name might hurt him enough to prevent his nomination
Walker has lead a charmed life - if the definition of charmed life is being the handed picked Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers so yes I think he continues his 'Charmed life"
The thing that people are forgetting is the RNC tweaked the Primary system the past few cycles - they front loaded winner take all contests - the idea is that it is best to avoid a long drawn out primary , settle on nominee and start to attack democratic nominee as soon as possible.
But the irony of this system is a guy like Trump could take all the early primaries and get a huge delegate lead - this would ensure a battle till convention or the nightmare scenario Trump actually getting enough momentum to winning nomination.
Quote:
He'll be the one to go the distance for the GOP. When Rubio drops out he'll throw all of his support to Walker, which will give him the edge over Jeb. Rubio also will likely be Walker's veep choice.
There's really no other way this can play out if republicans want their best shot at winning the General election.
LOL Right now, that's my preferred ticket unless they can convince someone like Condi to agree.
Why would Rubio back Walker unless it means being VP?
Quote:
he makes Perry look like a statesman. It would require the Obama camp getting fully behind him to give him any traction. IMO, the only person Hillary is afraid of is Liz Warren.
I disagree. I really think the last 8 years have changed (or at least put enough space) the perception of Biden. I think he's much more salable to the public.
He's recently gotten a pass, and deserved IMHO, due to the death of his son. If he started making gaffes again, like telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up, it would go away quickly.
IMO, it's ridiculous beyond belief that people vote specifically based on gender (or race) but their is precedent, so might as well negate it.
to hit Sanders now would turn off liberal wing
which she needs during the election
to tack too far left would hurt her in the general election
meanwhile she is getting hit by 16 different Republican candidates who are sucking up all the media coverage .
she really can't do anything - but keep her head down -shake a lot of hands in iowa and NH and hope some random hit piece does not get legs and derails her nomination
I am not a big fan of Biden - would prefer Lizzy Warren or Al Gore
as far as Republicans .. it should be Jeb but damn he just doesn't have the charisma of GWB .. so the combination of being boring and the Bush name might hurt him enough to prevent his nomination
Walker has lead a charmed life - if the definition of charmed life is being the handed picked Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers so yes I think he continues his 'Charmed life"
The thing that people are forgetting is the RNC tweaked the Primary system the past few cycles - they front loaded winner take all contests - the idea is that it is best to avoid a long drawn out primary , settle on nominee and start to attack democratic nominee as soon as possible.
But the irony of this system is a guy like Trump could take all the early primaries and get a huge delegate lead - this would ensure a battle till convention or the nightmare scenario Trump actually getting enough momentum to winning nomination.
She's not in a tough position at all, though - not until the Presidential race begins anyway.
Sanders is a firebrand populist that is throwing the equivalent of legislative bombs at "the establishment", all of which have as much chance of going anywhere as I do with Kate Upton.
He's attracting the same crowd that came out for Dean in 04 (and all the other progressive candidates before him) - super liberal, super white, super Northeast voters that will make a moderately interesting story line if something happens in New Hampshire - until he gets to South Carolina, attracts 5% of the minority vote and gets crushed from there on out. The crowd that is spamming websites like Reddit right now to make Sanders seem more viable than he is was either a) not going to end up voting anyway or b) end of voting for Clinton at the end of the day anyway.
She has no reason to engage Sanders, as it almost makes him seem viable and there's nothing gained from it. He'll engage the progressive arm of the party, stir up some rhetoric and fade to obscurity in time for Clinton to sleepwalk to the nomination. He would not be on the short or long list of VP options, does not engage a portion of the party she needs or add any other kind of value. He's there to bang pots and pans and make noise while the Democrats slumber.
I have no real gut feel on the Republicans, but only really see Hillary being challenged if the DNC sees legitimate cracks forming when this moves to a national stage and will have to draw on a candidate that's not in the race right now (and likely have to make that call very soon). Biden is the obvious choice, but I still think Clinton stepping aside in 08 got her certain concessions (not to play conspiracy theorist, but I do think she has a large chunk of Obama's team working with her now)
Quote:
In comment 12402929 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
he makes Perry look like a statesman. It would require the Obama camp getting fully behind him to give him any traction. IMO, the only person Hillary is afraid of is Liz Warren.
I disagree. I really think the last 8 years have changed (or at least put enough space) the perception of Biden. I think he's much more salable to the public.
He's recently gotten a pass, and deserved IMHO, due to the death of his son. If he started making gaffes again, like telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up, it would go away quickly.
That is the stuff Hillary gets away with all the time. This media never, ever takes her to task. She never has to sweat something out; never is accountable for what she does/says. She's one tough lady and doesn't need the help. Let's she how she does under pressure, not that Joe is any REAL pressure.
Perry was a darling and folded, that is why I'm not fan.
I agree that Obama made a deal with Hillary .. everyone seems to forget the the Explainer in Chief who gave a masterful speech at Dem convention
and help pivot the 2012 election to Obama.
The Big Dog didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart.
IMO, it's ridiculous beyond belief that people vote specifically based on gender (or race) but their is precedent, so might as well negate it.
Of course, a year and a half from now no one will say that they voted for her because she's a woman. They'll insist it's a lie formulated by the people who hate her.
More than most governors, he ran on "jobs, jobs, jobs". Wisconsin has ranked 33rd in job creation during his tenure, and Walker missed his 250k new jobs target by >50%. More importantly, his jobs program was run thru the new Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a public-private hybrid that replace the state Dep't of Commerce. Walker installed himself as Chairman, so his fingerprints are all over it. The agency has had a lot of problems. Poor loan documentation, a terrible audit report that caused the CFO to abruptly quit, and 60% of disbursed funds have gone to Walker campaign donors. It has gotten bipartisan criticism. There may be a better side to that story, but it's not a good story no matter what.
My point is this: Walker is leading a charmed life as a GOP candidate (not WI governor). He gets a lot of credit for the red meat policies that conservatives like, with little evaluation of actual performance. His citizens appear to have soured on him (April WI poll: 41-58 approve/disapprove, 40-52 right/wrong direction, 39/59 favor/support Walker running for GOP nom). My belief is that compared to Bush, Perry, and Kasich, he has not been as successful in office.
When the PP videos came out she said she was appalled - and I believe she truly meant that.
Quote:
where did she say that stuff?
When the PP videos came out she said she was appalled - and I believe she truly meant that.
And then the handlers got to her.
Hillary Clinton recently sat down for a "Chair Chat" with the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, Jaime Harrison. During the interview, as in many of her speeches to people who live in the South, she put on a Southern accent that is absent from her speeches to Northerners.
We made a mashup of some of the most painfully pandering moments, and ranked the intensity of her accent with cowboy boots (1 = lowest, 5 = strongest).
Link - ( New Window )
Really? and has it removed her from the race? People with that much baggage don't normally survive, never mind remain the clear frontrunner to POTUS.
It's an odd comment. I dont really agree with the sentiment, but then again a lot of women I know have expressed the idea that they're pretty fed up with 70 year old men passing judgment on womens' health policy, when they have no idea what they're talking about.
Link - ( New Window )
That must be because they can't get contraception or abortions or mammograms or pap smears anywhere. The Dem men in Congress, regardless of age, do whatever the feminists tell them to do, so the argument is really silly.
Link - ( New Window )
So you're giving me the link I gave you? Thanks!
Comparatively speaking she gets little. Yes, there is criticism. But what would the press have done to a Republican who out and out refused to take a position on Keystone? Who flip-flops on Planned Parenthood. Who has all the other ethical, if not legal, issues involving the server etc.
If it were a Republican they would have to run across the airport tarmac because there WOULD be snipers.
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
Planned Parenthood, like politics, has a culture. You throw out the bunch at the top, they just get replaced with more of the same
Quote:
BTW - You can be pro-choice and highly critical of Planned Parenthood at the same time. But rather than defunding it, the demand would be to clean house with respect to the officers involved.
Planned Parenthood, like politics, has a culture. You throw out the bunch at the top, they just get replaced with more of the same
True.
I think that what this week has shown is that PP is more symbolic and money more than substance. They are not abortion but they are the metaphor for it. You could dissolve them and access and choices wouldn't be different but it serves as a focal point for debate.
Quote:
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
Bill Clinton was not the favorite going into 2000, Jimmy Carter was not favored in '76, George McGovern moved ahead on an Ed Muskie screwup in '72, for starters.
Dishonor!
Quote:
In comment 12402838 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
Honestly - how many upsets have we had in Primaries? Obama in 08'... I can't think of any others in recent memory.
Bill Clinton was not the favorite going into 2000, Jimmy Carter was not favored in '76, George McGovern moved ahead on an Ed Muskie screwup in '72, for starters.
Exactly. Rare.
LOL. Eleven Pres elections from '72 thru '12. In 3 of them, '80, '96 and '12 sitting Dem President ran for second terms. Of the other 8, in 4 the frontrunner won and in 4 the frontrunner lost. So 50% is "rare" in your book?
Quote:
I didn't look at your link and I had the other one already copied to give it as you were posting. I thought your link was to the text quote. Mea culpa and I will now cast my eyes downward in shame.
Dishonor!
:-)
Then why announce them? Why specify the rules you use to pick them and then tweak it because you don't like the results your getting?
Just say your having a debate and picking who you want instead of lying to people.
And what if the Dems had 17 people running?
Really looking forward to tonight. Last episode of the daily show too. Almost too much going on
Really looking forward to tonight. Last episode of the daily show too. Almost too much going on
whereas, if the field was narrowed down to 4, Trump probably would not benefit at all from consolidation, while whomever remains from (santorum,cruz, etc etc etc) most certainly would and would end up 80/20 over Trump.
Also, why the process has been turning out dreck like {bush/Clinton] for so long, the early going marginalizes those whose policy concept crosses the traditional barriers and party lines, while, those same might do well in the general by taking swing voters and 'non voting types'
Fair point. And to be honest, the last debate where I think substantive issues were discussed, and not just sound bited, was the Cheyney - Lieberman debate back in 2000.
For example, he always gives both sides strongly, and starts from a premise of that this discussion will be rationality based.
As opposed to say, Lou Dobbs, who seems to wear his 'culture' on his sleeve, which is irrelevant and might be alienating for many who could use to think about policy simply in a rational way without all the identity markers.
ironically, the libertarians might have a greater chance at building the big tent, if they were not facing up against the republican mainstream as well as against the democrats, which is a darn shame, to have any group face such a circle jerk as a way to avoid looking at policy concept on its own merits or otherwise.
Then why is Ben Carson doing so well?
making into an american idol type competition is great for revving up interests
but it sucks for democracy
It would have been fairer if they divided equally into two debates
with either draw names from a hat or just use polls and do an even/odd division
It could include both parties and be selected for the ability of candidates to drill down on policy in a way that is understandable and in the absence of demagoguery, generalizations and pandering.
Perhaps the audience could be selected for same, a variety of independent voters with varied and rational backgrounds, in the absence of party hacks on both sides.
Audience votes and millions donated by said wealthy to campaigns of winners of said votes.
This way you still get the 'circus' or entertainment factor but within the context of worthwhile debate.
Any candidates still using the said barred qualifying adjectives would get the "buzzer" sound and loose points.
making into an american idol type competition is great for revving up interests
but it sucks for democracy
It would have been fairer if they divided equally into two debates
with either draw names from a hat or just use polls and do an even/odd division
This is done all the time. And it is divided between 2 debates.
Quote:
Of criticizing who someone aka democrats vote based off race/gender when how much of the rights core would never vote for someone who isn't their religion/race/gender?
Then why is Ben Carson doing so well?
First off- Carson is doing OK. He's in 5th place.
Second off- the level of support he has does nothing to disprove what I said. The vast majority of people still aren't voting him, so the small sample size of those who support him doesn't disprove what I said. Plus, he still fits into the religious right narrative.
The Dem candidates are a bunch of old white people, so I would be throwing around the race card right about now.
The Dem candidates are a bunch of old white people, so I would be throwing around the race card right about now.
Again, your point that people are somehow misguided for voting due to race or gender when thats exactly what the republican base is doing with the extra special weight of religion thrown in there. If you somehow think republicans are more diverse, when the VAST majority of the republican base are white christian males, and the vast majority of republican politicians are the same is dumber then the normal dumb shit you post.
Political leanings by demographics - ( New Window )
How many black republicans have been elected to office?
BUT BEN CARSON!
There are 100 female congresswomen.
76 are democrats.
Do the math.
Since there is no convincing you that Republicans aren't racists and Democrats are the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'll say good bye.
But I thought Fiorina just kicked ass.
But I thought Fiorina just kicked ass.
I only caught part of it because I was out but from what I saw I would agree
I pointed out that criticizing anyone for voting due to gender or race is ironic since most of the Republican base votes for the race, gender and religion that matches theres.
Bufords response was "But Ben Carson!", and some nonsense about the democratic being all old white people.
I never said Republicans were racist, I said that being upset because people are voting based on race or gender are exactly what republicans do, with religion thrown in the mix.
But I thought Fiorina just kicked ass.
Yeah, she did really well. Everyone has been impressed.
I pointed out that criticizing anyone for voting due to gender or race is ironic since most of the Republican base votes for the race, gender and religion that matches theres.
Bufords response was "But Ben Carson!", and some nonsense about the democratic being all old white people.
I never said Republicans were racist, I said that being upset because people are voting based on race or gender are exactly what republicans do, with religion thrown in the mix.
Please spare me. What you said was a poorly veiled charge of racism. At least own up to it.
I pointed out that criticizing anyone for voting due to gender or race is ironic since most of the Republican base votes for the race, gender and religion that matches theres.
Bufords response was "But Ben Carson!", and some nonsense about the democratic being all old white people.
I never said Republicans were racist, I said that being upset because people are voting based on race or gender are exactly what republicans do, with religion thrown in the mix.
There are all kinds of groups that vote based largely on something personal to them on both sides of the isle. It is silly and pointless for either side to point fingers or complain about it.
Quote:
did I say anyone was racist or any party was racist?
I pointed out that criticizing anyone for voting due to gender or race is ironic since most of the Republican base votes for the race, gender and religion that matches theres.
Bufords response was "But Ben Carson!", and some nonsense about the democratic being all old white people.
I never said Republicans were racist, I said that being upset because people are voting based on race or gender are exactly what republicans do, with religion thrown in the mix.
There are all kinds of groups that vote based largely on something personal to them on both sides of the isle. It is silly and pointless for either side to point fingers or complain about it.
Which is precisely my point.
Quote:
did I say anyone was racist or any party was racist?
I pointed out that criticizing anyone for voting due to gender or race is ironic since most of the Republican base votes for the race, gender and religion that matches theres.
Bufords response was "But Ben Carson!", and some nonsense about the democratic being all old white people.
I never said Republicans were racist, I said that being upset because people are voting based on race or gender are exactly what republicans do, with religion thrown in the mix.
Please spare me. What you said was a poorly veiled charge of racism. At least own up to it.
There is nothing veiled about anything I say. For example, you, at best, are a moron.
I don't think he meant it as a compliment
Well, he's got Brett's vote.
it keeps them from thinking how awful Hillary is.
What makes you think that mother's don't have equal protection under the law?
Quote:
?
What makes you think that mother's don't have equal protection under the law?
Based on that response, sounds like only unborn fetuses have the right to due process and not GROWN ASS WOMEN
trump is an embarrassment.
Quote:
In comment 12405824 Anakim said:
Quote:
?
What makes you think that mother's don't have equal protection under the law?
Based on that response, sounds like only unborn fetuses have the right to due process and not GROWN ASS WOMEN
I don't think that is what he said at all. But I don't care because I hate Huckabee.
Of,course on tv it always bugs the shit out of me when prosecution and defense go get sloshed at bars together and then jump in the sack.. Like they don't believe they know their day job is all bs
I think your right
really impressed with both.
But they are coming in from Mexico and the Mexican government is complicit in it (and yes, so is ours).
â€@Rosie
try explaining that 2 ur kids
Christie: boldly not apologizing for protecting the lives of Americans, hypothetically.
FOX NEWS!!!!
I don't know if he would be a good president, but he's no chump.
he just said as much, lol.
I think they've decided to go for giggles and forget the bland folks
Quote:
Do GOPers really believe he would be a good president? Electability aside, isnt he clearly a chump? He's no more fit to be president than Trump
I don't know if he would be a good president, but he's no chump.
Agree on that.
Trump's answer was a home run to a tough question.
He sounds like an idiot IMO.
Too bad he's such a religious whacko.
I think he does...and he'd probably respond with we should do whatever needs to be done
Quote:
.
He sounds like an idiot IMO.
Well he's a buffoon, but his basic premises are correct.
Quote:
In comment 12405904 buford said:
Quote:
.
He sounds like an idiot IMO.
Well he's a buffoon, but his basic premises are correct.
He needs to polish his answers, but I like the jist of what he says.
His answer to every questions should be 'It's not brain surgery. I've done that, so I can do this'.
Anyone who heard that understood that he called all democratic voters stupid.
Bush's 4% growth plan is pretty fantastical. It's a real problem.
Quote:
Carson was electable. He basically just called democrats stupid, but he did so in a way most of them didn't understand he did it.
Anyone who heard that understood that he called all democratic voters stupid.
Bush's 4% growth plan is pretty fantastical. It's a real problem.
Well it was sort of eloquent
Pimps!
Marco Rubio is easily relatable.
Just can't agree with. Bush on almost everything
Trump is absolutely right. And A/C in particular is tough to criticize him on.
There was, but it was drowned out by the mods when they went for the break.
Like when Cheney supported gay rights because he had a gay kid. Empathy, GOP style.
I think those 3 have been by far the most impressive.
Trump 7:32
Bush 5:42
Huck 4:50
Christie 4:33
Rubio 4:01
Carson 3:35
Crz 3:27
Kasich 3:25
Walker 3:16
Paul 2:52
Quote:
but Dr. Carson just isnt ready for prime time.
agree.
Smaller government!!!!! HOOZAH!
Quote:
I mean his brother had God on speed dial
i think we all do.
I'm a deist. I don't think God and I are on the same wavelength.
Quote:
In comment 12406018 Anakim said:
Quote:
I mean his brother had God on speed dial
i think we all do.
I'm a deist. I don't think God and I are on the same wavelength.
Yup, that was great.
Harley (motorcycle).
lol, that's what I heard too.
He struck me as a soft spoken egomaniac.
Did you know that he is a surgeon?
Quote:
.
Harley (motorcycle).
he looks like he's doing the fat guy in a little coat farley scene from Tommy Boy.
People in the group thought that would be a major issue, especially if he runs as an independent.
Al Gore won the populate vote against the Bush machine.
Quote:
Al Gore (in style and substance), I hope he's not the Republican candidate.
Al Gore won the populate vote against the Bush machine.
yeah, if Al Gore weren't so robotic and plain in the debates he would have won the electoral vote too.
I have no idea what Ben Carson is doing up there. He comes off like he won a sweepstakes to become a presidential candidate.
Christie seemed surprisingly uncomfortable up there.
The last question about God was ridiculous.
Quote:
In comment 12406055 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
Al Gore (in style and substance), I hope he's not the Republican candidate.
Al Gore won the populate vote against the Bush machine.
yeah, if Al Gore weren't so robotic and plain in the debates he would have won the electoral vote too.
LOL yeah remember when he walked across the stage and got real close to Bush and stared weirdly right in his face, and Bush stopped looked at him with kind of a double take and nodded and said hello?
Rubio and Fiorina helped themselves.
Huckabee is a natural at this but not really electable. But he did well.
Cruz will pick up Trump defectors, but he's too divisive.
Bush and Walker were blah.
Carson nice finish but he's not presidential.
Christie had a good night but isn't going to win the party's nomination.
Paul hurt himself.
BTW, kudos to FOX moderators for exceptionally tough questions all around.
Bush seemed nervous too. He had some good answers but he's not terribly charismatic and that matters to voters in the media age.
BTW, kudos to FOX moderators for exceptionally tough questions all around.
yes, this started out looking like a complete circus but I thought the moderators did a good job under the circumstances.
It's not a Pro Choice/Pro Life issue. It's a legal issue. Planned Parenthood is breaking federal law.
Eric I'm curious which federal law are they breaking? they are not spending federal money on abortions.
He did it again tonight.
I think it will catch up to him.
People who support him now are really pissed off at career politicians. My guess is Fiorina will get much of his support eventually. Cruz too (though his problem is he is part of the system).
I know many will disagree with me, but we're better than that. And the history books won't be kind. That's the kind of shit the Nazis did.
(1) Trump may hand HRC the election.
(2) Republicans are feeding into the "war on women" narrative (this still can't figure out how to handle that).
I know many will disagree with me, but we're better than that. And the history books won't be kind. That's the kind of shit the Nazis did.
Yeah. Like Frankenbaby.
Anyone know wtf Eric is talking about?
my concerned troll debate scores
Up: Trump, Kasich, Rubio
neutral Huckabee ,walker, Christie,
Down: Paul, Cruz, Carson, , Bush
I thought he was the clear cut loser tonight.
Again, I'm Pro Choice. Always have been. I don't see this is as an abortion issue.
he was unfairly attacked by fox news team but managed to respond quite pithy to most of the attacks
as far as two front runners
Jeb was just awkward ...Walker was forgetable
Going to be interesting to see who moved the dial after the debates
I actually would put Christie in Up section .. he had a bit of energy that the others lacked
Kasich was winner of the 9pm bout and Fiorina on the undercard. Loved Ben Carson last couple swings. Christie v. Paul on nsa was very mr. Smith goes to Washington. You like Christies presence, but Rand's principles. One of them was presidential - I thought Christie looked good and while the Obama hug comment was good, if he mentioned the jones hug we'd be talking about President-Elect Paul.
Brain dump. Evenin folks
(2) Candidates who start rattling off their accomplishments sound like the parents in "Peanuts". That's why Ben Carson's close worked. I get it...some of these candidates are not well known (especially Kasich and Fiorina...and Bush is trying to see his "conservativeness"), but audience tunes that out.
"Tough." "Brilliant." "Pitbulls." The raves for Fox's questioning started right away and continued well into the evening, even from rivals and critics who rarely praise the cable news channel.
Austan Goolsbee, a former member of President Obama's cabinet, gave Fox credit this way: "If they were treating the Dems like this, I would have said they were gratuitously busting their chops," he tweeted.
CNN: Fox moderators get applause for tough debate questions - ( New Window )
I feel like Walker was the big loser tonight. He was just so damn forgettable and irrelevant up there. This was his chance to really separate himself from the field but he might have missed his window at the Presidency with the lackluster performance he put out tonight. Rubio and Kasich were both so much better than him tonight, wouldn't be surprised if both of them overtook him in the pools soon especially Rubio.
Donald Trump 48.27%
Jeb Bush 3.99%
Scott Walker 1.04%
Ben Carson 11.55%
Mike Huckabee 3.41%
Ted Cruz 5.11%
Marco Rubio 9.84%
Rand Paul 5.34%
Chris Christie 2.46%
John Kasich 8.99%
Link - ( New Window )
Donald Trump 48.27%
Jeb Bush 3.99%
Scott Walker 1.04%
Ben Carson 11.55%
Mike Huckabee 3.41%
Ted Cruz 5.11%
Marco Rubio 9.84%
Rand Paul 5.34%
Chris Christie 2.46%
John Kasich 8.99% Link - ( New Window )
I'd expect Trump to win any internet poll like this, but the margin of victory is still pretty impressive.
Donald Trump 48.27%
Jeb Bush 3.99%
Scott Walker 1.04%
Ben Carson 11.55%
Mike Huckabee 3.41%
Ted Cruz 5.11%
Marco Rubio 9.84%
Rand Paul 5.34%
Chris Christie 2.46%
John Kasich 8.99% Link - ( New Window )
I'd expect Trump to win any internet poll like this, but the margin of victory is still pretty impressive.
Carson - out of place.
tough questions, some good but several seemed juvenile attempts to instigate silly battles between candidates
Paul was honest but lost except to the Libertarians - also looked childish re: hugging Obama comment.
except for abortion question - Walker did not do that bad.
Bush struggles unnecessarily with questions
Huckabee will have good quotes but has no shot. (oven comment the other day was n ot one of them).
Kasich did fairly well, may not be rabid enough to win the nomination.
Christie did ok. Won't win though.
The moderators were plainly trying to sink Trump.
Every candidate up there pledged to support Trump if he is the GOP nominee. Everyone but Trump pledge to support Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Carson, and Pataki. Think about that. That was some real thoughtless answering by them, IMO.
Rand Paul (2946 Votes)5%
Jeb Bush (2960 Votes)5%
Ben Carson (6344 Votes)11%
Chris Christie (1599 Votes)3%
Ted Cruz (2760 Votes)5%
Mike Huckabee (1594 Votes)3%
John Kasich (5068 Votes)9%
Marco Rubio (5669 Votes)10%
Donald Trump (25938 Votes)47%
Scott Walker(739 Votes)1%
Time.com - ( New Window )
2. After a rather mediocre performance on Monday in New Hampshire Kasich did quite well. Unfortunately it may be overlooked due to the Trump kerfluffle.
3. Also underplayed was the debate between Christie and Huckabee about entitlements. A KEY issue for this country for the next 20 years, but because they were gentlemen and stuck to those tricky things called facts it didn't get much play. If only a greater part of these debates were spent on discussions and issues like this.
4. Marco Rubio did well. Not well enough to separate himself from the pack, but enough to keep himself in any debate that includes the Top 6 candidates.
5. Walker didn't help himself but didn't destroy himself either.
6. Cruz locked up the current Cruz supporters, but I don't thing he expanded his base of support.
7. Carson had the line of the night at the end with his "brain" joke, but didn't expand his base of support.
8. Paul kept his libertarian base but added nothing to his group of supporters. Probably the loser of the debate.
9. Only Trump was more of a target of the mods than Bush. He did OK, but he did it quietly. Not a win but not a loss.
FACT OF THE NIGHT - I was shocked when the mods brought up the fact that the head of the Iranian QUDS force, Soliemanei, supposedly on the UN and Iran treaty sanctions list, had flown to Moscow this week to meet with the Russians. So what this means is that Russia has already violated the treaty and sanctions regime even before it is ratified.
trump is basically sealing the deal for HRC as oresident. he sounds like a f'n gorilla. had no answers. just blame everything on washington. made fun of his competitors.
I always thought many of the Republican candidates were laughing stocks now I realize it their voters. if you want to win presidency you don't vote for a guy who is pro HRC.
The moderators were plainly trying to sink Trump.
Every candidate up there pledged to support Trump if he is the GOP nominee. Everyone but Trump pledge to support Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Carson, and Pataki. Think about that. That was some real thoughtless answering by them, IMO.
Who would you have them support otherwise?
I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.
One part that really turned me off was not really about what went on in the debate last night, but it was in one of their descriptions of Trump where they said:
We've all read or heard the quote by Trump and I think that this an absolutely unfair and dishonest depiction of what he actually said. I am not a Trump fan but this is a very disreputable statement bu the AP, IMO.
Quote:
From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?
I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.
It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.
I say Rand Paul or Huckabee. Neither of them have a chance.
When Rubio first came on the scene a few years ago I immediately circled him as a bigtime threat going forward, gun to my head I'd have told you he is going to be president one day. His star had fallen off a little in my view since that time starting from that water bottle incident moving forward, but last night he reminded me why I respected him so much from a potential standpoint.
I thought Cruz helped himself too, gotta be honest though he's the one is love to most punch in the face. Something about Ted Cruz perpetually annoys the shit out of me and I find his face highly punch able. He is central casting if you're looking for a guy who just screams douchebag
Ben Carson handled himself better than I anticipated and his closing statement was very good
Jen Bush did nothing to help himself, is wholly uninspiring and a complete paper tiger. Last night really convinced me he doesn't have what it takes in this field to rise to the top
Scott Walker gives a lot of hardcore right wingers instant boners, but I don't think others get quite as excited by his bland presence.
Rand Paul was just swinging aimlessly and I don't think he connected. I give Christie the edge in their little head to head.
Kasich is my favorite republican, but I don't think he can win
Very fun watching last night. Tough to live up to the hype but I think it did
One part that really turned me off was not really about what went on in the debate last night, but it was in one of their descriptions of Trump where they said:
Quote:
Trump in particular has pushed the issue of immigration throughout the summer, drawing criticism for saying Mexican immigrants are rapists. He said Thursday that he had been told that by border patrol agents, and he took credit for immigration being an issue in the campaign.
(emphasis is mine)
We've all read or heard the quote by Trump and I think that this an absolutely unfair and dishonest depiction of what he actually said. I am not a Trump fan but this is a very disreputable statement bu the AP, IMO.
Except he actually said it. But yeah it's so unfair.
Quote:
In comment 12406333 njm said:
Quote:
From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?
I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.
It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.
I have a really hard time looking past it. She was arguably the worst CEO of all time. Her inability to navigate board politics is a huge strike against her given the nature of most boards - particularly since she made the wrong decision.
I think people can look past it, though, so I'm really just speaking for myself.
I've said multiple times that for all his flaws as an actual politician, Romney had an excellent 'paper resume' - high-quality business experience in addition to governing experience (which I value more highly).
Quote:
In comment 12406399 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
In comment 12406333 njm said:
Quote:
From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?
I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.
It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.
I have a really hard time looking past it. She was arguably the worst CEO of all time. Her inability to navigate board politics is a huge strike against her given the nature of most boards - particularly since she made the wrong decision.
I think people can look past it, though, so I'm really just speaking for myself.
I've said multiple times that for all his flaws as an actual politician, Romney had an excellent 'paper resume' - high-quality business experience in addition to governing experience (which I value more highly).
I can understand that. But sometimes people learn from their mistakes. I would like to see her debate with the top group and be able to flesh out her ideas. She has impressed almost everyone I know that has seen/heard her. And I'd love to see her debate Hillary!
Ken Lay?
For that matter, Harry Truman may have been the worst haberdasher of all time.
It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.
Her explanation that I've seen her give is that she got caught up in "board room brawl" that lasted a few weeks, and other people were bad guys who leaked info and she issued an ultimatum over that. Good story -- Carly comes off real good, upstanding, not even like a real firing. But its also complete, utter bullshit. Just false words. She did a bad job, sunk the stock and got fired; and when she was fired, the shareholders celebrated. The board was meeting for months about her shitty performance. Dont take my word for it -- read Bloomberg's 2005 post-mortem (good business source, and before all the politics could bias it).
I can make myself sound good if I lie about shit too. Did you know that I cured cancer? This isnt a little lie either -- her time at HP is her big accomplishment. She's done nothing for 15 years except get fired from HP, get fired from the McCain campaign, and lose an off-year Senate campaign by 10 points.
Bloomberg's 2005 blow-by-blow of her ouster from HP - ( New Window )
but maybe HP was her Cleveland Browns (equating her to Belichick).
She was kind of pioneering as a woman leader in fortune 50 company. And while I thought it was a bad idea, the Compaq merger was ballsy if nothing else.
If you want a female business leader I could support it's more Meg Whitman former eBay CEO (took them from startup to powerhouse) and now ironically head of HP.
And I just remembered, post-Goldman Jon Corzine.
"And some, I assume, are good people." (Just thought I would finish it for you).
And you should realize that the context is a discussion on illegal aliens.
I think it's a propaganda trick, but just in case it is not, you should know that people, Mexican or otherwise, enter the country through both legal and illegal means. While "immigrants" is used to obfuscate that, they are two separate things. No Republican, to my knowledge, has come out against legal immigration. More to the point, Trump specifically has said very positive things about Mexicans who have entered into the country legally.
SO, no, he did not say that Mexican immigrants are rapists. And, it is unfair of a news organization to claim that he did.
Seriously?? He called them rapists. Keep defending him all you want. It's not worth my time debating a clown like you.
I'd give my left nut for a President who from 1/20/2017 - 1/20/2021 would have a record on foreign policy as good as Bush 41s. I disagree about some of you other characterizations, but this one stood out. And when you dig down and look closely, Reagan's tax record is very different than that tired talking point. Point in fact, how many times did Reagan raise rates?
As governor, he instituted the largest tax increase by any state in history and doubled state spending.
If Ronald Reagan was running in the 2016 primary on his actual record (including amnesty, INF treaty with Russia, veto of the anti-apartheid bill, lack of response to the barracks bombing), he would not have made it to the big boy debate last night.
First of all I'm a registered Independent because:
a) I don't want to get 3 phone calls a night asking for money, and
b) I've heard Rick Santorum speak
And with respect to foreign policy I don't think anything near a majority consider Bush 41 a placeholder. And respect for that has slowly grown over the last 23 years. And another 25 years from now, I'll bet he's remembered very kindly by serious historians.
Im on the records as a fan of his. But that's my take.