Anyone watching? Interested? Obviously this is a two person debate tonight with 3 others joining. Curious to see HC take on the TPP questions. I am sure her emails/Benghazi will be brought up ad nausum, but the TPP has me interested.
Actually watching the Canadian debates, the Republican ones were rather embarrassing in comparison.
It seems that Sanders and Clinton at least have agreed on staying substantive. I guess some would see that as disappointing as banning fighting in hockey.
She has had a brutal 4 months because of the email issue. That and her lurch to the left/departure from Obama on some issues are the only things you've really heard about her since mid-summer. She needs tonight to seize the mojo back IMO. Otherwise there will be a call for some people to get in the race. Particularly from the governor ranks. Probably too late though.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I do wish that this was more of a contest. I think the competition is a good thing. Im not all that convinced that she's good at electoral politics.
a love fest.
No controversy, softball questions.
JB needs to toss his hat in so it goes from a sublime to a ridiculous debate.
Then, to quote JB: it'll be 'a big f*n deal'.
trying her latest weekly spin to see if it resonates.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
be substantive? I don't know if I've ever heard he directly answer a question about the issues without using misdirection, subterfuge or downright deceit.
If anything marks her past, it is an intentional avoidance of substance.
trying her latest weekly spin to see if it resonates.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Especially she'll harp on that silly notion on Benghazi being a Republican plot to get her. LOL.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
I think that issue might not only go away, unless the FBI finds something substantial, it might actually work to her advantage with people who are inclined to like her. McCarthy gave her the greatest gift when he told the truth about the Bengazi hearings. The people who see Bengazi as Hilary deliberately withholding security from the staff there would never have voted for her anyway. But, between McCarthy and the Republican intelligence guy yesterday who spoke of what is basically a witch hunt now feeds into the Clinton line that this is all political and there could be a backlash in her direction at least among moderates and liberals.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious Â
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
It's almost like we never ever watched Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Chuck Todd interview or moderate.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Since CNN is on the left leaning side of the media, do you expect them to ask HRC about the other 28,000 emails that weren't returned because they were personal. She kept telling Chuch Todd of NBC she was vindicated because 1500 were deemed to be personal.
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
Yeah, his accomplishments include crazy tax cuts for the rich.... Because they will "trickle it down" to the poor right? Please. Jeb might be a bigger joke than his brother was. We don't need another Bush. We don't need another war. We don't need any of the Republican candidates. More money for the rich at the expense of the poor - ( New Window )
to catapult themselves to at least the second tier. I'm not holding my breath, but I really want to see a mainstream Democrat alternative (yes I realize Webb is probably not a mainstream Democrat, at least not in perception).
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
I'd say her biggest accomplishment as Sec of State was getting Russia and China to agree to the harshest sanctions on Iran to date.
Whatever you think of the deal they struck, the only reason there was a deal at all was because Iran came crawling to the table to get the sanctions lifted.
A pretty big deal, IMO.
RE: RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious Â
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama’s national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change Â
than most of the right would give her credit for being, but if she is going to "own" her tenure we also have to acknowledge that the Middle East started going to shit at the end of her run and that any good we got out of Russia was dwarfed by the bad over the last seven years. But of course she hasn't figured out whether she wants to run in part on her tenure or to run from it.
RE: RE: RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious Â
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama’s national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
Notwithstanding the irony that this was also what happened wrt WMD in Iraq, there has been lots of reports that Intelligence knew at the time (and relayed the info) that it was an organized terror attack.
RE: RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change Â
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change Â
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
Rubio is a steaming turd. There is nothing "smart" about that pick at all. Now with the Tea Party running the Republican party currently we can pretty much agree that some "not so smart" decisions were made by Republican "leaders". LOL
And lower ratings.
Go figure.
It seems that Sanders and Clinton at least have agreed on staying substantive. I guess some would see that as disappointing as banning fighting in hockey.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I do wish that this was more of a contest. I think the competition is a good thing. Im not all that convinced that she's good at electoral politics.
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
Agreed. The fact that you are wrong has nothing to do with the fact that you are partisan.
No controversy, softball questions.
JB needs to toss his hat in so it goes from a sublime to a ridiculous debate.
Then, to quote JB: it'll be 'a big f*n deal'.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
If anything marks her past, it is an intentional avoidance of substance.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Especially she'll harp on that silly notion on Benghazi being a Republican plot to get her. LOL.
Ooops...
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12547237 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Quote:
In comment 12547237 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Since CNN is on the left leaning side of the media, do you expect them to ask HRC about the other 28,000 emails that weren't returned because they were personal. She kept telling Chuch Todd of NBC she was vindicated because 1500 were deemed to be personal.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
Yeah, his accomplishments include crazy tax cuts for the rich.... Because they will "trickle it down" to the poor right? Please. Jeb might be a bigger joke than his brother was. We don't need another Bush. We don't need another war. We don't need any of the Republican candidates.
More money for the rich at the expense of the poor - ( New Window )
I'm squarely in Bernie's corner myself.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
I'd say her biggest accomplishment as Sec of State was getting Russia and China to agree to the harshest sanctions on Iran to date.
Whatever you think of the deal they struck, the only reason there was a deal at all was because Iran came crawling to the table to get the sanctions lifted.
A pretty big deal, IMO.
Quote:
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
Quote:
In comment 12547251 Deej said:
Quote:
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama’s national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12547271 Deej said:
Quote:
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
Back 2 back Obama - ( New Window )
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner.
Link - ( New Window )
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Quote:
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
Rubio is a steaming turd. There is nothing "smart" about that pick at all. Now with the Tea Party running the Republican party currently we can pretty much agree that some "not so smart" decisions were made by Republican "leaders". LOL