HuskerNation1

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt?

Friend, I say this out of respect, because I think you're a smart guy and I don't want to see you taken in by people who are basically carnies going after rubes. You need to do your homework on Fox News. I mean really dig into it. There isn't a 1-1 comparison to be had with any other media organization when you combine their influence, their message, and their control over the Republican party and platform. MSNBC has a liberal slant, there's no question. I don't watch it, but I'm savvy enough to realize they are basically running a lefty version of Fox but without anywhere close to the same suction in the DNC. And Fox can be conservative––that's fine. But their pretense of "Fair and Balanced" is not only absurd, it's downright sinister. When they have "experts" on to debate "both sides" of the climate change "debate," for one example, what is happening before your eyes is a kind of game––a play at moderation. It's not real. There is ample evidence out there that lays out in excruciating detail how Roger Ailes runs that organization. If you want me to lay out my problems with Obama, I'm happy to. Hillary I have less to say about because 1) she has only started to unveil her platform (and this isn't some dark ploy; she realizes that there is a long-term advantage in staying away from media early in the race), and 2) she's not the candidate I intend to support. But if someone says she hasn't accomplished anything––which is a Limbaugh talking point, by the way––it comes across as disingenuous. I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party. Wow, I thought you were in left field, but claiming that there is no other media bias like you feel there is at Fox is probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say so far. I'm not disputing there is bias on Fox, but the bias is just bad on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. There are countless studies that have been done about the number of positive and negative stories about Presidential candidates both in 2008 and 2012, and when you looked at the evening news for ABC, CBS, and NBC, Obama had far more positive stories and minutes spent on him, while the GOP candidate had more negative and less positive coverage. I don't have time to provide all the links now but will tomorrow evening when I have more time. I do work in the day in order to provide plenty of tax dollars to pay for all the social redistribution programs that you and the Bern are seeking.

You said wildly popular. You're walking that back now to just "popular." I don't blame you for that . . . it's probably your best option at this point. Please refer back to post #53 and review where I did or did not put limitations on my approval number. If you don't see any limitations please don't try to act like your own preferences are relevant. What? Umm...try post 71 where you suggested i was providing inaccurate info about PP and was cherry picking the data. I was actually reading into the data more than just a headline, and providing a source that showed the methodology behind the data. It takes much more than reading a quick headline to obtain meaningful analysis. So again, you implied that PP is still popular and not struggling because of these videos and I asked the question of how many respondents in the numbers you are citing actually know about these videos. Also, as a general question, do you find these videos disturbing, why or why not?

That's not what you stated. You said that he was wildly popular. Now you're walking that back. It's not a stretch at all. You definitely stated that my 45% number was wrong and that the correct number was 37%. That was not correct. Again, Walker's numbers may have fallen a bit now, but he has been doing very well in Wisconsin which is a very progressive state, and you continue to want to dismiss the fact that I said other candidates are also popular in their states. I'll take your silence on those as admission it's true. Also, you failed to answer my question about the poll you cited. Did it include any data on whether the respondents included in the survey knew about the PP videos. That is a telling part of the debate, and ignoring that fact is foolish. It's so funny to hear you and HuskerX attack Fox News as the only source anyone arguing against your points is getting their news, and then suggest that the the NY Times, Huff Post, MSNBC, and many other media outlets are not biased. There is bias all around. I frankly can't stand Rush Limbaugh and never have listened to more than 5 minutes of his program. I also don't agree with many extremists on the right, just as I don't on the left. You tend to walk in stride with any of the standard DNC/leftists talking points, and have yet to show any manner in which you are moderate or willing to take a stand against Hillary or Obama, and thus, any posts you make on here will show your bias.

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook. Well, this will be the first time in a long time that the GOP candidate has the ability to go on the offensive on the abortion/PP topic. There is no way to justify or show support of those videos and the reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn. If you really think that it plays to the Dems advantage to have to support this, you must be living on Mars. In past years they could get by with the faux "war on women" argument, but the actual video evidence is going to make this difficult. They will argue that PP offers other services which is why they will still support it, but they must also condemn the reality of what PP is doing with these abortions, and if they don't, it will be a negative issue for the Dem candidate. Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because pictures of aborted fetuses have been going around for decades as a tool to convince people to be pro life. I don't really think the videos are going to move the dial, or have moved the dial, as much as you think. I'm 37 here, and pictures do little compared to the power of these disgusting videos. I just posted this link in another thread, but will repost here as it shows the perspective of just one person (and i know it's just one guys opinion) on how the videos have caused him to re-think his pro-choice views. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html Ummmmm.....OK. What proof do you have that the guy is telling the truth about how his views have changed and he really isn't a planted actor acting out the part for a propaganda article? Well the guy has blasted Lou Dobbs and other Conservatives over their immigration stance, just posted an article in the last week about how sanctuary cities are a myth (see link) and about who Hillary should pic as a VP, and an article attacking Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. But you are right...he's some right-wing propagandist. LOL. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/03/exploding-the-myth-of-sanctuary-cities.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/27/jeb-and-walker-immigration-double-talk.html

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something. BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue. The ONLY reason why gay marriage, abortion...etc are even discussed is because the politicians want it discussed to solidify their base and eat up talking time to not have to discuss meaningful topics. Neither of them should even be a political issue. That's how meaningless the discussion is. I agree that these social issues play more in the primary process, with the left pushing gay marriage and pro-abortion agendas, and the right doing the opposite. When it comes to the general election, economic and foreign policy issues become front and center, but I would never diminish the importance of these social issues in driving turnout on either side. If a GOP candidate is very outspoken against gay marriage, you will see the Democratic candidate trying to use that as a way to fire up the base, and vise versa. Ummm....you basically proved my point. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the actual validity of either side's argument on these moral/social issues. It had everything to do with voter turnout...etc. That's all these people care about. The Republicans don't actually give a flying rip about reducing the number of abortions and the Democrats don't actually give a flip bout reducing the number of desperate women who turn to these services in dire need of help. Both groups are important voting blocks. If one goes away, that reduces the number of votes for one side. I think its disingenuine to suggest that many candidates running do not care about these social issues. You could say they don't care about any of the issues for that matter. While there are many politicians that are power hungry, I do feel there are many that feel they can truly make a difference in policy matters (social or economic) facing this nation. To suggest that many GOP candidates running are not truly upset by the PP videos (for example) is a stretch.

What's the DNC equivalent of Trumpmentum? I would say that Joe Biden is the Democratic equivalent of Trump...both blabber their mouths too much and get themselves in trouble. Perhaps that is why Trump wants Joe in the race.

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Well for started, only 37% have a favorable opinion of PP, and in this recent poll, 53% of respondents had yet to see the disgusting videos, which would raise that unfavorable rating significantly. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here's the poll I was looking at. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-public-views-planned-parenthood-nra-n403451 It's more recent than your link. Feel free to cherry pick however you want . . . but you're not going to have much credibility if you keep providing inaccurate information like you did about Walker and now PP. So for Walker, he's been up and down as I stated, and you can continue to harp on that, but the other polls I have provided are recent and accurate of what I was sharing about Kasich and Perry. Also, the poll i just cited was within 3 days of the poll you cited, so it's a stretch to claim that there is no credibility there. Did the NBC poll you cited state how many of hte respondents had seen the PP videos? If not, that is not telling the full story here.

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook. Well, this will be the first time in a long time that the GOP candidate has the ability to go on the offensive on the abortion/PP topic. There is no way to justify or show support of those videos and the reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn. If you really think that it plays to the Dems advantage to have to support this, you must be living on Mars. In past years they could get by with the faux "war on women" argument, but the actual video evidence is going to make this difficult. They will argue that PP offers other services which is why they will still support it, but they must also condemn the reality of what PP is doing with these abortions, and if they don't, it will be a negative issue for the Dem candidate. Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because pictures of aborted fetuses have been going around for decades as a tool to convince people to be pro life. I don't really think the videos are going to move the dial, or have moved the dial, as much as you think. I'm 37 here, and pictures do little compared to the power of these disgusting videos. I just posted this link in another thread, but will repost here as it shows the perspective of just one person (and i know it's just one guys opinion) on how the videos have caused him to re-think his pro-choice views. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something. BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue. The ONLY reason why gay marriage, abortion...etc are even discussed is because the politicians want it discussed to solidify their base and eat up talking time to not have to discuss meaningful topics. Neither of them should even be a political issue. That's how meaningless the discussion is. I agree that these social issues play more in the primary process, with the left pushing gay marriage and pro-abortion agendas, and the right doing the opposite. When it comes to the general election, economic and foreign policy issues become front and center, but I would never diminish the importance of these social issues in driving turnout on either side. If a GOP candidate is very outspoken against gay marriage, you will see the Democratic candidate trying to use that as a way to fire up the base, and vise versa.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. Exactly. The only way it works is if Trump becomes the actual nominee, which I don't see happening as more and more understand that the Donald is really a Democrat based upon his many past liberal views. Maybe he will switch soon and run on the Democratic side.

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Well for started, only 37% have a favorable opinion of PP, and in this recent poll, 53% of respondents had yet to see the disgusting videos, which would raise that unfavorable rating significantly. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Also, here is a well written article discussing the changing dialogue on abortion in general following the PP videos. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook. Well, this will be the first time in a long time that the GOP candidate has the ability to go on the offensive on the abortion/PP topic. There is no way to justify or show support of those videos and the reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn. If you really think that it plays to the Dems advantage to have to support this, you must be living on Mars. In past years they could get by with the faux "war on women" argument, but the actual video evidence is going to make this difficult. They will argue that PP offers other services which is why they will still support it, but they must also condemn the reality of what PP is doing with these abortions, and if they don't, it will be a negative issue for the Dem candidate.

Oh. Do you deny that Bush lied about the existence of intelligence supporting his claims about Iraq's WMD program? That should be a "yes" or "no" question. No, I don't think Bush lied or misled the country. He is a stand-up guy and under no circumstance do I believe he would make up intelligence, or know that intelligence was made up, to support going to war. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there who suggest otherwise. As for Walker, his poll numbers have hovered above and below 50%, and given he's taken a hard stand against unions, he's had the entire DNC attacking him on multiple occasions. I live near the Wisconsin border, have friends (who aren't political) and co-workers that are not GOP-bots who continue to praise what he has done for their state. Again, Wisconsin is one of the homes of the Progressive movement, and the fact alone he's been able to win 3 elections statewide is telling. Now, time for you to answer some questions which you seem to want to avoid. 1. Do you see any wrongdoing on Hillary's part with Benghazi, and what other criticisms do you have of her. I have called out many GOP politicians throughout this dialogue. 2. Which candidate are you currently supporting and why? 3. Do you have any concerns that none of the Democratic candidates have criticized Planned Parenthood?

That's because you don't understand that the basis for your entire premise is an opinion and not a fact. PP provides 330,000 abortions annually. 51% of their revenue comes from abortions. PP is by far the largest provider of abortions in the US. Over 90% of pregnant women who go there, go there for an abortion. Those facts are my premise. What "opinion" are you having trouble with? That I feel it is wrong to kill a living being? That there are other suitable Healthcare providers that could provide worthwhile women's services without their primary function being to abort babies? What is so hard to figure out here? JJhusker-While the country is moving left in terms of gay marriage, it's moving to the right on the abortion issue. The pro-choice movement had a decent gap of support in terms of the abortion topic, but most polls I've seen lately it's a 50/50 split, and when it comes to Partial Birth abortion, the number supporting a ban now outweighs the number against it. This is an issue where science and the ability to see more of a baby along the way will show the barbaric nature of what is actually happening. Any parent who has heard the first heartbeat, or has seen the baby with its head, fingers, toes, etc...kicking and moving, knows there is a human inside. And with medical advances allowing babies to survive at the 18-20 week mark, it will become more and more difficult for the pro-abortion/choice crowd to justify the crushing of a life inside. These videos and the refusal of any Democrat to speak out against Planned Parenthood will be a major election issue in 2016.

Show me. (You have a few options here. You can admit that you're wrong. You can re-define "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Or you can ignore this after actually looking up the numbers.)First, here are some poll numbers showing the popularity factor. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/10/poll-kasich-approval-rating.html http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/rick-perrys-approval-ratings-unchanged-in-texas-following-indictment-but-voters-split-over-whether-hes-innocent-or-guilty.html/ (This despite the allegations against Perry that were politically motivated) http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25002454/wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-approval-rating-remains-about (this in a very progressive state) For any politician to have an approval in the 50s is very notable in this day and age of so much partisanship. So you're going with option two, redefining "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Nice. (Also, were you being dishonest when you cited a Walker poll from more than a year and a half ago when his approval rating was ten points higher? Looks like he's down around 41% now.) You just invoked Benghazi? Oof. Also, did you vote for Romney? Be honest. Listen, if you're honestly suggesting that the eventual DNC candidate, whether Hillary or anyone else, is as or more likely to start another war in the Middle East this isn't worth either of our time. Hillary definitely supported the Iraq War. She acknowledges her mistake and I'll freely admit that it was erroneous. What do you think? Was it a mistake for W. and company to lie us into Iraq? Let's talk in mid-November 2016, eh? Some people need to beat their chest with predictions before the contest because they're never quite convinced that they'll be able to do it after. I'd lay odds at about 70% that we're both going to have to get used to saying President Clinton again. And that's even with me agreeing with you that Hillary isn't impressive on campaign stops. She's average at best at campaigning. Fortunately for the DNC (and the country) she's running against a party who is currently infatuated with Donald Trump. Haha. Wow, you really don't see any concern with Hillary's handling of Benghazi. If that's the case, then you are showing a complete lack of independent judgment. I am a center-right guy and have found plenty of reasons to criticize Bush 43, and do not simply support a candidate because of their political identification. Also, as I said in the last response, if you truly are a conspiracy theorist believing that Bush knew the intelligence was not accurate and/or asked someone to create faulty intelligence, then that really negates anything else you have to say on here. That is as bad as the many "birthers" on the right that are going after Obama's citizenship.

Up to this point I have tried to consider the armchair conservative commentators' opinions with a degree of reflection and respect, but I'm afraid you guys have crossed the line into delusional thinking. I intend to support Bernie Sanders for president of the United States. I'm not a Clintoniite. Nevertheless, I do so recognizing that Hillary Clinton was, is, and likely will be a political juggernaut the likes of which is rare in politics (the last being Obama). Beating her is no small task, and pretending otherwise is wish thinking. She's not only one of the most recognizable candidates in American politics; she's one of the most famous people on earth. That is not a value statement. That is a political fact, which conservatives tend to ignore like science, math, and common sense. (Reflect for a moment that the same exact bunch of clowns that had the right wing believing Romney was going to beat Obama in a landslide the day before he was slaughtered in a landslide are now telling you the current GOP lineup is one Abraham Lincoln after another.) Pretending for a second that serving as an active first lady, a senator, and Secretary of State were all by some voodoo logic "not accomplishments", it's an act of deliberate ignorance to pretend she hasn't done anything. The crap you swallow and regurgitate from Fox News and talk radio may give you a warm patriotic feeling in your belly, but it doesn't make it reality. Maybe I'm going a bit too far there, because Fox News actually did publish a list of accomplishments she will undoubtedly use in her campaign. These are not all encompassing, either. It doesn't even include the part about how Clinton is partially responsible for the meager healthcare reform we did manage to get (against the forces of insanity that tried to keep the insurance company death panels healthy and active). Her unsuccessful attempt in the 90s ultimately gave birth to what we have now. If you want some more, here's some more. And last point. How can a conservative bring up Hillary's vote for the Iraq War? How can you even talk about it? As if somehow being deceived by someone is the same thing as causing the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history. At least Hillary admitted her vote––and the war––was a mistake. Jeb Bush, one of your "frontrunners," won't even do that. The only one shouting about it on stage is Donald Trump, who as of this moment still has a comfortable lead in the Republican primaries. Hillary also gets partial credit for the Iran Deal, which is lauded by the global community, and opposed only by one wing of one party––incidentally the same wing that beat the drums for the aforementioned disastrous war in Iraq. For starters, I don't like Jeb or Trump either, so suggesting that is a mistake. Also, your link to "accomplishments" from Hillary came from a Democratic pollster on Fox News, and while you can say that Fox does not present opposing views, I would love for you to find me an article on MSNBC or some other liberal website that discusses accomplishments of Bush 43. Tell me a time when Hillary has actually achieved results as Senator or SOS or First Lady that she was in the lead position on. Her first attempt at Hillarycare was a blew up in her face. Her most notable vote as Senator was for the Iraq war, and all politicians who supported the were were basing if off the same intelligence. The suggestion that you and your counterpart had on here that Bush lied intentionally to go to war is just as bad of a conspiracy as those that suggest he wanted 9/11 to happen and knew it was imminent. If you truly believe in that conspiracy, just as some buffoons on the right believe in the birther conspiracy about Obama, that is really a non-starter for me to believe anything further you say. As for the Iran deal, that is about the only position Hillary has taken recently where she is willing to put her name on it, and it now must first pass given Schumer and other Dems are abandoning it. She better hope that Iran doesn't start acting out between now and election day. And I'm sure you are looking at Huffington Post, the NY Times and other liberal outlets touting what a great deal it was, but we (the US) basically caved on anything we wanted to achieve with that deal. As for Hillary being a famous person on earth, I don't think anyone would dispute that she has a strong name identification both here and abroad. Heck, Donald Trump has great name identification which is a big reason why he's leading in many polls, followed by a Bush which also has a lot of name identification. Many survey respondents do not follow politics closely until it gets really close to election day, and when they are asked to respond, they often pick names they know or are hearing in the news. Sanders is doing worse in national polls against Hillary than in state polls where those voters have gotten to know him. I'm not sure why calling out that she is a famous person adds any value to the debate at hand.

Show me. (You have a few options here. You can admit that you're wrong. You can re-define "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Or you can ignore this after actually looking up the numbers.) Wouldn't have imagined that you were an Obama supporter. Who gave us that war again? Who wants to return to Iraq and start more wars? You'll never get the chance to see that. Best case for Carly you'll get to watch her in the VP debate. That's possible. First, here are some poll numbers showing the popularity factor. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/10/poll-kasich-approval-rating.html http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/rick-perrys-approval-ratings-unchanged-in-texas-following-indictment-but-voters-split-over-whether-hes-innocent-or-guilty.html/ (This despite the allegations against Perry that were politically motivated) http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25002454/wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-approval-rating-remains-about (this in a very progressive state) For any politician to have an approval in the 50s is very notable in this day and age of so much partisanship. As for lack of resume, you still haven't explained how you feel Hillary or any other Dems running are qualified based upon a resume of results. Do you defend her lack of trustworthiness (destroying servers, making false claims about Benghazi, turning on a southern accent in the South, etc...)? I am not hearing any GOP candidate outside of Lindsey Graham who nobody really likes calling for another Iraq war. Did you hear any candidates pushing for this in the debate. Please provide your sources of any candidate stating they want another war in Iraq or elsewhere. And you are dodging the fact that Hillary supported the Iraq war. As for Carly, I wouldn't speak to soon. The way Hillary's campaign is in a free for all, I sometimes wonder if the only female to be on the top of either ticket would be Fiorina. Hillary is a lousy candidate, worse than John McCain was, and on top of that has tons of baggage with no record of accomplishments.

Come again? Rubio would be the strongest candidate in the general but he won't make it there. The Jeb W. Romney campaign will salt the earth under his feet. And from a conviction standpoint it's difficult to be impressed. Rubio has made one big legislative effort in his career and he abandoned it immediately when the winds changed. Ted Cruz is an ideologue who has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of his supporters. Unfortunately, that seems to be working for him. It says quite a bit more about the far right than it does about ol' Ted. Oh, good lord. "Challenging the status quo" is probably the saddest spin that I've seen of a complete failure of a tenure that resulted in the firing of more than 30,000 people, a golden parachute for Carly, and a giant jump in stock prices when the market saw that she had been fired. If you want to believe that she'd be a good politician (and not just an anti-Hillary prop) that's fine . . . but you'd do well to not base it on her career in the private sector. Wow, you show no ability to have an independent perspective even if you are a leftie. For starters, the 4 governors I mentioned all still have very favorable ratings in the states they led. Jeb is still wildly popular in Florida many years after he left, and that is now a very purple state. Kasich is very popular in Ohio too after turning that state around, and the same is true of Walker and Perry. As for Rubio, no Democrat can come close to criticizing his legislative accomplishments when Obama had ZERO accomplishments before being elected, and in Hillary's tenure as a Senator, she also did not sponsor a single major piece of legislation. The single biggest vote she had was voting in favor of the Iraq war. When you factor in her dismal record as SOS, she has nothing to run on. As for Cruz, I am not his biggest fan, but he is exactly what I stated...the Conservative Purist just as Sanders is the Socialist/Progressive Purist. They speak to the extreme elements of both parties, and they rarely stray from their extreme views. If we truly wanted a Presidential debate about the core principles of Conservatism vs Socialism, these would be the two guys to face off. As for Fiorina, as with any executive or CEO of a major company, there are many more objective data points to talk about, and I can discuss the fact that during her tenure, revenues doubled, the growth rate quadrupled, cash-flow quadrupled, and the company moved up 17 spots in terms of its size. She presided over the company during a time when all tech companies were faltering from the dot.com bust, the whole economy was in a downfall after 9/11, etc... She will indeed have to speak to the positive and negative data points, but given her ability to effectively communicate compared to Hillary's hiding out and declining to answer questions or take interviews, I think Carly will outshine Hillary in any debate. As for not winning the CA race in 2010, no Republican could have won that seat. Hillary had to move to New York to be elected, and had she tried to run in the South in Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georga, South Carolina, etc... Hillary would have lost be probably more than Fiorina lost to Boxer, so again, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to brush off the fact that Hillary had to pick one of the bluest states in order to be elected to the Senate.

I thought he was in it for the long haul when he announced. Now I believe there is a tremendous possibility (God I'm even starting to sound like Trump) that he will run a third-party candidacy after that attempted political assassination. Apparently the word came down to execute Citizen Trump because that hand raising question, followed by Megyn's "why are you a misogynist?" style question, was a naked attempt to burst Trump's bubble––and no one learned anything they didn't already know by staging it. Other than that, I thought the moderators did an excellent job with questions in that debate. They completely avoided climate change, student debt, income inequality, and campaign finance reform (except where Trump made an open declaration that the corruption not only exists, but he was party to it along with most of the candidates on the stage). But I'm a forgiving sort of person when you have ten candidates and a little under two hours to let them all say something. There is also increased chatter that Trump is doing this to help out Hillary. I've seen more and more reports detailing how close Trump has been with the Clintons in the past, he had high praise for Hillary in 2012, and has really limited his criticism of her so far in this campaign which is odd. He and Bill also talked before Donald announced his candidacy. I know there are always conspiracy theories out there, so not saying this is definite, but the man has had many very liberal positions in the past, and it seems odd he would wake up in the past couple years and now be just the opposite. Well that's the only way the Left wins the presidency. They don't even have a good candidate. Trump won't win the GOP nomination, but he will pry end up running independently and take votes away from the GOP nominee, giving Hilary enough to win from the rest of the people who will vote just because she's democrat. And the right does? Some presidential cycles the left may have more robust and qualified candidates. But not in 2016. The GOP has 4 governors alone that in prior years would have been chosen as the frontrunner just as Hillary seems to be this year (Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular, and three of them in states Obama carried both times. Rubio is a star and raw talent just as Obama was in 2008. Ted Cruz is to the right what Bernie Sanders is to the left...an ideological purist. And let's not forget Fiorina who, while some may not like her tenure of challenging the status quo at HP, was the first ever female CEO of a Fortune 100 company. She is brilliant and well spoken and, unlike other candidates, anything thrown at her she will defend and counter-punch.

I thought he was in it for the long haul when he announced. Now I believe there is a tremendous possibility (God I'm even starting to sound like Trump) that he will run a third-party candidacy after that attempted political assassination. Apparently the word came down to execute Citizen Trump because that hand raising question, followed by Megyn's "why are you a misogynist?" style question, was a naked attempt to burst Trump's bubble––and no one learned anything they didn't already know by staging it. Other than that, I thought the moderators did an excellent job with questions in that debate. They completely avoided climate change, student debt, income inequality, and campaign finance reform (except where Trump made an open declaration that the corruption not only exists, but he was party to it along with most of the candidates on the stage). But I'm a forgiving sort of person when you have ten candidates and a little under two hours to let them all say something. There is also increased chatter that Trump is doing this to help out Hillary. I've seen more and more reports detailing how close Trump has been with the Clintons in the past, he had high praise for Hillary in 2012, and has really limited his criticism of her so far in this campaign which is odd. He and Bill also talked before Donald announced his candidacy. I know there are always conspiracy theories out there, so not saying this is definite, but the man has had many very liberal positions in the past, and it seems odd he would wake up in the past couple years and now be just the opposite.

My top 2 choices since early May have been Fiorina and Rubio, and I was so glad to see them shine yesterday. They are both masterful communicators and bring much needed diversity for the GOP. I think that Carly is Hillary's worst nightmare and will eat Hillary alive if they were to debate each other. That would be some great catfight. Also, you should watch Carly's interview with Chris Matthews after the debate. She is not afraid to go on networks that have different political views and take tough questions. Chris looked like a scared little girl by the end.

My top 2 choices since early May have been Fiorina and Rubio, and I was so glad to see them shine yesterday. They are both masterful communicators and bring much needed diversity for the GOP. I think that Carly is Hillary's worst nightmare and will eat Hillary alive if they were to debate each other. That would be some great catfight.

I tend to agree with you. Two things that could change a commit's mind that appears solid. 1. NU opens season on a high note, and WVU on a low note 2. He decides to still take his OV and the gameday feeling causes him to rethink his decision.

No, The surest way for Clinton to get elected would be if Trump stayed a Republican and won the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee any Democrat candidate would win. I would love for a third party candidate to run that is actually viable. The problem is, they tend to be the extremes on both sides. I firmly believe there is a place for a moderate conservative candidate (party) in this country and if one really did run and form a really good campaign with talented people around him/her, I believe they would win easily. I agree with much of what you said, but the way things are going, I am having more doubts on whether Hillary will actually win the Dem nomination with Sanders now tied with her in New Hampshire. She is probably the worst candidate I have seen in years. She won't answer questions directly, is not transparent, is destroying servers and now is under FBI investiation, and when she does try to answer questions or do an interview, she opens up a can of worms like claiming she and Bill were flat broke despite having made millions the year before. Here is my favorite though...when she turns on the Southern accent to show how phony she really is. Seriously, regardless if you are for or against Hillary, this video is comical. I just laugh like crazy.