The Repub Debate

[carlfense]

Ya. 4-5 of them.

Could you name those 4-5?

[Moiraine]

 

Ya. 4-5 of them.

Could you name those 4-5?

 

 

Rubio, Palini, Christie, Cruz, Bush

[Scratchtown]

Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Walker, Huck

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Rubio Okay, Carson LOL, Cruz LOL, Walker LOL, Huck LOL

[Scratchtown]

LOL at Hilldog, LOL at Biden, LOL at Sanders.

[The Dude]

Hilldog

The Donald, is that you?

[Scratchtown]

South Park reference...

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

The more I think about it, the more Trump appears to be in this for the long haul.

 

Fox News has the largest viewership of any media outlet for the past decade. They've spent the last seven years building Obama up into this terrible, scary boogie man, alarmist stories every week. Donald Trump is just taking the audience Fox created with that fear-mongering and telling them what they want to hear, what they've been conditioned to hear, for the better part of a decade.

 

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.

[carlfense]

(Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular . . .

Come again?

 

Rubio is a star and raw talent just as Obama was in 2008.

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 to the right what Bernie Sanders is to the left...an ideological purist.

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.

 

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.

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.

[HuskerNation1]

 

(Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular . . .

Come again?

 

Rubio is a star and raw talent just as Obama was in 2008.

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 to the right what Bernie Sanders is to the left...an ideological purist.

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.

 

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.

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.

[carlfense]

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.

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.)

 

As for Rubio, no Democrat can come close to criticizing his legislative accomplishments when Obama had ZERO accomplishments before being elected . . .

Wouldn't have imagined that you were an Obama supporter.

 

. . . 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.

Who gave us that war again? Who wants to return to Iraq and start more wars?

 

 

 

I think Carly will outshine Hillary in any debate.

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.

[HuskerNation1]

 

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.

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.)

 

As for Rubio, no Democrat can come close to criticizing his legislative accomplishments when Obama had ZERO accomplishments before being elected . . .

Wouldn't have imagined that you were an Obama supporter.

 

. . . 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.

Who gave us that war again? Who wants to return to Iraq and start more wars?

 

 

 

I think Carly will outshine Hillary in any debate.

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.

[Husker_x]

Hillary is a lousy candidate, worse than John McCain was, and on top of that has tons of baggage with no record of accomplishments.

 

 

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.

[carlfense]

 

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.

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.)

 

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...)?

You just invoked Benghazi? Oof.

 

Also, did you vote for Romney? Be honest.

 

 

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.

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?

 

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.

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.

[carlfense]

Finally, FWIW, I have very low expectations for President Clinton.

 

1. Nominate justices,

2. Hold the line against attempts to dismantle the ACA and Dodd-Frank, and

3. Don't start any idiotic wars.

 

Fortunately Obama is leaving the country in much better shape for President Clinton than his predecessor did for him.