2016 Election
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe RCP averages have Trump back below his standard 30 percent cap. And the only reason he's even close to that is because of the clearly screwball CNN outlier.
True conservatives, meaning non-establishment, do not have a problem with Trump, as his rock solid 25 percent has amply shown since he announced his candidacy. The Republican establishment has a problem with Cruz because he has so frequently given them the middle finger in response to their rolling over and playing dead.
I may not agree with RonC but his posts are always well written with very good logic making great compelling arguements from the right.
I view RonC as a true straight shooter from the right
RonC in my view is a true conservative not in lockstep with any establishment views
Even he questions Trump
So Sancho, isnt RonC a true conservative.
Quote: ams288I think the general consensus is that Republicans will have a very hard time holding the Senate in 2016, no matter who their candidate is.
This seems a strong and perhaps over-confident statement on your part.
It is true that the republicans will be playing defense. Of the 34 senate seats up for election/re-election, 24 are republican seats, while the democrats are defending only 10. And a handful of these republican seats being defended are seats in democratic leaning states (especially during a presidential election years), Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
Currently senate makeup is 54-46. Democrats would need to pick up 5 seats to win majority, 4 if they win the presidency and VP can break ties.
There are 3 seats almost sure to turn from republican to democrat in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Then there are 3 more currently republican seats that will be very much a tossup. New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida (retiring Rubio seat). The dems would need to win 2 of these (1 with the presidency).
There is also the outside chance that North Carolina (currently republican) could be in play for the democrats, but that is very optimistic.
BUT, Harry Reid's retirement, puts a current democratic seat in Nevada in jeopardy as that seat is a real toss up. So the first thing the democrats must do is retain that seat. If they retain Reid's seat and pick up the 3 almost guaranteed pickups, they need 2 of the remaining 3 tossups or 1 with the presidency. They have a reasonable shot at that. But if they lose Reid's seat then they almost need a clean sweep of the remaining in seats in play. That becomes much longer odds.
Seeing as it is your phrase, it might be helpful to describe "the conservative establishment," including examples.Quote: ams288What is the difference between a "true conservative" and the conservative establishment?
"After years of personal animosity between President Obama and Donald Trump, the White House resorted to dishing out schoolyard taunts at the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination Tuesday, mocking his “fake hair” and “outrageous” physical appearance during a clash over Muslims and terrorism.
“I was describing why it would be easy for people to dismiss the Trump campaign as not particularly serious — because he’s got a rather outrageous appearance,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s a hallmark of his campaign and his identity.”"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/8/white-house-blasts-fake-hair-trump-says-anti-musli/
The White House had the high ground--Trump gave it to them and all of the other candidates on a silver platter by saying we should have a Muslim ban--but they decided to go low brow and talk about appearance issues like fake hair, etc. Basically, they tried to out-Trump Trump.
Why not just say that nothing about the proposed banning of Muslims would survive one day in court and that Trump should go back and put together a real proposal.
This is an issue that I have with this White House--petty and vindictive--that I think would be just as bad, or worse, if Trump were elected. The office of President and the statements of the White House need to be "Presidential" in nature. The leader of the free world should not engage in petty name calling no matter who started it. The current folks don't get it and I am not sure Trump does, either.
The other candidates have also attacked Trump. I don't hold them to the same standard because they are not in the White House, but I do think anyone that goes to appearance instead of attacking ideas is doing things the wrong way, just as I think Trump does by talking about how people look, etc.
Quote: RonCI understand that Donald Trump has been a thorn in the side of President Obama for some time, but I don't get how the sitting President and his staff cannot manage to stay above the fray and simply call him out on his ridiculous Muslim ban thing (and his lack of depth in most of his "proposals" like the wall paid for by Mexico) instead of acting childish:
"After years of personal animosity between President Obama and Donald Trump, the White House resorted to dishing out schoolyard taunts at the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination Tuesday, mocking his “fake hair” and “outrageous” physical appearance during a clash over Muslims and terrorism.
“I was describing why it would be easy for people to dismiss the Trump campaign as not particularly serious — because he’s got a rather outrageous appearance,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s a hallmark of his campaign and his identity.”"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/8/white-house-blasts-fake-hair-trump-says-anti-musli/
The White House had the high ground--Trump gave it to them and all of the other candidates on a silver platter by saying we should have a Muslim ban--but they decided to go low brow and talk about appearance issues like fake hair, etc. Basically, they tried to out-Trump Trump.
Why not just say that nothing about the proposed banning of Muslims would survive one day in court and that Trump should go back and put together a real proposal.
This is an issue that I have with this White House--petty and vindictive--that I think would be just as bad, or worse, if Trump were elected. The office of President and the statements of the White House need to be "Presidential" in nature. The leader of the free world should not engage in petty name calling no matter who started it. The current folks don't get it and I am not sure Trump does, either.
The other candidates have also attacked Trump. I don't hold them to the same standard because they are not in the White House, but I do think anyone that goes to appearance instead of attacking ideas is doing things the wrong way, just as I think Trump does by talking about how people look, etc.
This seems like faux outrage to me.
In reality, Trump is fair game for anyone to make fun of.
He is an orange-tinted ego maniac with a raccoon living on top of his head. And he has recently revealed that he is a facist.
Again.... Fair game. It doesn't lower the White House or make them look vindictive to make fun of Trump. He's a clown. Not to be taken seriously.
If the White House starts making fun of Carly Fiorina's face, then feel free to pen a long think piece about it.
Quote: kewljThis seems a strong and perhaps over-confident statement on your part.
It is true that the republicans will be playing defense. Of the 34 senate seats up for election/re-election, 24 are republican seats, while the democrats are defending only 10. And a handful of these republican seats being defended are seats in democratic leaning states (especially during a presidential election years), Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
Currently senate makeup is 54-46. Democrats would need to pick up 5 seats to win majority, 4 if they win the presidency and VP can break ties.
There are 3 seats almost sure to turn from republican to democrat in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Then there are 3 more currently republican seats that will be very much a tossup. New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida (retiring Rubio seat). The dems would need to win 2 of these (1 with the presidency).
There is also the outside chance that North Carolina (currently republican) could be in play for the democrats, but that is very optimistic.
BUT, Harry Reid's retirement, puts a current democratic seat in Nevada in jeopardy as that seat is a real toss up. So the first thing the democrats must do is retain that seat. If they retain Reid's seat and pick up the 3 almost guaranteed pickups, they need 2 of the remaining 3 tossups or 1 with the presidency. They have a reasonable shot at that. But if they lose Reid's seat then they almost need a clean sweep of the remaining in seats in play. That becomes much longer odds.
Agreed.
But don't discount the fact that next year is a Presidential year, when Dems do better.
More than 33% of the electorate will show up, so the Republicans won't have their "off-year-no-one-showed-up-to-vote" advantage.
Senate Dems over performed in 2012 for exactly this reason, if I remember correctly.
Quote: ams288This seems like faux outrage to me.
In reality, Trump is fair game for anyone to make fun of.
He is an orange-tinted ego maniac with a raccoon living on top of his head. And he has recently revealed that he is a facist.
Again.... Fair game. It doesn't lower the White House or make them look vindictive to make fun of Trump. He's a clown. Not to be taken seriously.
If the White House starts making fun of Carly Fiorina's face, then feel free to pen a long think piece about it.
I understand that it is too much for some to ask the White House--Republican or Democrat--to show some basic decorum. It is part of the sad degeneration of civility that many folks seem not to mind. I am not for total formality, but I think the leader of the free world and his staff should hold themselves to a higher standard.
If you want call it "faux", so be it. Just like your thing about "fan fiction", it shows more that you have little concern for any real conversation at all than anything else...too bad.
Serious for once.. 2F
Quote: TwoFeathersATLRonC, you walk too fine a line this time I think. I so appreciate your posts, but editing might be in order on the last. Serious for once.. 2F
I think it's fine. I wouldn't say he crossed any lines.
EDIT: Also, you quoting his entire post would prevent him from being able to successfully get rid of anything that might cross the line. lol
Quote: ams288I think it's fine. I wouldn't say he crossed any lines.
EDIT: Also, you quoting his entire post would prevent him from being able to successfully get rid of anything that might cross the line. lol
Unless I immediately edited mine, of course ;-)
<edit > Bigger LOL!
<2nd edit> I did quote you however, when you said he crossed no lines.
Still laughing...
Quote: ams288I think it's fine. I wouldn't say he crossed any lines.
EDIT: Also, you quoting his entire post would prevent him from being able to successfully get rid of anything that might cross the line. lol
I can see how someone might look at the wrong way but I am not going to edit it at this point (except for a word I just got wrong...) because I am not attacking in any way the writer--I respect him and his positions on the issues--but his writing which seems to often take a turn at attacking my writing ("fan fiction" and "faux").
...and "attacking" is really too harsh of a word for it; it is more like a poke than an attack...
Be all of that as it may, I don't have a "faux" opinion on decorum in the White House in the sense that it is often used here by people attacking "Fox" with cutsie spellings. My real opinion, my own 100%, is that the occupant of the White House should strive to be a good example to the people he serves--even the ones who don't agree with him.
--I want the office to be important enough to the President that they feel they should dress and act in a way that shows dignity for the office...no warm-ups, sweats, sex in the office, etc.
--I want them to keep their statements more civil than those who oppose them. Don't call names, don't act childish, and win with what you have to say about actual issues, not about the way someone looks.
Simply put, acting Presidential is something I expect from the President. Showing good decorum is what I expect of the staff he puts together. Sure, there is tough political business to be handled at all times and there is the nasty work in the trenches of politics...but the face of the White House should not be calling names and things like that.
I will be equally disappointed if there is a President Trump (or anyone else elected President...) and he acts in the manner he has done during the campaign.
Quote: SanchoPanzaTrue conservatives, meaning non-establishment, do not have a problem with Trump, as his rock solid 25 percent has amply shown since he announced his candidacy. .
So true conservatives have no problem with Trump tweeting "A majority of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent"
True conservatives are supporting a man threatening the Republican party by insuring a Clinton Presidency
LOL
Thanks true conservatives for helping Clinton win
What a fascinating political landscape. The leading candidate of a party threatening his own party with insuring the election of the parties opponent. Wow. Amazing. Got the popcorn out. This is entertainment
Wearing fake hair will be cool!
Plus there are definitely some puppet master(s) pulling them strings.
Then it is time to pull a John Galt for sure.
How fascinating to see Trump tweets given such tremendous credibility. Or maybe it is just picking the certain ones that play into a specific agenda.Quote: terapinedSo true conservatives have no problem with Trump tweeting "A majority of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent"
Quote: SanchoPanzaHow fascinating to see Trump tweets given such tremendous credibility. Or maybe it is just picking the certain ones that play into a specific agenda.
LOL
Yes, shame on terapined for giving tweets from Trump's own verified Twitter account any credibility.
Quote: RonCI will be equally disappointed if there is a President Trump (or anyone else elected President...) and he acts in the manner he has done during the campaign.
I think Trump is a leopard and he won't be changing his spots. For all the complaints I've ever heard about Obama, I'm afraid a President Trump will put every protocol and manner's obsessive watcher in the mental ward.
But that is the probably the least of the things I worry about in regards to him.
And we need to get racists like this outta there:
Quote: Justice ScaliaThere are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
It seems that you are advocating that students be placed wherever they can be admitted, regardless of lacking qualifications like past academic record. That seems like a way to make such students, regardless of ethnicity, feel terrible. Unless you want to say that such a move makes them feel good and does a world of benefit for them.
It seems that you are advocating that students be placed wherever they can be admitted, regardless of lacking qualifications like past academic record. That seems like a way to make such students, regardless of ethnicity, feel terrible. Unless you want to say that such a move makes them feel good and does a world of benefit for them.
Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal.
(^^^^If someone were to describe this post as liberal fan fiction, I would not be offended.)
Quote: rxwineI think Trump is a leopard and he won't be changing his spots. For all the complaints I've ever heard about Obama, I'm afraid a President Trump will put every protocol and manner's obsessive watcher in the mental ward.
But that is the probably the least of the things I worry about in regards to him.
I agree. There are a lot of important things besides decorum to worry about if a President Trump acts like Candidate Trump.
The thing about acting dignified is that it never really hurts, and almost always helps, you gain the respect of more people than just your supporters. That is a good thing for all of us.
Quote: SanchoPanzaRe: Fisher v. Texas
It seems that you are advocating that students be placed wherever they can be admitted, regardless of lacking qualifications like past academic record. That seems like a way to make such students, regardless of ethnicity, feel terrible. Unless you want to say that such a move makes them feel good and does a world of benefit for them.
This is a problem
Ivy league schools have denied admission to many Asians and Indians (India).
These are qualified students denied entrance simply due to their race
This all due to the Asian quota.
They don't want to become Asian schools and refuse to go over the quota.
If an Asian is more qualified then a white student, white student should be denied admission
I am actually shocked by Scalia. An outright racist.
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
I don't think all Muslims are bad people. I completely accept the fact that it is a tiny minority of radicals that are perverting a peaceful religion. But until we can distinguish what incoming Muslins pose a threat, I think we need to protect our borders and ourselves by all means.
Donald Trump isn't proposing rounding up and detaining all Muslims citizens currently living here as we did with the Japanese citizens during WW2. He is proposing a ban on those coming from countries and areas where this radicalization has occurred until we able to better vet them and better know their intentions. US Muslim citizens shouldn't be offended by this action, they should support the effort to do what is necessary to protect ourselves from those few extremists that are hijacking and perverting their peaceful religion.
For those of you that think this is extreme, yes it is, but these are extreme times. We ARE AT WAR. Not with the whole Muslim religion but with a very small extremist population of that religion that wants to destroy us and our way of life. And this is not a traditional war fought on the battlefield with soldiers. This is a war they are bringing to our shores, massacring innocent civilian men, women and children, like it was some sort of damn video game. We have to do what is necessary to protect our citizens and children and if that means a few people wanting to travel here are inconvenienced...so be it.
Today a Bloomberg poll comes out saying what everyone assumed that only 37% of Americans agree with Trumps comments, while 50 oppose. BUT, among republican voters, it is completely reversed. 65% of republican candidates agree with Trumps comments, with only 22% opposed. That's 3-1 agree with Trump's statement.
There was a new poll out of South Carolina released tonight which took place over 4 days...2 days prior to Trump's comments and 2 days after. In the 2 days before the comments Trump was polling at 30%. In the 2 days after he has polled at 38%. LOL.
Watch the republican presidential candidates scramble now. It's yet another of those nightmare positions for both republican candidates and party (much like gay marriage), where the republican electorate differs from the total general consensus.
Institutions of higher education have long had caps in place against various groups, whether they be religious, ethnic, geographic or sexual. That is not really related to the question of minimum enrollments, whether government mandated or not. And it is certainly not related to the question of unqualified applicants' being admitted and then having them feel miserable and angry for four of their most highly formative years.Quote: terapinedThis all due to the Asian quota. They don't want to become Asian schools and refuse to go over the quota. If an Asian is more qualified then a white student, white student should be denied admission.
Quote: SanchoPanzaInstitutions of higher education have long had caps in place against various groups, whether they be religious, ethnic, geographic or sexual. That is not really related to the question of minimum enrollments, whether government mandated or not. And it is certainly not related to the question of unqualified applicants' being admitted and then having them feel miserable and angry for four of their most highly formative years.
We shouldn't have under qualified whites being admitted to Ivy League schools when Asians are much more qualified
The white under qualified student "being admitted and then having them feel miserable and angry for four of their most highly formative years"
The right is against what they state are under qualified Blacks getting into high prestige schools
yet
They have no problem with under qualified whites getting into these schools
Cant have it both ways lol
Quote: terapinedWe shouldn't have under qualified whites being admitted to Ivy League schools when Asians are much more qualified
The white under qualified student "being admitted and then having them feel miserable and angry for four of their most highly formative years"
The right is against what they state are under qualified Blacks getting into high prestige schools
yet
They have no problem with under qualified whites getting into these schools
Cant have it both ways lol
We can easily prove that some on the right are against quotas and such for minorities that enable them to qualify for admission when they would not be chosen in a blind admission process. Can you prove that some people on the right are for caps on Asian admissions when they would be qualified over whites in a bind admission process?
I don't honestly know of anyone outside of the usual suspects (those people who are so far right--or left, in other instances--that their positions are unrecognizable to most "normal" people) who is like that, but you tossed out the allegation, so please enlighten me to a main-stream conservative who has stated that.
I have mixed feelings on how to handle admissions. In Texas, we have the "10% rule" (which has been modified in some cases to lower than 10%) that promises admission to the school of choice if you finish at the top of your class. The way around it is to transfer your kid to a school where they can be in the top 10% if they would not be in it in their zoned schools. There are even cases of people going to "majority minority" schools and being the only ones of their particular skin color in sight...and getting the #1 spot, which comes with a pretty hefty scholarship.
Schools obviously can't be trusted to just admit whoever they wish and quotas can lead to people with significantly lower qualifications being admitted. Those lower levels may not be the student's fault--they may be from a school where they did really well but no one did a great job of teaching them. In other words, sadly, they might not be ready for the most rigorous schools in spite of trying to excel. The high school records of all kids, even those taking the same classes at different schools, are not really always comparable. They may LOOK the same, but some kids are just not taught as well or as much.
No one really wants to take a look at those issues. The left just wants to toss money at them and the right just wants to give more tests (generalizations on both parts) but we all lose. Those kids that get into a school they can't handle fail out at a higher rate, those kids that get no education end up in jail or barely employable, and we have wasted their youth and likely much or all of their lives.
Like many other problems, we can't sit back and say that a policy hasn't worked well and get together and change it because all of our politicians are bought and paid for by "their" side of the issues.
"Today, according to a survey by The Harvard Crimson, Asian-American freshmen had higher SAT scores than any other ethnic group. It's not enough for them to be as good as everyone else: To get in, they have to be considerably better."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-asians-enrollment-harvard-colleges-perspec-0524-20150522-column.html
I don't think Ivy League schools are bastions of conservatism...
Quote: RonCI do see evidence of quotas on the top side, of course...just not sure if it is conservatives are the ones pressing it...
"Today, according to a survey by The Harvard Crimson, Asian-American freshmen had higher SAT scores than any other ethnic group. It's not enough for them to be as good as everyone else: To get in, they have to be considerably better."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-asians-enrollment-harvard-colleges-perspec-0524-20150522-column.html
I don't think Ivy League schools are bastions of conservatism...
No, Ivy League are not bastions on conservatism but regardless, they are practicing discrimination
Here is the problem
Conservatives howl when they perceive a white being denied admission over a less qualified black
yet
They never speak up when an Asian is being denied admission over a less qualified white
Quote: terapinedNo, Ivy League are not bastions on conservatism but regardless, they are practicing discrimination
Here is the problem
Conservatives howl when they perceive a white being denied admission over a less qualified black
yet
They never speak up when an Asian is being denied admission over a less qualified white
So where is the mainstream Liberal outcry against this discrimination against Asians? Shouldn't they be speaking out more?
Quote: rxwineFreaky. Or scary.
All of the above...
Quote: terapinedI am actually shocked by Scalia. An outright racist.
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."
I have looked at your quote again this morning. You position it as if it is Scalia saying this but what is actually happening is that he saying that SOME contend these things; he isn't giving his feeling on the issue.
It is easy to toss out the "racist" card but I don't see the same thing in his quote. I do, of course, see him as a Conservative justice who every Liberal would love to replace, just as Conservatives would love to replace every Liberal justice.
Without throwing any race into the mixture, students that go to schools that do not properly teach them to learn and challenge them to do hard work in high school will not turn out as many students who are ready for the toughest colleges right off the bat as schools that have a more rigorous course of studies. Those students may do well at community colleges and other colleges that allow them to gain back the lost ground and then to excel where they might well not do as well where the course of studies is tough starting on day one.
Of course, we can't say that in America today because we have failed to serve certain communities well and the people with lower overall results are sadly over-represented in some communities. The failure is not solely the fault of the conservatives; it is a failure of the progressive movement to see a problem and work towards fixing it as much or more than is an issue that conservatives have caused.
You can't just tell people they passed school and have them be ready for college. They actually have to be taught to learn and challenged in order to be ready. You can't toss kids in schools with no discipline where people like them taunt them for studying. You may actually have to weed out bad actors early on and force them to either learn or go somewhere else so that there is an environment of learning at EVERY school and so that all kids have a chance to succeed.
How do you solve it when these under-prepared kids are ready for college? I'll admit...I don't know what the best way is...
Quote: RonCSo where is the mainstream Liberal outcry against this discrimination against Asians? Shouldn't they be speaking out more?
Kind of sad that both the Liberal and conservative media refuse to speak out on this type of discrimination.
But then I cant stand Fox or MSNBC so it does not surprise me
I certainly have no problem speaking up about this discrimination
Quote: terapinedKind of sad that both the Liberal and conservative media refuse to speak out on this type of discrimination.
But then I cant stand Fox or MSNBC so it does not surprise me
I certainly have no problem speaking up about this discrimination
An unbiased media would talk about the issue--they would report the news, not their opinion. The actual "speaking out" would either come from editorial positions OR from people who were moved by the reporting to do something about the issue. The problem with Fox and MSNBC is that they are not really "news" organizations in the sense that we would like them to be--they report a little bit of news and then do a whole lot of editorializing on the issues.
It used to be that NBC, CBS, and ABC would provide fairly unbiased "news" but, for example, MSNBC is a division of NBC, so we don't really get that any more.
Quote: RonCAn unbiased media would talk about the issue--they would report the news, not their opinion. The actual "speaking out" would either come from editorial positions OR from people who were moved by the reporting to do something about the issue. The problem with Fox and MSNBC is that they are not really "news" organizations in the sense that we would like them to be--they report a little bit of news and then do a whole lot of editorializing on the issues.
It used to be that NBC, CBS, and ABC would provide fairly unbiased "news" but, for example, MSNBC is a division of NBC, so we don't really get that any more.
AAAARGH! I DVR and watch both FOX and NBC nearly every night. They appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. I dislike them both, equally. I also DVR CBS or ABC, change back and forth as anchors come and go, but only watch those on what I consider to be 'big news nights'. Have never watched MSNBC that I can recall, but I prolly have. I don't want to puke on the rug....
So much fluff, so much opinion, I'm so Disappointed....
Any one of the bunch could give me twice as much of the 'News' if they wanted to...
Apparently that is not the objective.
I know it's the ratings, and the advertising dollars, and the personal preferences of the 'king makers' in charge.
I'm nauseous now, I'll take a break.....
The sole institution of higher education that I know of in, say, the State of California that does not cap the number of Asian-Americans is Seeley Mudd in Claremont. That is probably the main reason that it places so highly in the rankings and that it enrolls such a high percentage of Asian-Americans in its student body.Quote: terapinedThey have no problem with under qualified whites getting into these schools
How did their football team do this year?
Grab the popcorn.
Quote: ams288Republican debate number 5 is starting now.
Grab the popcorn.
Considering CNN doesn't want any of them to look good, it should be interesting.
Quote: BozConsidering CNN doesn't want any of them to look good, it should be interesting.
I think the questions have been fair.
But I live outside of the FOX bubble so I may not be properly trained in seeing CNN's bias.
Jeb Bush: Jeb finally woke up a little bit. I don't know that he won. I actually am not sure anyone 'won'. But Jeb did better than prior debates. That's a pretty low bar though. :/ I doubt it will do him much good.
Donald Trump: Kind of a neutral performance. These debates are not Donald's strength. The best he can do is not hurt himself and he basically did that. His worse moment was the "nuclear triad" question. He clearly didn't know what that was. Hey neither did I. Does that hurt him? I don't think so.
Cruz and Rubio: I am going to lump these two together, because I think they neutralized each other. They are both expert speakers/debaters, but their back and forth may have just reminded people of life on the senate floor and what is wrong with Washington.
Rand Paul: He did as well as he can do defending his isolationist positions that are out of touch with his party, but I don't think it helps him. He is a non factor.
Carson, Fiorina and Kasich: Non factors in the debate and their campaigns are going nowhere, with the exception that Fiorina is playing for a VP spot.
Chris Christie: I don't know about this guy. He did pretty well at times, but he made a couple big mistakes. The establishment needs a candidate to emerge. Bush has been rejected. Kasich....nothing. There is talk of Rubio emerging as the establishment candidate, but the problem is Rubio ISN'T establishment. He won his seat as a tea party candidate BEATING an establishment candidate in the Florida primary. Christie has put all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket, if he has a strong showing there, like a reasonably close second, perhaps there is the slimmest chance he starts to get that establishment support, but personally I think he is too damaged.
I hope others will express their thoughts (I know EB is boycotting political talk) as I enjoy hearing what others people saw.
At one time I thought Fiorina was going to do better. Doesn't seem to be catching on. Not sure why Carson is doing worse, since I must of completely missed why his polls dropped. He seems the same now as before, so don't know what changed.
Bush doesn't seem quite as frustrated as last time I saw him.
The biggest outcome in some ways seems to be Carson's gaffe on pronouncing Reince Priebus' last name as "pubis" several times; at least that's going to get the air time. Which tells you how little of substance got said.
Seemed like he got under Trump's skin more this time.
IMO, Trump hasn't done very well in these last couple of debates. But he always claims victory as soon as they are over and his demented followers lap it up.
Quote: ams288I actually thought Jeb! did pretty good. He sounded like the adult in the room.
Seemed like he got under Trump's skin more this time.
IMO, Trump hasn't done very well in these last couple of debates. But he always claims victory as soon as they are over and his demented followers lap it up.
Demented followers?
Most all of the candidates have followers, the candidates I like, and those I don't.
Should I be caught calling the followers bad names, can someone here just slap me?
Really....
Quote: TwoFeathersATLDemented followers?
Most all of the candidates have followers, the candidates I like, and those I don't.
Should I be caught calling the followers bad names, can someone here just slap me?
Really....
Demented is the correct word.
I haven't seen any of Bernie Sanders's followers shouting out to set a black protester on fire at his rallies. I haven't seen any of Hillary's followers yell "Seig Heil!" at her rallies. But I have seen Trump's racist followers do so.
Demented.
Quote: ams288Demented is the correct word.
I haven't seen any of Bernie Sanders's followers shouting out to set a black protester on fire at his rallies. I haven't seen any of Hillary's followers yell "Seig Heil!" at her rallies. But I have seen Trump's racist followers do so.
Demented.
I thought you might re-think.
I was wrong.
Carry on, try not to get carried away..
Quote: ams288Demented is the correct word.
I haven't seen any of Bernie Sanders's followers shouting out to set a black protester on fire at his rallies. I haven't seen any of Hillary's followers yell "Seig Heil!" at her rallies. But I have seen Trump's racist followers do so.
Demented.
So are all of his followers demented or just some?
