2016 Election
Quote: ams288Righties need to learn how to pick and choose their battles.
Ben Carson will probably not be their nominee.
Yet they've spent the last several pages of this thread feeling compelled to defend his crazy Hitler/slavery comments. That is just insane to me!
Speaking of insanity, I see both right and left getting carried away regularly in defending their side's candidates, changing the subject, comparing this wrong to that wrong so that somehow their side is correct. Or more correct than the other side. Sometimes it's fun to read, sometimes it's not, may depend on the mood you're in at the time. So if you count up the posts in the thread, then assign a percentage of those to each poster, maybe you come out with a listing of just who has been carried away most often. Maybe not, just a thought...
Quote: TwoFeathersATLSpeaking of insanity, I see both right and left getting carried away regularly in defending their side's candidates, changing the subject, comparing this wrong to that wrong so that somehow their side is correct. Or more correct than the other side. Sometimes it's fun to read, sometimes it's not, may depend on the mood you're in at the time. So if you count up the posts in the thread, then assign a percentage of those to each poster, maybe you come out with a listing of just who has been carried away most often. Maybe not, just a thought...
Why don't you get to work on that.
We'll all be here anxiously awaiting the results.
Quote: ams288Why don't you get to work on that.
We'll all be here anxiously awaiting the results.
My hope was that the incessant and furiously prolific posters on the thread would take up that task. I'm a hopeful kind of guy.
<edit> of course ams responded, I should have set a line and odds and fielded bets ;-)
ahh, better
Where do the candidates stand on pot?
A Gallup poll released last week shows a majority of Americans continue to support that effort, with 58 percent saying pot use should be legal in the United States.
Bernie Sanders for President. Rand Paul 2nd :-)
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
• Ever smoke marijuana? Sounds like it.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana, access to banking services, right for states to decide
• MPP grade: A-
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes — and he’s sorry about it, mom.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization, but not much else.
• MPP grade: C+
Donald Trump
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana in “compassionate cases,” but not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
• Ever smoke marijuana? “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me.”
• Position on pot: Supports limited legalization of medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, "foolishly.”
• Position on pot: Personally opposed, but supports letting the states decide.
• MPP grade: C+
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C-
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
• Ever smoke marijuana? “The answer is no.”
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization, will roll back laws in states like Colorado.
• MPP grade: F
Ohio Gov. John Kasich
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Totally opposed” to recreational and medical marijuana
• MPP grade: C-
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Could be OK with” limited access to medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP rating: C-
George Pataki, former New York governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of medical and recreation marijuana, but would not interfere with state’s decisions as president.
• MPP grade: C
Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Against legalization for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: D
Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes to legalizing marijuana for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: F
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Open to states experimenting with legalization.
• MPP grade: B-
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, but "it wasn’t for me.”
• Position on pot: Open to legalization.
• MPP grade: A
Martin O'Malley, former Maryland governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization.
• MPP grade: C-
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state
• Ever smoke marijuana? No.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana “under appropriate circumstances.”
• MPP grade: B
Quote: RonCNah, it just means that people that read them weren't bothering to look at them in context.
Not that I expected that.
What context makes "Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery." not pants on headed retarded. There are natural disasters and acts of terror. He said he was talking about long term things so I'll discount those, I don't personally cite 9/11 or even Spanish Flu as worse thing since slavery anyways. So lets restrict it even further to actions by the government, like Obamacare. Well there was Iran-Contra, the failures in Indo China, or a further list of foreign policy disasters, there is also the Chinese Exclusion act but fine those hurt mostly non-Americans so maybe we want the context of worse for Americans. There are the Jim Crow era laws in the South after the Civil war up until the Civil Rights movement. Fine you could say that those were acts of the state government in comparison to the federal government and he meant to only draw a comparison to the actions of the federal government as they apply to US citizens. Even there though he still fails since there was the Japanese interment during WWII or eugenics efforts or the Tuskegee experiments. Hell the Tuskegee experiments mean I cannot even try to restrict it to worse actions by the federal government with respect to health care since slavery.
So I could not find a single way to interpret his statement that made it anything other than completely moronic and ignorant of the atrocities committed since slavery, and this was even after adding in context he didn't provide to try and give him the benefit of the doubt. You are free to try and come up with an explanation on how Obamacare is the worse thing since slavery using whatever context you want. I doubt you'll be able to come up with anything that makes the statement true or even not completely stupid even after making up context unless you add in context that would be heavily restrictive like worse thing since slavery passed by a black president.
Carson is smart, and Carson is WAYYYY out of his normal element.
Not sure if he could be a decent POTUS. Fairly sure he would try. iMHO
I bet the ratings will be down compared to the last one. I haven't heard many people buzzing over this one.
I suspect, not nearly as many people watched being that it was CNBC instead of one of the news channels. Personally, I did not care for this debate. The moderators were unprofessional, and looking for 'gottch ya' moments which isn't their job. There were times that it was just chaotic with moderators and candidates talking over each other.
I don't know who won, but I do know who lost. Jeb Bush is all but done. Even before any of the debates, I observed that he looked like he hated what he was doing. That clearly comes across. Now he hasn't done well in 3 debates and continues to lose ground in the polls. Over the weekend he said, there are so many better things he could be doing other than run for president. That was a really odd thing to say. During the debate tonight, he told us what one of those things was. He would rather be playing fantasy football. His team is 7-0. :/ Very strange.
Again, I don't know who won. Rubio is a great speaker. I thought he did well the first debate and he got zero bump. I thought he did well second debate and got a little bump. I thought he did well tonight and we will see if he gets a bump, particularly as Jeb continues to fade.
Other than that, I don't know. Carson and Trump weren't so great but their supporters aren't looking for that. Their supporters like them on personality more than substance, so I doubt much will change.
Cruz is just waiting for Trump and/or Carson to crash, thinking he will cash in on their supporter. He may be waiting a long time.
Quote: kewljOh and one other observation. Carly Fiorina. Her debate performance was ok, I guess. But she did not look good, physically. She looked sickly, unhealthy. Much different (worse) than last month. It's interesting after the last debate, which she did well, she got a bump and then fizzled and has basically disappeared for 3 weeks to a month. I wonder if she had some sort of health issue. Thought?
Maybe someone got her outfit and makeup completely wrong for the lighting?
(but I didn't see it)
Anyway, he is only okay at best in this forum.
I think Rubio won but who knows if that translates into anything at all. Good showings have not helped him in the past; that may well hold true again.
Trump is clownish in many ways but the moderators helped him with their comic question when they though that they would "get him"...
They didn't get as much discussed as they could have because the moderators had no control of the debate. I didn't think the moderators asked the type of questions that were advertised and no one took charge and kept things in line.
All in all, they left me undecided on who to support...which is what I expected. I need to see a lot more of all of them. I find all of them better than the Democrat candidates, but I know that will come as little surprise.
Quote: kewljOh and one other observation. Carly Fiorina. Her debate performance was ok, I guess. But she did not look good, physically. She looked sickly, unhealthy. Much different (worse) than last month. It's interesting after the last debate, which she did well, she got a bump and then fizzled and has basically disappeared for 3 weeks to a month. I wonder if she had some sort of health issue. Thought?
I don't think it was a health issue.
I noticed how weird she looked too. I think it was just way too much makeup mixed with the lighting on stage.
I'm watching her on Morning Joe right now and she looks normal again.
Quote: ams288I don't think it was a health issue.
I noticed how weird she looked too. I think it was just way too much makeup mixed with the lighting on stage.
I'm watching her on Morning Joe right now and she looks normal again.
My wife thought she was wearing a wig or a different wig. Women see things that guys don't.
In trying to make a point of Obama being a bad president for women, she said that "92% of Jobs lost during Obama's first term were women". Turns out that number is actually less than 50%. Slightly off......LOL.
The number Carly was referring to were the employment numbers for one particular month, which oddly enough show that 92% of jobs lost belong to women. That month was January 2009 and Obama was only president for 11 days of that month. George W Bush was president for the first 20 days of the month and I would think takes the blame for jobs lost that month and even the next month or two as certainly Obama's policies hadn't kicked in yet. Good one Carly.......never let facts get in the way of a good story. :/
As a Trump supporter, myself, I thought he did ok, but certainly did not win. Rubio, Cruz and maybe even Christie did better. Interesting thing about Christie, after the debate someone commented that he did great if he was running for Attorney General. Many of his answered he said if he was the prosecutor he would have gone after so and so or when I was prosecutor, I did this. More talk about his record as prosecutor than as Governor.
Quote: kewljThree different online polls, Drudge, Time and debate host CNBC all showed Trump winning the debate by more than 20 points. I have grown very skeptical of Drudge, but Time and CNBC is interesting. Probably more a reflection that Trump supporters are younger and more interested in social media/internet (as he is) than other candidates supporters.
As a Trump supporter, myself, I thought he did ok, but certainly did not win. Rubio, Cruz and maybe even Christie did better. Interesting thing about Christie, after the debate someone commented that he did great if he was running for Attorney General. Many of his answered he said if he was the prosecutor he would have gone after so and so or when I was prosecutor, I did this. More talk about his record as prosecutor than as Governor.
It almost seems as if the leader for quite a while (though changing a bit recently) is like the World Heavyweight Champion--you can't beat him in a debate unless it is by knockout.
Trump was not as good as he has been at times, but he did not get knocked out.
Quote: terapinedAn Issue I care about but let me do a bong hit 1st
ahh, better
Where do the candidates stand on pot?
A Gallup poll released last week shows a majority of Americans continue to support that effort, with 58 percent saying pot use should be legal in the United States.
Bernie Sanders for President. Rand Paul 2nd :-)
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
• Ever smoke marijuana? Sounds like it.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana, access to banking services, right for states to decide
• MPP grade: A-
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes — and he’s sorry about it, mom.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization, but not much else.
• MPP grade: C+
Donald Trump
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana in “compassionate cases,” but not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
• Ever smoke marijuana? “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me.”
• Position on pot: Supports limited legalization of medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, "foolishly.”
• Position on pot: Personally opposed, but supports letting the states decide.
• MPP grade: C+
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C-
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
• Ever smoke marijuana? “The answer is no.”
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization, will roll back laws in states like Colorado.
• MPP grade: F
Ohio Gov. John Kasich
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Totally opposed” to recreational and medical marijuana
• MPP grade: C-
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Could be OK with” limited access to medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP rating: C-
George Pataki, former New York governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of medical and recreation marijuana, but would not interfere with state’s decisions as president.
• MPP grade: C
Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Against legalization for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: D
Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes to legalizing marijuana for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: F
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Open to states experimenting with legalization.
• MPP grade: B-
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, but "it wasn’t for me.”
• Position on pot: Open to legalization.
• MPP grade: A
Martin O'Malley, former Maryland governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization.
• MPP grade: C-
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state
• Ever smoke marijuana? No.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana “under appropriate circumstances.”
• MPP grade: B
OK this rating system is completely bias for the democrats.
How does Bernie Sanders get an "A" but Rand Paul get a "A-"? Sanders does not even support legalization at this time. Paul wants to end prohibition and the war on drugs and not interfere with any state law on this issue.
And, how on earth does Clinton get a "B", she has been in politics for how long now? What has she ever done to support pot legalization or even decriminalization? Sure she supports medical pot in certain situations, but that's about it, and she get a "B"? Republicans with literally the same stance as her were given Cs or lower.
This rating system is totally nonsensical. If Sanders was a Republican he would have a "C" and Clinton would have a "C-" or a "D"
Everyone should know Rand Paul is the best not just on pot but all drugs, and ending the drug war.
Anyone who thinks marijuana is the most important issue of this election should vote for Rand Paul, there is not even anyone who comes close on any side to his pro-marijuana voting record and speeches in favor of drug reform and ending the drug war.....
" Since Congress is a joke, why not have a joker for President :
Sounds like a winning campaign slogan to me.
"While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas."
https://gop.com/nbc-letter/
I'm not surprised by this at all. The biggest clowns in the room that night were the moderators. Of all of the debates, this one was by far the worst. They never got to half of what they were supposed to discuss (or what we were told they would be discussing) because the moderators lost control of the debate and because they were to busy trying to find a "gotcha" instead of just getting answers.
Pretty dumb--the "gotchas" will come on their own as each candidate has to actually answer questions on what their actual plan is. For example, how does Mr. Trump intend to build a wall and have Mexico finance it? Does he understand the process of getting it done? How will he get the needed members of the majority to work with him?
On down the line...many of their ideas won't hold up, just as many on the other side won't...but if no one asks the questions that show that on both sides, no one will know.
I expect that record to stand for quite a long time ;-)
Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) was brought up at the GOP debate the other night. Jeb Bush bragged about having a 7-0 record in his league (I wonder if that's for money). Anyway, Christie flipped out and basically said "why are we talking about this when there are important issues to discuss?" I can't fault him for prioritizing on a debate stage, but then the next day he actually addressed the question of federal regulation:
Quote: Chris Christie"No, they shouldn't regulate fantasy football. It's a stupid idea," Christie added, before taking aim at Bush's answer to the question Wednesday. And that's the way it should have been answered last night by Jeb Bush but when we entertain these ridiculous questions from the media, we empower them,"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-jeb-shouldn-answered-fantasy-sports-question-article-1.2416241
Presumably he's not suggesting that DFS for money should be unregulated entirely, just that it should be left up to the states to regulate individually in the same way New Jersey has regulated online gambling or land-based gambling.
Here's my question: should the federal government be in the business of regulating internet commerce (and internet gambling)? I'm strongly in the "yes" camp because a lot of issues break down when you rely on the states to form interstate partnerships. To me, internet gambling is a perfect example of where state regulation is senseless because the internet isn't geographically-restricted. Further, as anyone following the online poker business knows, the struggle of intrastate online poker is due to lack of player population/liquidity.
Clearly DFS needs regulation, even the companies themselves are acknowledging this now. (They still don't admit it's "gambling" but that's just marketing and ass-covering to skirt the UIGEA. That's like saying "sports betting in Vegas isn't gambling." Of course it's gambling.) The issue is who should be regulating it. I submit it's the role of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (including interstate gambling) because the Constitution says so. It's not clear to me why Christie doesn't see it the same way.
Quote: MathExtremist
Clearly DFS needs regulation, even the companies themselves are acknowledging this now. (They still don't admit it's "gambling" but that's just marketing and ass-covering to skirt the UIGEA. That's like saying "sports betting in Vegas isn't gambling." Of course it's gambling.) The issue is who should be regulating it. I submit it's the role of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (including interstate gambling) because the Constitution says so. It's not clear to me why Christie doesn't see it the same way.
I could've been simple, short-term ignorance. I know if you ever asked me "Should the Federal...", then that's as far as you're going to get before I'm going "NO! No, no, no!" No one wants the Fed's fingers in anything, no one wants them growing even bigger.
But, as you've shown, this issue is sort of already settled. Once given time to think, you can see how it is interstate, and it is commerce, so it easily fits within the Fed's purview. Given a moment to think, I'd come around. As would, I expect, Christie.
If given time and he still says no... well, most pols don't know the Constitution they've sworn to defend. No story, just more of the same =p
Until employers like Donald Trump are held responsible for illegally hiring these aliens, nothing will change.
Quote: The Daily BeastAccording to testimony in a protracted civil suit in federal court, [Trump's] laborers were paid $5 an hour or less when they were paid at all. Some went unpaid after the contractor had financial troubles. A few never received even the paltry sum that was owed them for their dirty and hazardous efforts preceding the construction of Trump’s monument to his own wealth.
“They were undocumented and worked ‘off the books,’” Manhattan federal Judge Charles Stewart said of the workers after they became the subject of a 1983 lawsuit. “No records were kept, no Social Security or other taxes were withheld.”
But facts doesn't matter, because facts are irrelevant. Donald Trump's campaign isn't based on facts. It's based on emotion.
Quote: FaceQuote: MathExtremist
Clearly DFS needs regulation, even the companies themselves are acknowledging this now. (They still don't admit it's "gambling" but that's just marketing and ass-covering to skirt the UIGEA. That's like saying "sports betting in Vegas isn't gambling." Of course it's gambling.) The issue is who should be regulating it. I submit it's the role of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (including interstate gambling) because the Constitution says so. It's not clear to me why Christie doesn't see it the same way.
I could've been simple, short-term ignorance. I know if you ever asked me "Should the Federal...", then that's as far as you're going to get before I'm going "NO! No, no, no!" No one wants the Fed's fingers in anything, no one wants them growing even bigger.
But, as you've shown, this issue is sort of already settled. Once given time to think, you can see how it is interstate, and it is commerce, so it easily fits within the Fed's purview. Given a moment to think, I'd come around. As would, I expect, Christie.
If given time and he still says no... well, most pols don't know the Constitution they've sworn to defend. No story, just more of the same =p
I take Christie's reaction in a different way. To me, it was more of a way of saying to the moderators (and the audience) that we are here to discuss more important things than what comic book character Trump is and all the other assorted garbage--they were supposed to be their to discuss larger issues.
The one thing that may happen is that he may have to back off his position once he studies it more and decides that it is commerce that needs to be regulated. I could see how one could get confused by that--so much stuff is regulated by the Feds that shouldn't be and the right is generally fighting for less government, not more (well, the real "right" not the "RINO right") so every initial reaction is to not make new regulations and to get rid of some that we have already. Again, this could come up again because it is a perfect issue that he may have backed himself into a place that is hard to get out of on the issue. He won the moment, it won't matter much if he doesn't get more to the middle of the stage, but it could matter a bit if he gains momentum.
It's a shame only because, in my opinion, the governor of a key gambling state should know these issues better. I wouldn't blame him if he didn't understand the automotive industry, but gambling?
And I'm no debate strategist, but pulling out a quote from the Constitution might have been a big debate win at that moment. We'll never know...
IBD/Tipp poll (I am not real familiar with this pollster) has Trump 28, Carson 23, Rubio 11. This is different than the last two national polls which both had Carson slightly ahead. It also is different than IBD/Tipp's last poll which had Carson in front. That's the kind of thing I like to measure changes in a poll done by the same pollster.
IBD/Tipp polls registered republicans as well as republican leading independents. However republican leaning Independents are not eligible to vote under most states primary or caucus rules, so they are polling some people that are not eligible to vote. Oddly enough they claim the Independents they polled favored Carson, which I would have thought opposite.
I don't put much stock in any single poll as there tends to be outliers, and this poll was partly done prior to and partly done after the last debate. I am anxious to see a couple polls done after the debate.
A couple other interesting items from polls out Thursday. The Presidents approval rating. Gallop 47 approval and 49 disapproval and Rasmussen 51 approval and 48 disapproval. These are two 'big name' pollsters and both sets of number should be troubling for republicans. If the presidents approval rating is anywhere close to even, (which one wonders how on earth it could be) then the democrats big built-in advantage in electoral maps takes precedent. For the republican's to overcome that big disadvantage in the map and electoral votes, they need a majority of the country to disapprove of the job the current president has done.
It goes on to say that most people think that Bill Clinton could not serve as vice president because he is not eligible to serve as president. But the article says that he could because the wording does not say he can not serve as president again, it only says he can not be 'elected' president again. Thus, he could be vice president and even serve as president if something happened to Hillary, just could not be elected again.
I suppose there would be court challenges and it would depend on how the supreme court interpreted it. Would be interesting.
Hillary would not allow Bill to over-shadow her like that, so no need for much worry.
Quote: kewljSo, I was reading an article on yahoo speculating about the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill Clinton as her vice president.
Maybe Trump will pick his wife.
Quote: kewljSo, I was reading an article on yahoo speculating about the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill Clinton as her vice president. The article claims unlike the presidency there are no term limits concerning the vice presidency, meaning Joe Biden, Dick Cheney or Al Gore could serve more terms as vice president. That was interesting. It also claims that serving the maximum two terms as president does not disqualify some one from serving as vice president, as some think.
It goes on to say that most people think that Bill Clinton could not serve as vice president because he is not eligible to serve as president. But the article says that he could because the wording does not say he can not serve as president again, it only says he can not be 'elected' president again. Thus, he could be vice president and even serve as president if something happened to Hillary, just could not be elected again.
I suppose there would be court challenges and it would depend on how the supreme court interpreted it. Would be interesting.
Hillary would not allow Bill to over-shadow her like that, so no need for much worry.
I just don't see how they sell this. "Everybody" knows that, if Hillary is elected, it'll be 2 for the price of 1. So why block somebody else from the VP slot, who could maybe help with demographics or likeability? I think it's a net loss if they do it. Not that I know who that somebody else should be.
What would be the reaction if any mod asked Hillary why she would want to move back into a house where her husband shoved a cigar into another woman.
Will never be asked, but is it a fair question?
If not, why?
And would that be that best "gotcha" question ever.
And if you are a liberal, would you be offended,,,and what would your honest thoughts be if it happened to GW Bush and the question was asked if his wife ran?
Quote: BozThe question I always think of when the debate mods ask Trump if he is a "Cartoon Character" is.....
What would be the reaction if any mod asked Hillary why she would want to move back into a house where her husband shoved a cigar into another woman.
Will never be asked, but is it a fair question?
If not, why?
And would that be that best "gotcha" question ever.
And if you are a liberal, would you be offended,,,and what would your honest thoughts be if it happened to GW Bush and the question was asked if his wife ran?
I would love to see a fox reporter ask that question
I will be munching on my pop corn watching.
That type of question could insure a Clinton win.
Please please Fox, ask that question :-)
Its actually an absurd question.
And that's why it would never be asked
Its like asking Huckabee how he can sleep on a hotel bed knowing that sin probably happened on that bed before. Maybe even gay sex. What are the odds, pretty good :-)
Quote: BozWhat would be the reaction if any mod asked Hillary why she would want to move back into a house where her husband shoved a cigar into another woman.
And would that be that best "gotcha" question ever.
Only if the mod took off a blonde wig and sunglasses and it was Monica.
Quote:WASHINGTON — After years of holding back, former President George Bush has finally broken his public silence about some of the key figures in his son’s administration, issuing scathing critiques of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In interviews with his biographer, Mr. Bush said that Mr. Cheney had built “his own empire” and asserted too much “hard-line” influence within George W. Bush’s White House in pushing for the use of force around the world. Mr. Rumsfeld, the elder Mr. Bush said, was an “arrogant fellow” who could not see how others thought and “served the president badly.”
Been saying the same thing about Cheney's influence in the Bush Whitehouse for a long time now. Looks like senior Bush saw it the same. I never knew quite what to make of Rumsfeld, but at least he never pretended to be soft spoken advisor of little influence, just following the lead of President Bush..
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/politics/elder-bush-says-his-son-was-served-badly-by-aides.html?_r=0
Quote: rxwineBeen saying the same thing about Cheney's influence in the Bush Whitehouse for a long time now. Looks like senior Bush saw it the same. I never knew quite what to make of Rumsfeld, but at least he never pretended to be soft spoken advisor of little influence, just following the lead of President Bush..
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/politics/elder-bush-says-his-son-was-served-badly-by-aides.html?_r=0
Cheney was an a-hole
Bush 2 knew it
Cheney couldn't take a no answer from the President
Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby
This infuriated Cheney
He actually got in Bush's face about this he was so pissed
Quote: BozAnd if you are a liberal, would you be offended,,,and what would your honest thoughts be if it happened to GW Bush and the question was asked if his wife ran?
I wouldn't be offended at all.
It's a stupid question and no sane moderator would ever ask it.
I'm willing to bet that Hillary has been trained by her handlers to know exactly how to respond when someone brings up the Monica issue. It's only a matter of time before someone asks her about it in an interview or debate...
Quote: ams288I wouldn't be offended at all.
It's a stupid question and no sane moderator would ever ask it.
I'm willing to bet that Hillary has been trained by her handlers to know exactly how to respond when someone brings up the Monica issue. It's only a matter of time before someone asks her about it in an interview or debate...
I would agree. She has an answer all prepared ready and waiting.
I think any moderator would look bad asking. It really isn't Hillary's issue. It is her husbands.
But if someone were to ask, Hillary would actually benefit. It would remind people that she was the victim there. Her husband cheated on her and about as publicly as can occur. Would also remind several million other American women who's husbands did likewise that they have that in common with her.
Now this is pretty funny stuff. Is/was Carson SO boring that he made up an alternative past history?
Was he a thug who stabbed someone as he claimed or a nerd who had a "pocket saver and thick glasses"? LOL.
Quote: kewljSo, I was reading an article on yahoo speculating about the possibility of Hillary Clinton picking Bill Clinton as her vice president. The article claims unlike the presidency there are no term limits concerning the vice presidency, meaning Joe Biden, Dick Cheney or Al Gore could serve more terms as vice president. That was interesting. It also claims that serving the maximum two terms as president does not disqualify some one from serving as vice president, as some think.
It goes on to say that most people think that Bill Clinton could not serve as vice president because he is not eligible to serve as president. But the article says that he could because the wording does not say he can not serve as president again, it only says he can not be 'elected' president again. Thus, he could be vice president and even serve as president if something happened to Hillary, just could not be elected again.
I have been "discussing" this very thing for years. The counter argument seems to be that the phrase "elected President" in the 22nd Amendment really means "become President."
However, there is still one roadblock. Assuming Bill and Hillary both live in the same state, the 12th Amendment prevents the electors of that state from voting for both of them. Presumably, in this case, they would vote for Hillary for President and, say, Al Gore for VP (anybody but the Republican VP candidate). However, this could result in none of the VP candidates getting 270 electoral votes, in which case, the Senate would choose from the top two in the electoral vote count, and assuming the Senate is still Republican-controlled, this results in Hillary being President and a Republican being VP.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
However, there is still one roadblock. Assuming Bill and Hillary both live in the same state, the 12th Amendment prevents the electors of that state from voting for both of them.
The Clintons have multiple residences. I know two weeks ago after Hillary testified at the Benghazi hearing, news outlets stated that she stayed in their Washington DC residence. I don't know where either of them actually live most of the time, but I learned from another thread on this site, that it apparently is very common for married couples to maintain separate residences, so I guess no one would think twice.
WTF is wrong with this guy?
Any Conservatives gonna defend this nonsense like they tried to with his slavery and Hitler comments?
Quote: ams288WTF is wrong with this guy?
Too many hours shut up in a small room? (operating room)
You need more than 6 fingers on one hand to count the logical fallacies he uses in the quotes in that article.
Unrelated to his problems with logic:
Quote: Ben Carson“Well of course he has no answer for that. They never have an answer for any of these things, And see that’s the wonderful thing about having a relationship with God. God has already told us what happened, so we don’t have to come up with fanciful theories so that we can take the place of God. We don’t have to do that.”
Ben Carson has now admitted he lied about a West Point Scholarship
He claimed he was a violent youth
yet all his childhood friends claim he was a peaceful nerd?
How does Carson respond?
He is complaining about being under a microscope
lol
Its presidential politics, comes with the territory.
Cant handle the heat, get out.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/06/conservative-media-react-to-ben-carsons-admissi/206676
Reagan had a saying, trust but verify
I guess Carson's saying it trust me but don't verify
lol
Some people think Trump is doing that also, but I disagree. Trump already has his brand. His run for president is actually costing him money and that cost has begun to escalate and will continue to do so as he spends more. His spending more on radio/tv and building an organization as well as doing the work required and filling various paperwork to get on all the ballots proves he is serious.
Ben Carson isn't doing the work, including filing paperwork to get on all the ballots, nor does he have much of a ground game in most states. He has a ground game in Iowa because there is a huge religious electorate that favors him, but not much ground game anywhere else. He will do well in Iowa, start to fizzle in the next 4 contests of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and Florida and drop out before super Tuesday.
So since Carson isn't really running for president, but only building a brand, he needs to spice up his real history. And he doesn't appreciate the media fact checking it. lol
Quote: kewljBen Carson is not really running for President. Nor is he running for vice-president as some are. Ben Carson is building a brand in order to sell books and increase his income from speaking fees. No real candidate would put a hold on his presidential run, when he is leading or near the lead to sell books.
Some people think Trump is doing that also, but I disagree. Trump already has his brand. His run for president is actually costing him money and that cost has begun to escalate and will continue to do so as he spends more. His spending more on radio/tv and building an organization as well as doing the work required and filling various paperwork to get on all the ballots proves he is serious.
Ben Carson isn't doing the work, including filing paperwork to get on all the ballots, nor does he have much of a ground game in most states. He has a ground game in Iowa because there is a huge religious electorate that favors him, but not much ground game anywhere else. He will do well in Iowa, start to fizzle in the next 4 contests of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and Florida and drop out before super Tuesday.
So since Carson isn't really running for president, but only building a brand, he needs to spice up his real history. And he doesn't appreciate the media fact checking it. lol
Well said. The only question is who the people saying they would vote for him are going to jump to when they move on from Ben.
And some of my perception of him is he believes he is guided by the "invisible hand" (naw not the Adam Smith one, the Jehovah one), which lends him to feel his moves however odd are spiritually guided. God will lead him to win, or God will help him sell books. Whatever happens is God's plan, so you can't go wrong.
Something like that.
I just glad no one is questioning that pillar of integrity, Mrs. Clinton.
Maybe it is about books. I don't think so, but it is at least a valid thought. Like so many others that lie for no good reason, somehow the original narrative of his life and his thoughts must not have seemed "good enough" for him to stick with the truth. Who knows.
There I said it...and I've said it before about other conservatives...but has any liberal on the board even mention that Hillary was proven a liar in the hearings? Oh...I know it is a "straw man" or a "purple people eater" or something and I can't say anything about Hillary's lie about Benghazi comparing it to the lies of a man who holds no office.
people who will disbelieve that the politician lied,
people who believe that the politician lied, but don't care. This can be of several forms: the politician was justified in lying, or they really don't care that the politician lied about something.
