2016 Election
Quote: RonCLiberals here and in the real world have been telling the GOP how the GOP can do better for years. I guess Liberals know the GOP but people on the other side can't say they know liberals?
I know a few liberals. They aren't impressed by Hillary or Bernie. They aren't impressed by the GOP candidates either.
Yes, Hillary is a bad candidate. Bernie is a candidate who is a socialist. I never said they wouldn't win; I just said that they are hard to defend as candidates so it is going to be the Democrat strategy to attack and attack hard.
Perhaps you should have said "A few liberals I know aren't impressed with Hillary."
Cause deep down I know she will be a fine President.
Quote: ams288Perhaps you should have said "A few liberals I know aren't impressed with Hillary."
Cause deep down I know she will be a fine President.
Well, I guess it COULD happen. Her unimpressive track record as the wife of a President who was impeached and was in the middle of a bunch of scandals herself at the time, the ties between foreign governments and their family foundation while she was SofS, her lackluster performance as both Senator and SofS, her little server issue, and a few others tell me it is more likely she would be a fair to poor President.
Quote: RonCThe Luntz focus group overwhelming said that it was a bad move by Trump to skip the debate. The few who supported the move thought he had nothing to gain by being there. There was a good amount of talk about him being disrespectful of the people of Iowa.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/29/frank-luntz-kelly-file-focus-group-has-overwhelming-reaction-donald-trump-skipping-gop
It is one thing to be disrespectful of politicians, media, and celebrities. That can go well for someone. If the perception becomes that he is disrespectful of the people he is trying to get to elect him, that could backfire in a big way. The disrespect of "them" is loved by "us"; the disrespect of "us"...well, not so much.
Liberals can label the debate whatever they want; they are trying to defend Hillary and Bernie has candidates so they can do nothing but attack the other side and hope it is effective. They know deep down that Hillary should not be President and I would wager that most of them may want bigger government, but they certainly don't want a socialist elected. "Sorry, Wiz, you gotta split those millions you got for your incredible idea up with everyone equally"...yeah, right...
Yeah, this on top of the "how stupid are the people of Iowa" comment was a net negative. Showed a lot of disdain for their voters. Makes it that much harder, if you think you might support him, to bundle up against the winter and go to your caucus Monday. Easier to sit by the fire with the family.
Quote: RonCWell, I guess it COULD happen. Her unimpressive track record as the wife of a President who was impeached and was in the middle of a bunch of scandals herself at the time, the ties between foreign governments and their family foundation while she was SofS, her lackluster performance as both Senator and SofS, her little server issue, and a few others tell me it is more likely she would be a fair to poor President.
Your judgment of her performance of SofS and a NY Senator is subjective. You are a Republican. Of course you think those things....
Dems and Independents know that "her little server issue" is exactly that. A little issue. Gets less and less important by the day. There is no "there" there. However, like all of her non-scandals (Benghazi), the right will continue to beat that dead horse until the end of time.
Quote: ams288Your judgment of her performance of SofS and a NY Senator is subjective. You are a Republican. Of course you think those things....
No, I actually give credit to some Democrats. I don't just say that they are always bad, even though I often disagree with them. There are some impressive Democrats; none running for President this time. She has not been a particularly impressive one, in my opinion.
Quote: ams288YDems and Independents know that "her little server issue" is exactly that. A little issue. Gets less and less important by the day. There is no "there" there. However, like all of her non-scandals (Benghazi), the right will continue to beat that dead horse until the end of time.
It has already been proven that she has lied about the contents of her server. She may avoid prosecution, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to it. Perhaps you wish it so, as I wish she would face prosecution and prove she either did or didn't do something wrong.
Benghazi? She did a poor job at best and they all lied to us. Perhaps not criminal, but not exactly stand-up behavior from the Administration. It doesn't seem like she really knew how to handle the 3 a.m. phone call after all...
Quote: MaxPenTrump gets wall to wall coverage because he is a master at creating action and providing inspiration. All focal talking points originate from his bringing the topic to the front in a direct manner. He talks about his accomplishments, which are many, to establish credibility. When it comes to talking about the US problems he doesn't talk much about himself, he talks in terms of WE. He brings alot of people together and gets them involved and working on the problems in order to have a resolution. That is what a leader does. He inspires others to succeed and provides the vision.
Trump has been consistent with his vision and principles for 30+ years. He has written books putting forth solutions to our Country's problems. He has also demonstrated an ability to change directions after being fully educated on a matter. What more can you ask of a leader?
This country is in desparate need of a committed leader to restore the destruction of our founding principles. This person needs to be uninfluenced by destructive special interests. They also have to be logical, decisive, and have the commitment to tackle the problems facing us. Trump is the only one who fits the bill in my opinion.
....
THIS (below) is what I'm talking about.
That's not a leader. It's a BS'er. And it's not like this is an isolated case.
How many "accomplishments" can you list that Clinton recorded as secretary of state?Quote: ams288Your judgment of her performance of SofS and a NY Senator is subjective. You are a Republican. Of course you think those things....
The F.B.I. declares otherwise when it devotes 150 special agents to her case.Quote: ams288Dems and Independents know that "her little server issue" is exactly that. A little issue. Gets less and less important by the day.
Quote: steeldcoI see where Trump's campaign manager stated that the Trumpless debate would have between 1 and 2 million views. The numbers ended up being 12.5 million viewers. He was off just a tiny bit......
And Trump's event was only watched by about 3 million across multiple networks... Hmm...
Quote:They say that if I participated in last night’s Fox debate, they would have had 12 million more & would have broken the all time record.
What a moron... He's got some egg on his face. The ratings weren't a disaster like he predicted.
And who is this "they" who say there would have been 12 million more viewers. I'm sure we will never know....
But, putting my conspiracy theory aside, let's assume for a minute that Luntz's focus group was a fair representation of undecided voters. Undecided voters at this point are not Trump supporters. He is not likely to get any undecided supporters. He is sort of like the incumbent at this point. Everyone knows the incumbent. They know who he is and what his positions are. Those that are undecided just before the election, always break against the incumbent. Trump being the best well know and getting the majority of coverage is the incumbent. The voters that he hasn't convinced by now, he is not going to.
BUT those that do support him are rock solid. They are not going away because he didn't attend a debate. His support is already set. The question is, Is it enough in Iowa and will these supporters actually get out and vote. Those questions will be answered Monday night. :)
One of the two sites has odds on the individual states and one doesn't. The odds for Iowa caucuses has Trump at 1-2 and Cruz at 6-4. I don't know why they list 6-4 instead of 3-2 which is the same thing. So that is 1-2 vs 3-2. That's a pretty big difference.
Iowa is tricky because such a small percentage of voters actually go out and vote, so turnout is critical, so I am anxious to see what occurs there. But at this point, Trump winning Iowa or finishing a close second and winning big in New Hampshire and winning South Carolina, where he has a big leads, makes him almost unstoppable.
Quote: kewljRon C: I don't believe the Luntz focus group are credible. It was suggested after one of the earlier debates that Luntz had deliberately picked people opposed to Trump. It is quite clear to me that Fox is against Trump. )
Absolutely. Murdoch hates Trump big time,
he'll do anything to get him to lose. There's
something wrong with Luntz anyway, I've
never liked or trusted him. He gets all sweaty
and excited all the time, he falls over his own
words he's so excited. Not a professional at all.
Quote: RonCYes, Hillary is a bad candidate. Bernie is a candidate who is a socialist. I never said they wouldn't win; I just said that they are hard to defend as candidates so it is going to be the Democrat strategy to attack and attack hard.
Ron, I don't remember you ever endorsing a Democratic candidate who was running for President. What's new?
Keep your eye on Nevada. With the changes made for these caucuses after the problems of 2012, the results could well be a realistic indicator of future developments, considering that Nevada has proven to be such a reliable bellwether.Quote: kewljIowa is tricky because such a small percentage of voters actually go out and vote, so turnout is critical, so I am anxious to see what occurs there. But at this point, Trump winning Iowa or finishing a close second and winning big in New Hampshire and winning South Carolina, where he has a big leads, makes him almost unstoppable.
Quote: RonCYes, Hillary is a bad candidate. Bernie is a candidate who is a socialist. I never said they wouldn't win; I just said that they are hard to defend as candidates so it is going to be the Democrat strategy to attack and attack hard.
Quote: rxwineRon, I don't remember you ever endorsing a Democratic candidate who was running for President. What's new?
..and I don't remember a liberal here ever endorsing a Republican candidate for President. I've only been here for a few years, so this isn't the full accounting of my political views over the years and I doubt it is anyone's. I was more liberal-leaning when I lived in Maryland and leaned more Democrat overall when I was in Florida...but, overall, I've pretty much always been a conservative. Sometimes more to the right than others.
That doesn't change my opinion after looking at this election one bit...there are more bad candidates than good ones. Both Dems are bad; they will have to attack hard to win. I'm not going to quit the forum or go into hiding for months if I am wrong; this is pretty much all in fun.
news networks are praising Trump for
making a brilliant political move by
avoiding the debate. I've heard several
of them say what I brought up earlier,
that Megyn Kelly had worked for months
on her 'gotcha' videos, and the one she
had for Trump was a whopper.
Insiders say she was deeply wounded by
the aftermath of the 1st debate and had
the 'worst couple days of her life'
immediately afterwards. She's admitted
last night she was deeply involved in the
video project. It's so sad that
she's not as smart as Trump, yet thinks
she is.
I doubt that. I do think it would have been higher than it was total, but the record likely would not have been broken. There are enough people who have heard their fill of the candidates and are back to watching their regularly scheduled favorites.
Heck, I am not sure I would have watched had Trump been on the stage. He's playing the reality show buffoon to record numbers of potential voters (again, no one has voted yet unless it is some kind of absentee/early voting deal) and it works for many but not for me.
Quote: EvenBobMore and more talking heads on all the
news networks are praising Trump for
making a brilliant political move by
avoiding the debate. I've heard several
of them say what I brought up earlier,
that Megyn Kelly had worked for months
on her 'gotcha' videos, and the one she
had for Trump was a whopper.
Insiders say she was deeply wounded by
the aftermath of the 1st debate and had
the 'worst couple days of her life'
immediately afterwards. She's admitted
last night she was deeply involved in the
video project. It's so sad that
she's not as smart as Trump, yet thinks
she is.
I have no idea if there is any truth to this. But if there is, Trump was probably tipped off about it. I suspect Fox News Corp, just like the republican party in general is very divided with different people supporting different candidates.
I did find using the video to attack Cruz pretty rough. I have never seen that done before. It is one thing to say you previously said this or supported this and then question a candidate about his current position, but to show a video, which undeniable shows him to have flip flopped...well I have never seen that before. It is just another example of those kind of gottch ya moments that all the moderators, but especially those associated with Fox seem to be after this time around. It is sensational type journalism, that is good for ratings, but it is not the role of a moderator in a presidential debate, IMO.
Quote: kewljI have no idea if there is any truth to this. But if there is, Trump was probably tipped off about it.
I don't think that's what happened. He
was looking for a way to get out of it
anyway, his advisers were telling him
nothing good could come out of it.
With Megyn Kelly there and this close
to the primary, why take a chance.
Murdoch played right into Trump's
hand with his childish tweet. As it turned
out, Cruz got all the heat. Which is fine,
I really don't like him. He's a smarmy
used car salesman, the guy with the
even measured droning voice that talks
and talks until you buy a car just to shut
him up.
Quote: RonCHe's playing the reality show buffoon to record numbers of potential voters
I don't know what this means. I watched his
show on and off for years and never once
did he act like a 'buffoon'. He was always
in command, was no nonsense, never beat
around the bush, the polar opposite of what
a buffoon is.
Quote: WizardI predict he will change his mind and show up.
I'm glad nobody challenged me to a bet on that one.
Quote: EvenBobI don't know what this means. I watched his
show on and off for years and never once
did he act like a 'buffoon'. He was always
in command, was no nonsense, never beat
around the bush, the polar opposite of what
a buffoon is.
In command? Calling names is being in command? He is a bully and he acts like a buffoon on the debate stage.
Quote: RonCIn command? Calling names is being in command? He is a bully and he acts like a buffoon on the debate stage.
I can think of a few generals with exceptional leadership qualities who I would never want as President. Some of these personalities were very good at what they did, and Presidents sometimes had difficulty managing them.
Not sure if I would put Trump in that category, but just as a point not all leaders exactly fit the mold (IMO) which is needed to be POTUS. Some of the bios of our most accomplished successful people in history, doesn't mean they are a fit personalities for the top job (IMO).
I have trouble seeing Trump in the role, because it just seems a bit crazy, but it's not that I don't think he hasn't accomplished anything or is not a leader in his own position as real estate magnate, reality star and what not.
Quote: RonCIn command? Calling names is being in command? He is a bully and he acts like a buffoon on the debate stage.
I don't think buffoon means what you think
it means.
buffoon: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person;
a person who amuses others by tricks, jokes, odd gestures and postures, etc.
A person given to clowning and joking. A ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.
None these describes Trump. He may occasionally
be rude, but that certainly doesn't make him a
buffoon.
Quote: rxwine
I have trouble seeing Trump in the role, because it just seems a bit crazy,
Do you remember 1980? The press and the
Left were calling Reagan every name is the
book, how could we ever elect a TV actor,
the former host of Death Valley Days and
in a Bozo movie featuring a chimp. They
laughed and laughed and Reagan took
47 states and was the best president in
the last 50 years.
Quote: EvenBobDo you remember 1980? The press and the
Left were calling Reagan every name is the
book, how could we ever elect a TV actor,
the former host of Death Valley Days and
in a Bozo movie featuring a chimp. They
laughed and laughed and Reagan took
47 states and was the best president in
the last 50 years.
Just because Reagan came from a TV background doesn't make him like Trump. Reagan was also a two term governor.
Quote: EvenBobReagan took
47 states and was the best president in
the last 50 years.
I'd say Clinton was.
Quote: rxwineJust because Reagan came from a TV background doesn't make him like Trump. Reagan was also a two term governor.
Yet all they did is laugh and laugh at his movie
and TV background. Bedtime for Bonzo was
in TV ads against him. Trump has cred that
Reagan never had, and look how good Reagan
turned out.
Quote: WizardI'd say Clinton was.
I especially liked the part where Clinton
got impeached, that's how great he
was. Reagan never entered the oval
office dressed in anything but a jacket
and tie, out of respect for the job. Clinton
had staff pizza party's in there with
people in their jammies. He had Monica
give him hummers at his desk. He
had zero respect for the office or this
country.
Not to mention disbarred,convicted of perjury and fined.Quote: EvenBobI especially liked the part where Clinton got impeached, that's how great he was.
Quote: EvenBobReagan never entered the oval
office dressed in anything but a jacket
and tie, out of respect for the job. .
rightwing media doesn't do very good research.
for the sake of our system
Regardless of who does well in Iowa, Dem or Repub
my hope is
the pollsters completely blow it
So much is written about who has what % in a poll
Who are these people participating?
Everybody I know does not have a land line.
I'm rooting for Trump to either kill it Monday nite, say 60%, or fall flat, say 20%
Quote: EvenBobReagan never entered the oval
office dressed in anything but a jacket
and tie, out of respect for the job. .
Quote: rxwinerightwing media doesn't do very good research.
Good one RX
Cmon EB
The guy got shot.
cut him some slack
He was known to do some work in the oval office while recovering in casual attire.
I have imagine EB must have been furious when Carter wore a sweater in the oval office. Oh the horror of disrespect. lol
During the work week, never. Visitors were required
to wear a jacket and tie also. As far as I know, Reagan
never got hummers from interns, though.
That is a helluva lot more than can be said for the incumbent.Quote: EvenBobOn weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.
And Casual Friday.
Quote: EvenBobOn weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.
During the work week, never. Visitors were required
to wear a jacket and tie also. As far as I know, Reagan
never got hummers from interns, though.
Back in those days visitors were required to wear jackets and ties to the casinos as well (from pictures I have seen). It's a different era and not a fair comparison.
As far as Reagan not getting hummer....we are talking pre-Viagra days don't forget. :)
I personally will not consider voting for Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or Chris Christie and it has nothing to do with their politics.
These people all have current elected positions, which means they all campaigned and asked voters to elect them to a position, knowing they had no intention of fulfilling that job to the best of their abilities. They all knew they would at best be part-time governors and senators for the nearly two years that it takes to run for president including all the fund raising. In the case of Kasich and Christie, they asked voters to elect them as recently as 2014, which they probably were already running for president as far as fund raising etc. That is just not being honest.
Even worse in my opinion is the situation that Rand Paul is doing, running for President and Senate re-election in the same year. Basically after 2 years of not doing the job that he was elected to, instead running around the country seeking a better job, he will still have the nerve to ask the people of Kentucky to re-elect him. He is not the first to do this.....but I hate this scenario. It should not be allowed. I do give a bit of credit to Rubio, who's seat is up for re-election for deciding not to seek re-election at the same time he runs for president. But that still doesn't excuse the fact that he is currently getting paid for, but not doing the job that he asked voters for.
Quote: kewljHere is the source that I used.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/2016-Republican-Primaries-How-Delegates-Will-be-Awarded.htm
But I will do some further looking for more information when I have more time.
The California Republican Party Bylaws, Bylaw 6.01(a), says that the winner in each of California's Congressional districts gets 3 delegates, and the statewide winner gets the "at-large" delegates (in California's case, the minimum 10).
I couldn't find New York's bylaws, but Connecticut Republican Party Bylaw 17(a) says that the statewide delegates go to the winner if he gets a majority of the statewide vote, or otherwise divided proportionally among the candidates that get at least 20% of the statewide vote, and in each Congressional district, the district's 3 delegates are winner take all.
I think whoever wrote the article for About.com misunderstood the rules, and thought that since states "could" have winner-take-all primaries starting on 3/15, then they "had to."
rxwine: (provides photographic evidence to the contrary)
EvenBob: On weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.
——————————————————————————
I don’t know whether it’s more hilarious or sad how some people won’t admit they were wrong even when the evidence is overwhelming.
When I saw the pictures, somehow I knew that wouldn’t be enough to elicit an admission of error.
What’s funny is that somehow EvenBob thinks that defending his error somehow saves face, rather than the actual result of making him look even worse.
Quote: MichaelBluejayEvenBob: Reagan never entered the oval office dressed in anything but a jacket and tie, out of respect for the job. [Note the “never”.]
rxwine: (provides photographic evidence to the contrary)
EvenBob: On weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.
——————————————————————————
I don’t know whether it’s more hilarious or sad how some people won’t admit they were wrong even when the evidence is overwhelming.
When I saw the pictures, somehow I knew that wouldn’t be enough to elicit an admission of error.
What’s funny is that somehow EvenBob thinks that defending his error somehow saves face, rather than the actual result of making him look even worse.
Hey, THAT is what makes him EVENBOB and so much fun. :)
While no one likes to be proven wrong factually (as opposed to an opinion), I look at it as a chance to learn, grow and improve. :/
If Megyn Kelly has devastating Trump video, it will get shown. Last night wasn't the last chance for that confrontation.
Clinton was the best President of the last 50 years, judging on results of his administration and policies. Focusing on his sex life is just weird at this point. Not to mention hypocritical, given what got covered up in many other administrations. Everything is a product of its time; the voters didn't care about that part of a President's life, and the press covered up any indiscretions they knew of like that, before Clinton.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
I don’t know whether it’s more hilarious or sad how some people won’t admit they were wrong
I wasn't wrong, I only had part of the information.
I didn't know it only applied during work hours,
I had never heard that part of it. Sorry to disappoint
you, Bluejay. (I have to go turn my thermostat down
a degree to help save the planet. Be right back..)
Quote: beachbumbabsIf Megyn Kelly has devastating Trump video, it will get shown. .
It's nothing that hasn't been seen before. Trump
had different opinions in the past, and has since
changed. This is happening more and more, people
get older, they evolve. What's amazing is, the
American people really are paying attention to
what goes on in DC. The net and cable news has
wised people up to the fact if we keep electing
the same type of professional politician, we will
continue to get screwed by them. Hence the
interest in Trump and Sanders. Sometimes change
is a good thing. Not Obama's Hope and Change,
but real change.
Quote: EvenBobOn weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.
During the work week, never. Visitors were required
to wear a jacket and tie also. As far as I know, Reagan
never got hummers from interns, though.
Sure he just slept through cabinet meetings http://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed_2/ and had a fundamental lack of understanding in several key areas. Oh and there is the little issue of him either being so incompetent that he didn't know what his underlings were doing or that he actively participated in selling weapons to a foreign enemy to secure the release of prisoners and turned around and used the profits of that sell to fund terrorist in South America and then tried to destroy evidence. Sure though getting a beej is totally worse than Iran-Contra at least in right wing crazy land.
Quote: beachbumbabsRubio didn't have a choice. Florida doesn't allow people to be on the ballot for more than one elected office. If he could have stayed on the ballot, he would have.
Clinton was the best President of the last 50 years, judging on results of his administration and policies. Focusing on his sex life is just weird at this point.
Rubio could have taken steps to change the law or 'skirt' the law just as Rand Paul did in Kentucky, which has the same law. It is pretty clear that Rubio has quickly become dissatisfied with Washington politics. I think he already has his sights set on the Florida Governor's race in 2018, should he not win the presidency this go around and I think he will likely have several more go rounds at the presidency.
Although I like Bill Clinton, I have to disagree with you and Wizard about Clinton being the best president. NAFTA dooms Clinton's presidency from being recognized as a success in my opinion. NAFTA costs this country many jobs, and was a major contributor to the decline of the middle class in America, for which we still have not recovered. It was just a bad deal for American workers.
I do not judge his presidency on his sex life and/or scandal. Only difference between Bill Clinton, and beloved JFK and many other presidents, was that it was a different era. In earlier times the media did not report on such behavior by Presidents.
Quote: EvenBobI don't think buffoon means what you think
it means.
buffoon: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person;
a person who amuses others by tricks, jokes, odd gestures and postures, etc.
A person given to clowning and joking. A ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.
None these describes Trump. He may occasionally
be rude, but that certainly doesn't make him a
buffoon.
No, actually "buffoon" meant what I thought it meant, but thanks so much for checking on it for me.
He fits the second and third line of the definition pretty well with his actions on the debate stage and in other places. He has diminished events from forums to hear what the candidates have to say to clown shows of what stupid thing he is going to say next. He makes silly faces. kind of like a young child. His comments, which he always seems to say are him "not being PC" are downright nasty. You can say things that aren't PC without being nasty, but he'd rather be nasty.
I've conceded that he is in position to win the nomination and that I will vote for him against either Dem (and Biden, were he to enter) in the general election. I gotta say, though, it is hard for me to spend eight years calling President Obama out on everything and then getting the feeling that some people would prefer that Trump be given a pass. No thanks...that is not for me. Maybe he will act Presidential and not worry about Rosie O'Donnell when he is President, but I haven't really seen that side yet.
Quote: EvenBobSorry to disappoint
you, Bluejay. (I have to go turn my thermostat down
a degree to help save the planet. Be right back..)
Don't waste your time with the thermostat. It's too late.
On Jan 25, 2006 Al Gore said we have 10 years to save the planet. And we blew it.
