DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 10, 2015, 06:34:30 PM
-
Let's get down to brass tacks.....its still quite a ways until the party primaries, but I think we can get down and dirty as to who's going to be in the final showdowns
Dems......It's going to be Hillary. O'Mally doesn't have the name recognition, or financial warchest, or any major support from a major political figure. Sanders has the eye of the hard core base, but not the Oligarchy which has too much vested in Hillary. And Warren isn't running. So Hillary, with her massive amount of negative baggage (getting bigger by the day), will be the Democrat nominee
GOP.......yes, there are like 20 dozen folks who are proclaiming their run for the Presidency, and as much as I would support a Nominee Carson, or Nominee Fiorino, there's really only 3 current candidates that have all the necessary shopping cart items of money, name recognition, and wide spread support (no xo, that doesn't mean wide spread Democrat support, or even country-wide support, I'm referring to support by core Conservatives & Republicans, who would be making the decision as to the nominee) And it doesn't include Senator Cruz or Senator Paul. Those would be:
- Governor Scott Walker
- Senator Marco Rubio
- Former Governor Jeb Bush
Those 3 have all the tools necessary to get elected President of the United States. I'll support any of the 3, but I sure hope its not Bush. Although he doesn't have the Clinton baggage problem specific to Hillary, he has the name problem associating him to his brother, not to mention is the most liberal of the 3. And Rubio doesn't have the executive experience I'd want in a nominee and future President.
Walker's been my fella from the get go, so ....... I'll be doing what I can to help his go, get along
-
but why not Canadian born minority ted cruz??
whats wrong with him.
-
While I would support a Nominee Cruz, and while he would win an election against Hillary, he's alienated many within his own party, most of them your upper rank & file Republican establisment. He would have the solid backing of the Tea party & has perhaps the best conservative credentials, but the other 3 have a far better chance of being elected President. Not to mention that for me, he lacks the executive experience, to successfully function as President. I mean, I can't even remember the last Senator who was an effective President. All the latest ones, have demonstrated just how poor they are at being in charge of the executive branch.....tooped off by the latest failed attempt
-
Jebbie was rather sucky as a governor. Rubio is nothing but an airhead with a pretty face spouting a bunch of feisty crap, and Walker is quite simply, a hateful jerk.
Jebbie is the best of a shitty lot, though Cruz and Graham are worse.
-
As opined by the hateful Democrat
-
Who knows that the demographics are on my side. You are a pathetic, gasping dinosaur.
-
Who knows that the demographics are on my side.
LOL....they are transparent as much as you are deflective
-
I believe that I have the right to deflect as much as I choose.
It is hardly a deflection to pojnt out that the GOP candidates ate all yabbos.
Marco Rubio likes to speed and run red lights. He and his wife have paid thousands in traffic fines, so he does not seem to respect the law.
In the past four years, he has had to go to traffic school FOUR times.
I have had to do this ONCE in 35 years. I do not find traffic signs and lights difficult to obey. Who knows about Marco?
-
I believe that I have the right to deflect as much as I choose.
And Dr Deflection strikes again.....whoever claimed you couldn't deflect all you want?? Pointing it out doesn't translate into demanding you cease ::)
It is hardly a deflection to pojnt out that the GOP candidates ate all yabbos.
As opined by a hard core Democrat who never came across any such credible Republican who would be President? EVERY GOP candidate is going to be some form of a "yabbos", whatever the hell, that is
Marco Rubio likes to speed and run red lights. He and his wife have paid thousands in traffic fines, so he does not seem to respect the law. In the past four years, he has had to go to traffic school FOUR times.
OH GOOD GOD....THE HORROR ::) Boy, isn't it a good thing, that Hillary, that so called "voice of the people and personification of the average American", hasn't drive a car for.....how many decades now??
And you really don't want to go down that road of those politicians who don't seem to care about the law....or the Constitution, which is the pinnacle of law. In fact, you yourself have proclaimed how you could care less about our Constitution. So, what's to you if anyone breaks some moving violation law, when your guys are breaking actual Constitutional law??
-
Marco Rubio likes to speed and run red lights. He and his wife have paid thousands in traffic fines, so he does not seem to respect the law.
In the past four years, he has had to go to traffic school FOUR times.
I have had to do this ONCE in 35 years. I do not find traffic signs and lights difficult to obey. Who knows about Marco?
Even that stall-worth liberal comedian, Jon Stewart recognizes how ridiculously lame (http://www.mrctv.org/blog/jon-stewart-absolutely-eviscerates-new-york-times#.3bcpie:20Hn) this attempt to smear Rubio is
-
It is simply reality. Someone who knowingly speeds or runs stop signs reveals the sort of personality that makes them unfit for political office. They will do whatever they think will benefit them any time they think they can get away with it. Rubio has lots of political friends, and probably has managed to get away with many infractions in addition to these.
I think that anyone of any political persuasion would prefer a leader who does not routinely BREAK THE LAW anytime they think they can get away with it. And Jon Stewart's opinion does not make this okay in my book.
-
Your grasp of reality is so perverted, where on the one hand you completely ignore Democrats actively skirting the Constitution, but go ape snot over 4 fricken car tickets over some 17year period. Hillary has been breaking all forms of campaign finance laws, while Obama has been routinely breaking the Constitution. Your unsubstantiated opinion of what Rubio supposedly "got away with" aside, if anyone of any political persuasion thinks that Hillary's & Obama's BREAKING THE LAW is acceptable, then 4 measly moving violations is not even a grain of sand on a beach
-
Current Krauthammer odds:
1. Jeb Bush. Solid, no sizzle. Sizzle may be in less demand than eight years ago, but his inability to separate from the pack, his recent campaign shake-up and his four-day stumble over Megyn Kelly’s “knowing what we know now” Iraq question have given even his supporters pause. Nonetheless, a bulging war chest, a fine gubernatorial record and a wide knowledge of domestic issues guarantee top-tier staying power.
Chances: 25 percent.
2. Scott Walker. Maintains a significant lead in Iowa and it’s more than just a Wisconsinite’s favorite-son advantage. He’s got a solid governing record, has raised respectable money and has gone almost errorless for more than a month. One caveat: His major wobble on immigration threatens his straight-shooter persona.
Chances: 25 percent.
3. Marco Rubio. Good launch, steady follow-up. With his fluency in foreign affairs, he’s benefited the most from President Obama’s imploding foreign policy. Polls well, but with seven or so within the margin of error, the important question is less “Who do you support?” than “Who could you support?” (measuring general acceptability). Rubio leads all with 74 percent. The New York Times’ comical attempts to nail him on driving (four citations in 18 years — “Arrest that man!”) and financial profligacy (a small family fishing boat — a “dream dinghy,” says a friend of mine — characterized as a “luxury speedboat”) only confirm how much the Democrats fear his prospects.
Chances: 35 percent.
-
An $80,000 boat is not any dinghy.
Rubio has the right to buy any sort of toy he wants, and voters have the right to reject him accordingly.
Jebbie has yet to even announce his candidacy. He has only announced that he will announce.
The Iowa thingie brings out the ultra rightwing loons. It is therefore not much of an indicator of the eventual prospects.
-
Reject him for buying a boat....with his own money?? And Hillary is flying in private jets & chauffered limos, but she shouldn't be rejected??
See the upside down nonsense you're demonstrating?
-
An $80,000 boat is not any dinghy.
WOW......Krauthammer was spot on, when he referenced the level of desperation coming from the left at the prospects of a Rubio nominee.
(http://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/marco-rubio-boat-300x225.jpg)
Boats in general, are pretty pricey, so the fact he got this tiny little thing for 80k is pretty good. But if you listened the whining on the left, you'd think he bought a
(http://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kerry-yacht2-300x200.jpg)
(that, btw, was SoS Kerry's 7+ Million dollar "dinghy")
-
If he paid $80,000 for that thing, he is a true sucker.
This is not as bad as his constant violations of traffic laws, though.
-
4 moving violations in 17+years is not analogous "constant violations". Even the most hardened of liberal comedians recognize the desperation of that tactic ::)
Nice to know now how he went from some big thrift uber rich spender to someone who supposedly purchased crap. Never realized you were so "versed" & experienced in maritime boat values. Do tell
-
Reject him for buying a boat....with his own money?? And Hillary is flying in private jets & chauffered limos, but she shouldn't be rejected??
See the upside down nonsense you're demonstrating?
How did he buy this boat?
Last time John Kerry bought a yacht he bought and registered it in a state with less taxation for it than his own state.
Which I would have also done, but I haven't ever advocated that taxes be higher.
-
Tax avoidance is not a crime. Whether it is immoral is a murkier issue.
Rubio is what is called nouveau riche. He gets some money and spends it like a sailor on shore leave.
What is worst about Rubio is that he is for sale to the highest bidder. Whatever Norman Brahman wants him to believe will become part of his creed until and unless he finds someone with even more money. The FL legislature, which Rubio presided over, is a dysfunctional bunch of despoilers of the environment, hick lawyers, undereducated businessmen and half baked ideologues. Only Arizona and perhaps Alabama can compete with it for sheer incompetence.
-
What is worst about Rubio is that he is for sale to the highest bidder.
Oh, you have got to be kidding......AND HILLARY GETS A PASS ON THAT?? Lemme guess.....the right type of people bought her.
-
How does Hillary doing anything make Rubio not guilty of selling out to thew highest bidder?
Hillary has nothing to do with this discussion.
Nothing
At
All.
-
How does your opinion that Rubio selling out to the highest bidder as his "worst", absolve your gal Hillary, from the billions poured into her & Bill's foundation, in buying her??
Nothing
At
All
-
Did I say Hillary was "my gal"? No, I did not.
I said NOT ONE WORD about Hillary, because this is not about Hillary.
This is about Rubio and only Rubio and no one else but Rubio.
Rubio is not running against Hillary in any Republican primary, either. The time to compare Rubio and Hillary has not yet come. It may never come.
-
You've defended Hillary since the get go. Of course she's going to be your gal, when she's officially the nominee. And YES, when you try to throw out the notion of being bought by the highest bidder, that ABSOLUTELY makes this about Hillary.
You don't get to make the demands about what a thread can only be about. From the get go, it was about the potential nominees each party has, and the likelyhood of they becoming the party's nominee. That includes Hillary & Rubio. It also includes Walker, Bush, Sanders, & O'Mally. If people want to inquire about others like Kimba did with Cruz, that's perfectly rational as well. You can either deal with the credible tangents, or hold your breath until you turn blue, since its obvious you can't defend the indefensible....in this case that the highest bidder to date, with the current crop of those running for President, from any party, is good 'ol Hillary
-
Hillary is superior to any of the current Republican'ts. I prefer Bernie Sanders, actually.
But again this is not a discussion that has one damned thing to do with Hillary.
There is nothing evil that Hillary could do that would make Rubio one whit more acceptable.
-
Hillary is superior to any of the current Republican'ts.
BUT..... you just said the worst thing about a candidate is themselves being bought off by the highest bidder. So....its ok to be bought off, if you have a (D) after your name? Is that how it works?
There is nothing evil that Hillary could do that would make Rubio one whit more acceptable.
As if there were anything that would be, as per the ravings of a hard core leftist. ::) She has the right letter, he doesn't. And its just as much, if not more, about Hillary than any bidding for Rubio
-
What is worst about *insert candidate here* is that he/she is for sale to the highest bidder.
This is the quote that's going to haunt our resident liberal professor all thru the next Presidential campaign process. Not just a bad thing....but the WORST....that of a Candidate being for sold to the highest bidder. Now, xo may want to pick on Rubio and "Rubio only", in order to avoid the 800lb Democrat Candidate in the room, but the effort to keep trying to spraypaint Rubio & "Rubio only", is merely going to keep bringing Hillary's history right back into the spotlight
Now, who amongst the top tier candidates:
- Rubio
- Clinton
- Walker
- Sanders
- Bush
...not just have access, but have factually received BILLIONS in donations to their personal foundation? Now, all have been in a position to "facilitate favors", but who has held the highest appointed office, that has global connections? And just for the record, who amonst these 5 have the highest net worth?
-
I'll get the net worth started with ranking
5) Sanders (about 1/2 million)
4) Rubio (under 1million)
3) Walker (a little over 1million)
2) Jeb Bush (10+million)
1) Anyone want to take a guess?
(had to make a correction, as Sanders came in way below the standard Senator's net worth. I guess he's doing something wrong)
-
It would be nice if Americans did not vote based on the size of contributions to the candidate's war chest.
It would also be nice if no candidate ran attack ads, and stuck to showing his or her virtues.
But I do not see this as all that likely.
-
Attack ads have been a staple of politics since politics began, so we can move that aside, as that will never change. Dems will still proclaim that voting for a Republican will cause another black church to burn down. But one can't help but chuckle at those attack ads of how "out of touch" Romney supposedly was, based on nothing more than he was wealthy, yet those uber Rich Clintons, are down with the middle class folk ::)
The largeness in the size of contributions are generally with the goal of access. The larger the donation, the faster & more personal the access. Such that to whatever said candidate's position is, be it Senator, Governor, Secretary of *insert whatever dept here*, or even President, that proportional to the donation is access and facilitation of whatever agenda uber rich person or foreign government is pushing,
That's why I've always supported complete disclosure of any and all donations/contributions. No hiding behind bland names like the Society for a greater America. We see who donates to who, and how much. THEN we sit back and everyone can observe if there is any quid pro quo going on. Shuts out lobbyists, shuts out many PAC's. And it does it to ALL Parties. Any sign of a scratch my back I'll scratch yours, or being sold to the highest bidder, they're voted out faster than they got elected. (if not simply recalled). And no, it can't be strictly pubic financing, because then the power of speech is completely manipulated by the mainstream media, and they've already tipped their hand at being wholly biased in one party's favor
So, while I agree that one of the worst things a Politician can do is whore themselves to the highest bidder, the notion that Rubio is supposedly doing it, while ignoring that Mrs. Clinton is worth 20x more than Rubio, has a Foundation that has taken in billions, from uber donors, both foreign & domestic, and not so surprisingly, some of these enterprising donors were on the positive end of favorable rulings by the State Dept, in which she signed off on, puts the original accusation in far better perspective
Hopefully the Dems will see the error of their ways and get behind Mr Sanders
-
The fact is that Romney WAS out of touch with the people.
"Cadillacs? I think we own one of those." Saying this tells us how out of touch Romney was. Not knowing how most Americans interpret this revealed his midset even more.
I am all for full disclosure. Not only full disclosure but REQUIRING it to be publicized.
Citizens United did away with disclosure even more than previously.
Romney is no longer running. I think that he is preferable to Rubio, not by much.
Yesterday Jebby made his Big Speech, at Miami Dade College, which has four campuses. He chose to give his speech at the Kendall Campus, the Whitest of the four.
We won't be seeing any BUSH bumperstickers, they only say JEB!
His actual name is John Ellis Bush.
The previously most important American known as JEB was General J.E.B. Stuart. His actual name was James Ewell Brown. He was a general of Cavalry at the Battle of Gettysburg, and some blamed him for losing that battle for not staying closer to the main body of the Confederate Army. He was killed in 1864, and his wife wore black for the rest of her life, until she fell and hit her head on a sidewalk and died in 1923. J.E.B. Stuart has inspired many books. A Confederate flag his wife sewed sold for $956,000, and the Army named a tank after him.
Prescott Bush, JEB's father was a honcho in Planned Parenthood, and had five children, all of them presumably planned. The family owns a 10,000 acre plantation near Barnwell, SC, in addition to the family compound at Kennebunkport ME and an island off the coast of CT.
-
The fact is Hillary is JUST as out of touch as you think Romney was or Bush is
-
That is an opinion from your addled mind, which I do not consider to be any more valid than the hooting of owls or the screeching of wild parakeets.
When Hillary says something dumb like "Cadillac? I think we own one of those", then I will reconsider my opinion of Hillary. As I said, she is not my favorite. But she clearly would be better than any goddamned Republican.
-
No more than your opinion is of Romney or Bush. Do dogs in your neighborhood start to howl when you screech gets too high? I mean, does Hillary even know what a steering wheel is, I wonder?
-
That is an opinion from your addled mind, which I do not consider to be any more valid than the hooting of owls or the screeching of wild parakeets.
When Hillary says something dumb like "Cadillac? I think we own one of those", then I will reconsider my opinion of Hillary. As I said, she is not my favorite. But she clearly would be better than any goddamned Republican.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI
No ways tired.
-
Hillary is clowning around here, not revealing any attitude as Romney was..
-
When Hillary says something dumb like "Cadillac? I think we own one of those", then I will reconsider my opinion of Hillary.
XO Hillary Clinton has not driven a car since 1996.
She is really out of touch.
-
But....but.....she's a person of the people. She "connects" with them, because......well, because she's.....well, she just does. I feel it ;)
-
Let's get down to brass tacks.....its still quite a ways until the party primaries, but I think we can get down and dirty as to who's going to be in the final showdowns
Dems......It's going to be Hillary. O'Mally doesn't have the name recognition, or financial warchest, or any major support from a major political figure. Sanders has the eye of the hard core base, but not the Oligarchy which has too much vested in Hillary. And Warren isn't running. So Hillary, with her massive amount of negative baggage (getting bigger by the day), will be the Democrat nominee
There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats' candidate for president in 2016.
This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want "a woman" to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.
What is Hillary's history? In the most important job she has ever held -- Secretary of State -- American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.
U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans.
Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country's extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy.
In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies.
The famous "reset" in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks. This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia -- and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises.
Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves. President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other Secretaries of State, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama's when they were both in the Senate.
Both of them opposed the military "surge" in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge's success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it.
The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy -- not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them -- was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton's watch as Secretary of State.
What the administration's protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.
There are no offsetting foreign policy triumphs under Secretary of State Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks.
The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign policy disasters on her watch as Secretary of State, raises painful questions about this country.
A President of the United States -- any president -- has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization. If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could.
With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic.
Commentary (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/06/23/hillary-and-history-n2015842)
-
The US is not preventing the Ukranians from having arms. It is just not giving therm away.
Why should it? They have wasted far too much money trying to lure Ukraine to join the West, but it is clearly in the Russian sphere of influence. Over 50- million we have pissed away on this. It was wasted.
Crimea was never a bona fide Ukraine territory: it was bestowed on them by Khruschev. It does not matter to a single American who rules Crimea. The Crimeans seem to be as happy to be Russians as they were to be Ukrainian.
This country has no reason to provoke a war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot BUY arms, it has no money. Ukraine has been hideously incompetent at running itself. So we would have to GIVE them weapons, and Russia could clearly win any war with Ukraine.
-
Clearly avoding the specific point being made by the commentary. But no surprise there