DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 05, 2015, 08:59:15 PM
-
When Fiorina is questioned about her lack of experience in elective office, she argues that her tenure running Hewlett-Packard showcased her leadership skills and that the nation's founders never intended for there to be a "permanent political class" - points she repeatedly stressed during her Senate run.
Among some voters, who polls show view officials in Washington with less regard than used-car salesmen, the lack of time in political office does not disqualify Fiorina from the presidency.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-presidential-candidate-carly-fiorina-winning-over-skeptics/ar-AAcsIgJ
This is a good point.
That doesn't make her my favorite, but I do like her direction.
-
Her credentials are solid, she's articulate, I actually like her over Carson, as far as those with little, to no, public office experience
-
She may be more competent than Carson, who says stuff to deliberately tick people off: bad, bad traits for any president.
On the other hand, Fiorina demonstrated at Hewlett Packard how to run a company into the ground and get canned. And she also is somewhat bellicose and obnoxious.
-
And she also is somewhat bellicose and obnoxious.
No more than the current Democrat candidate. Not to mention no one died under Fiorina's watch
-
Fiorina are Carson are pissing against the wind. Neither has even a tiny chance.
-
You mean, the Oligarchy has decided already that its going to be Hillary and........ ?
-
I just know that the GOP is not going to consider either of them. Hillary has NOTHING to do with the Republican nominee.
-
Never said she did. If they are in the debates, obviously they are being considered. So if your so convinced that the Oligarchy has no intention of allowing ether Carson or Fiorina to run against their Hillary, who will they allow?
-
Jeb! is the most likely candidate. Republicans are not noted for being original thinkers, and when they try, they end up with PR nuisances like Agnew, Quayle and Palin.
The voters in the primaries will have much to say about who gets the nomination, but it probably will depend on who has the biggest pile of money, and that would be Jeb! who has forsaken his surname for the time being and added a ! to make him seem more exciting. And three letter names are easier to deal with that longer ones like Santorum, silly ones like Huckabee, and foreign-sounding ones like Fiorina, nee Sneed, Cruz, Rubio, or Jindal.
I see the Republican primaries as a great source of entertainment.
Keep in mind that I will have no input at all, I am only speculating based on observation of these creatures.
-
The voters in the primaries will have much to say about who gets the nomination, but it probably will depend on who has the biggest pile of money, and that would be Jeb! who has forsaken his surname for the time being and added a ! to make him seem more exciting
That explains Hillary obviously then, as well. Glad we got that cleared up
-
Yes .
He is most likely right .
Hillary vs JEB! because the money is running that way.
I would be tickled to see that money getting frustrated.
But it would take money to get the word out ,....right?
-
I would be tickled to see that money getting frustrated.
But it would take money to get the word out ,....right?
Yes I would be thrilled to see the corrupt crowd sweat a little.
The media....BOTH parties....big "on the tit" banks/corporations.
They are so smug...and disdainful of the American People.
Trump makes them uneasy...he upsets the apple-cart
and you know that's very true because they are attempting to destroy him before any momentum builds.
It's funny to think whats being said behind close doors about Trump
"that bastard is telling the truth....we must stop that right now before the people wake up"
ok...Macy's do your part....ok NBC do you part....ok City of NY do your part....the truth must be stopped now!
it will be interesting to watch
-
The TRUTH is that Obama has deported more illegals than any other president, that the number of illegals has declined quite a bit since Obama was elected, and the percentage of Mexicans in the total number of illegals has declined.
]The idea that somehow Trump is and enemy of the big banks is nonsense. He owns hotels,m condos casinos, he knows these people well and does business with them each and every day. Trump would not bust up JP Morgan, Citibank, Wells Fargo of Bank of America. He would most likely cut their taxes and tell you that it was to give more people jobs.
Al Trump wants is attention. He will say anything to get it. He has never done one useful thing for the people of this country in his entire fucking career.
-
The TRUTH is that Obama has deported more illegals than any other president, that the number of illegals has declined quite a bit since Obama was elected, and the percentage of Mexicans in the total number of illegals has declined.
I suppose this explains the exasperation of most Latino people with the Democratic party.
-
Get serious, Plane, most of them have always voted for Democrats and will continue to do so.
Obama got a very large majority of their votes, far more than Romney did.
Obama deported some people who had been convicted of crimes. Trump has said that they are a criminal element and talks like he wants to deport them all.
Hispanics are NOT exasperated with the Democrats as a rule.
-
You mean it doesn't matter what the Democrats actually do or what the situation really is?
Or is President Obama deporting more than ever , but doing it nicely?
-
He is doing a more professional job of it than Juniorbush, it appears.
The people being deported would not be voters, but they might be friends, relatives or co workers of those who are.
I don't think deporting a thief or a rapist would be a problem for most people. People do not want thieves or rapists in their communities, even if they are from the same country.
-
He is doing a more professional job of it than Juniorbush, it appears.
The people being deported would not be voters,
Why not? but they might be friends, relatives or co workers of those who are.
I don't think deporting a thief or a rapist would be a problem for most people. People do not want thieves or rapists in their communities, even if they are from the same country.
Wait a minute, is this your opinion or are you quoting Donald Trump?
-
You sure ask really stupid questions.
Come back when you are smarter.
-
illegal immigration isn't down because Obama wanted it stopped
the reason less mexicans are running across the border illegally (if that is even actually true)
is because the economy has not produced jobs under Obama.
no jobs = no illegals
it proves the point....it's not the point Obama was trying to make, but it is a fact
if we denied illegals jobs.....they would stop coming
-
You sure ask really stupid questions.
Come back when you are smarter.
You mean it is dumb to expect someone who is deportable to have little respect for American law and perhaps vote contrary to the rules?
Or is it dumb of me to note that you note same fact that got Trump fired for noting?
Perhaps I missed the irony that you obviously intended?
By the way I'm not trying to do dumb , I am trying to do Socratic.
Perhaps I need the practice?
-
Trump was right on point...just didn't articulate it well enough. There are a whole host of other reasons he'd likely be my least favored candidate, but he's not wrong on what he was trying to convey regarding ILLEGAL immigration, and this Government's woeful and inexcusable lack of enforcing existing immigration law
Didn't we just hear about an illegal immigrant WHO HAD BEEN DEPORTED 5 TIMES ALREADY, who found "sanctuary" in San Francisco, and has now murdered a woman, with an illegal firearm, he had no legal right to carry.
(of course, watch how the effort is made to make this about the gun, and not the uillegal immigrant who was illegally here in the 1st place, and ALLOWED TO REMAIN, VIA THE CITY'S SANCTUARY STATUS)
-
If there were not so many guns in circulation, he would not have had that gun.
Too many guns means too many people get shot.
Trump is a dolt and when you see that the Republican't candidate has once more lost because he pissed off Hispanics, at least you will have someone to blame.
-
If there were not so many guns in circulation, he would not have had that gun.
LOL...see? NEWS FLASH....It has nothing to do with #'s. The more guns doesn't make them any less legal or less obtainable, to those who illegally get them to begin with. The only way that occurs is ZERO guns. The only saving grace is knowing that for this 1 life cruelly taken by a gun, at the hands of this ILLEGAL Immigrant, who should have been in Federal Prison, if the Government actually was doing its job, at least 7 were saved with one
-
If there were not so many guns in circulation, he would not have had that gun.
No.
If there were only one pistol in that entire town , it would be a guy like this one who would have brought it there.
-
If there were one pistol in any town, it would belong to some cop. Get serious.
-
Not the illegal ones. You keep forgetting what makes a criminal a criminal....they have no intention of following the law, current or proposed.
-
If there were one pistol in town, that would be pretty much science fiction anywhere on this planet.
The more guns there are, the easier it is for thieves to get one.
The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.
Now if everyone wore a gun all the time, there would STILL be more people getting shot, just for different reasons.
Tombstone was not generally noted for its being a safe place to live in the 1880's.
-
Speaking of science fiction would be the notion there would be only 1 gun in town. The less guns there are just makes getting them JUST AS ILLEGAL, for the CRIMINAL, who will not be abiding by any current or proposed gun laws
You can't run around the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the Unitied States. There will ALWAYS BE GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY. No amount of fantasizing where just good non-racist police officers have them, and noone else is going to change reality, and more importantly, our laws that Govern this country, as directed by our CONSTITUTION
And given current reality, THE MORE GUNS IN LAW ABIDING HANDS MEANS MORE LIVES SAVED THAN THOSE TAKEN
And no one is advocating Tombstone, Dr Deflection, so you can give that deflective effort a rest
-
If you carry your gun-loving views to their logical conclusion, what you end up with is the spitting image of Tombstones, only with more effective guns.
More guns will result in more people getting shot. That is simply a fact.
I was not the one that speculated about San Francisco with only one gun, I was only commenting on it
-
No, that's an illogical conclusion, since no one is advocating some wide open, everyone able to open carry their firearms. Not even the evil NRA is advocating that "conclusion". Which brings us back to a more realistic logical conclusion, where more guns in law abiding hands, means more lives saved. That's a simple fact. I realize you could care less about all those extra lives lost to push some ideological fantasy, but thankfully there's still enough of us more rational folks, supported by the rule of law, to put a kabosh on that fascist goal of disarming the law abiding populace
-
More guns will result in more people getting shot. That is simply a fact.
Fiction....see Switzerland.
-
D'oh
-
Switzerland is VERY CAREFUL who it allows to own guns and ammo. The US is not.
If Congress were to have the wisdom to pass the laws that the Swiss have regarding guns, surely fewer people would be shot, and fewer would go through the hassle of all the paperwork, and many would be turned down. I really doubt that Darylann Roof would be able to buy a gun in Oberammegammergau.
-
More guns will result in more people getting shot. That is simply a fact.
It really is not.
Since the sixties the number of guns in circulation has steadily risen , with spurts upwards now and then.
You can't be right , or the number of violent deaths could not have ever reduced during this increase in the number of guns available.
But the number of violent deaths percapata and overall has fallen.
I consider your axiom to be thoroughly disproven merely by this.
But also there are a lot of cities with easier access to guns than Chicago that have lower violence rates, this also alone is enough to make the rule you propose is factual , not.
You might want to compare the violence rates in London and Tokyo and Canberra to Washington D.C. and Chicago and Atlanta, but this assumes too much.
Aren't the violent crimes in London and Tokyo and Canberra that have nothing at all to do with guns , also lower than the same crimes in Washington D.C. and Chicago and Atlanta?
The number of criminals is the strongest factor in the number of crimes, the tools of the criminal all have substuites and work arounds where they are forbidden.
-
Facts to a toe-tag liberal, like Kryptonite to Superman
-
Switzerland is VERY CAREFUL who it allows to own guns and ammo.
you keep missing the point
so again....it is not the guns.
Switzerland has tons of guns...and low violence.....so again it is not the guns
you keep saying it is the guns....when Switzerland proves it is not guns...it is possibly training
which I agree.....look at Conceal Carry....very low violence from Conceal Carry after training
-
If there were not so many guns in circulation, he would not have had that gun.
No.
If there were only one pistol in that entire town , it would be a guy like this one who would have brought it there.
If there were one pistol in any town, it would belong to some cop. Get serious.
Ok, if there were only one gun in town and it belonged to an agent of the government , a guy like this guy would borrow it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/08/gun-allegedly-used-by-san-francisco-shooting-suspect-belonged-to-federal-agent/
-
https://carlyforpresident.com/meet-carly
-
If I had to rank my choices
1) Walker
2) Rubio
3) Jindal
4) Fiorina
5) Kasich
6) Carson
7) Christie
-
318,876,278) Hillary Clinton
-
Lol......you're being generous
-
You won't be making the choices, sirs.
-
So, now I'm not allowed to vote? Priceless
-
Your vote will not determine who is elected.
Has this ever happened? Has anyone you voted for ever won by ONE VOTE?
The Electoral College decides who wins the votes of Califirnia, and California will go for the Democratic candidate. The Donald has insulted and pissed off every Mexican-American in California.
You are in the minority, sirs:
California demographics Pew 2014
Hispanic 39%
White 38.8%
Asian: 13.3%
Black 5.8%
Other: 3.1%
The pitiful California Republican't Party has not even managed to finagle its way into controlling the state legislature.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/)
-
So, in your warped mind, if the fella or lady that's elected President, happens to be the one I voted for, I actually didn't help determine that outcome??
Again, priceless. So, why the hell do we vote then?? Or are you trying to place the ridiculous literal card, where its merely "1" vote that makes that determination :o News Flash Professor Deflection, no one expects their "1" vote to make the final decision. oy vey We vote in the hopes that a majority see things as we do as well.
So yes, my vote does go towards making the choices of who is elected. I tell you what...since your "1" vote won't make a difference in your state, I strongly suggest you don't vote this coming election cycle.
-
If I had to rank my choices
1) Walker
2) Rubio
3) Jindal
4) Fiorina
5) Kasich
6) Carson
7) Christie
SIRS...I am surprised Kasich is so far down your list?
I knew over the years you were a big fan of Governor Kasich.
I think he has done some good things in the important state of Ohio.
But I mostly have thought he could never be elected President.
But who knows....I am starting to think Hillary might be easy to beat.
Sure all the entrenched groups will line up & vote for their new Santa Claus "free goodies" distributor,
But Hillary is such a horrible communicator...almost to the point of being dysfunctional...I think we can beat her.
My current list:
#1. Trump
#2. Walker
I threw Rubio down the drain a few weeks ago when that half-wit was the deciding vote for the Obama-Trade deal.
-
Rubio sells pout to anyone with money.
So would your hero, The Donald.
You know, the one who sells neckties sewn in China.
-
If I had to rank my choices
1) Walker
2) Rubio
3) Jindal
4) Fiorina
5) Kasich
6) Carson
7) Christie
SIRS...I am surprised Kasich is so far down your list?
I knew over the years you were a big fan of Governor Kasich.
Excellent Observation. He would have been #2 on my list, but lost quite a few points with me, on his support for Government subsidies for Obamination Care. If he were to become the nominee, I'd fully support him, given the present Democrat "alternative"
My current list:
#1. Trump
#2. Walker
I threw Rubio down the drain a few weeks ago when that half-wit was the deciding vote for the Obama-Trade deal.
Given the absolute Migraine he appears to give the left, is one of the reasons I still have him ranked as high, as I do. While Trump has a Chris Christie-like ability to tell it like it is, I just don't see him as that credible Chief Executive for the country, especially with how the media will portray him, in his "Apprentice" mode of "You're Fired". I'd still support him, if he were the nominee however
-
The purpose of electing a president is to provide good leadership of this country, NOT to piss off half (actually OVER half) the electorate.
If all you are doing is voting AGAINST someone, you need to fucking grow up.
-
LOL....said the pot to the kettle
-
Actually I am FOR Bernie Sanders. He is even against that trade agreement CU4 hates, unlike the rest of the Republican'ts.
-
Good for you. He's a far better (& honest) Socialist than Hillary, and right up your alley
-
He is my kind of guy, but Hillary is still vastly better than any of the assorted servants of the Oligarchy that are vying for head Bozo in the Republican't Party.
-
The purpose of electing a president is to provide good leadership of this country,
NOT to piss off half the electorate.
what like Obama has done pissing off half the country?
is it ok to piss off half the country if you are a Leftist?
Obama's job ratings are significantly below average for presidents in the past 70 years!
-
He is my kind of guy, but Hillary is still vastly better than any of the assorted servants of the Oligarchy that are vying for head Bozo in the Republican't Party.
You keep forgetting that sitting atop the Oligarchy is their bought and payed for 10x over servant, Hillary
-
President Obama was elected twice: first he beat a war hero, then he beat a megamillionaire. He started the job with the hardest situation any president has ever had. Maybe Andrew Johnson had it a bit worse after the Civil War. But no one wanted to elect Johnson.
The killing of US soldiers has almost ended, and the economy recovered in seven years while experts said it would take ten. There has been nothing like the dozens and dozens of indictments from the Reagan administration.
President Obama is always civil and soft spoken to the opposition. He has been a transformational president.
Any Democrat would have pissed off the crypto fascist ratbag right wingers and the moronic and racist tea partiers. Butr PObama caught twice as much flak because he was Black.