Originally posted by Star428
Depends on what he or she is lying about. IF it's something like what happened with Hillary in Benghazi then yes, you can bet we most certainly do care a great deal about the lying. Four Americans were killed. At least those of us who aren't liberals care which is a very large percentage of the population.
Then why do you not think that the Republican led congress should have given more funds for security?
*Yawn*
You people who keep trying to shift blame onto Republicans are beginning to bore the Hell out of me. Hillary is responsible and perhaps Obama too. No one else. PERIOD. I"m sorry you've bought into the lies of the left but what I said is the truth. Hillary was Secretary of State. Obama was still President then. They are the two most directly responsible besides the actual perpetrators. Then, afterwards, Hillary lied to the families.
Originally posted by Star428
Depends on what he or she is lying about. IF it's something like what happened with Hillary in Benghazi then yes, you can bet we most certainly do care a great deal about the lying. Four Americans were killed. At least those of us who aren't liberals care which is a very large percentage of the population.
You're not the sort that would be voting for Hilary anyway. Again, the Benghazi thing is not really making any difference; it is again murky and obscure and potential Hilary voters are not that interested. The worst her potential voters see it as is a cock up. The idea that she can be held accountable for the deaths doesn't play out.
Q99 is right- a lot of people who would never vote for Bush kept on pushing away on the idea that he was an idiot, with a whole "How can anyone vote for an idiot?" thing going, and a lot of them went for the "I can't work this out" angle.
But it was simple- potential Bush voters didn't think he was an idiot. It was an accusation that didn't really have any impact. Where accusers saw rampant idiocy, potential voters saw only a guy who flubbed the odd line- big deal (half the Bush-isms people spread were made up anyway). Likewise with Hilary, where accusers see some sort of grand immoral corrupting mastermind, potential voters just see someone who's a bit slick and politically engaged. As I said to TI, she won't win 'Honest person of the year', but it doesn't make any difference to how they see her as president.
There are often perspective problems with these things. This isn't just fanatic supporters refusing to see anything wrong with their candidate- candidates can and have been brought down by failings their own voter base certainly believed. It's just that it is very easy to make more of accusations against people you hate and that can make it hard to understand why anyone votes for them.
These Hilary things- some people think they are a big deal. But they're not.
You have to consider what people want in a leader. Boy scout honesty is really not there. A lot of things people want in a leader are not things they would want in a friend- you're not going out drinking with these people; you want them to steer a nation. It's different. Some of the most well-supported leaders ever were liked for things that probably made them terrible friends- but good leaders.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You're not the sort that would be voting for Hilary anyway. Again, the Benghazi thing is not really making any difference; it is again murky and obscure and potential Hilary voters are not that interested. The worst her potential voters see it as is a cock up. The idea that she can be held accountable for the deaths doesn't play out.Q99 is right- a lot of people who would never vote for Bush kept on pushing away on the idea that he was an idiot, with a whole "How can anyone vote for an idiot?" thing going, and a lot of them went for the "I can't work this out" angle.
But it was simple- potential Bush voters didn't think he was an idiot. It was an accusation that didn't really have any impact. Where accusers saw rampant idiocy, potential voters saw only a guy who flubbed the odd line- big deal (half the Bush-isms people spread were made up anyway). Likewise with Hilary, where accusers see some sort of grand immoral corrupting mastermind, potential voters just see someone who's a bit slick and politically engaged. As I said to TI, she won't win 'Honest person of the year', but it doesn't make any difference to how they see her as president.
There are often perspective problems with these things. This isn't just fanatic supporters refusing to see anything wrong with their candidate- candidates can and have been brought down by failings their own voter base certainly believed. It's just that it is very easy to make more of accusations against people you hate and that can make it hard to understand why anyone votes for them.
These Hilary things- some people think they are a big deal. But they're not.
You have to consider what people want in a leader. Boy scout honesty is really not there. A lot of things people want in a leader are not things they would want in a friend- you're not going out drinking with these people; you want them to steer a nation. It's different. Some of the most well-supported leaders ever were liked for things that probably made them terrible friends- but good leaders.
Originally posted by Star428
To anybody who didn't watch the debate you should at least watch the best part of the entire debate in this 15 or 20 second clip:https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/659532527900696580
Well done, Cruz. Although Rubio made many comments that were nearly as good as that.
This was just pure gold, these people got wtf owned by Ted Cruz of all people. I hope they had some aloe vera on standby. I just want to shake this mans hand.
Originally posted by Star428
*Yawn*You people who keep trying to shift blame onto Republicans are beginning to bore the Hell out of me. Hillary is responsible and perhaps Obama too. No one else. PERIOD. I"m sorry you've bought into the lies of the left but what I said is the truth. Hillary was Secretary of State. Obama was still President then. They are the two most directly responsible besides the actual perpetrators. Then, afterwards, Hillary lied to the families.
Question, do you hold the same logic to be true on Bush and attacks that happened in his term?
Because in as much as they're responsible, it seems to be on the same logic- It happened on their watch, but not because of any particular action they took that caused it.
Or to put it another way, they may hold responsibility for what happens under their watch, but that does not make them to blame for attacks.
(For clarification: I am saying that while both Hillary and Bush had terrorist attacks happen under their watch they could've hypothetically stopped, in neither case did a specific decision of their cause it or create an unusual vulnerability. At most, they can be blamed for not seeing it coming, which is not criminal)
I wanna talk about the question Cruz was asked that lead to that response.
Here was that question-
QUINTANILLA: "Senator Cruz. Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown and calm financial markets that fear of — another Washington-created crisis is on the way.
Does your opposition to it show that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?"
Ironically, it *is* a question with a fair amount of substance to it.
Or more specifically, 3/4ths a good substantiative question about compromise and debt limit which is well worth asking and answering, then 1/4th a weird little gotcha on the end.
Replace the last sentence with, "How do you respond to people who say this stance will just lead to more government disfunction?", and you have a nice, hard-hitting question. Not just "Are you not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?". That turns it from a deep question, to a yes/known question that isn't really asking about the issue raised, but just whether his stance on the issue is popular or not, which is a tremendously less interesting question.
It's like, you're 3/4th of the way to a good moderator question there, who thought that end would be a good idea?
Originally posted by Q99They are probably harking back to the old mentality of Comic Books being a solely children's medium. One that is unrealistic and overblown.
Speaking as a comic book reader, I don't even know what they *mean* by that.
Which is just silly.
Also this line of questioning actually gives some credence to the overblown Republican paranoia about Media. Which also makes my head hurt because it becomes less about the Republican candidates' silly policies and turns them into victims.
Originally posted by Newjak
They are probably harking back to the old mentality of Comic Books being a solely children's medium. One that is unrealistic and overblown.Which is just silly.
Also this line of questioning actually gives some credence to the overblown Republican paranoia about Media. Which also makes my head hurt because it becomes less about the Republican candidates' silly policies and turns them into victims.
This is probably the stupidest thing that has ever come out of your mouth. You are just bias and are happy with the the comic shit show on stage, you don't care about the real issues, people like you is why America is so screwed up.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialMy issues concern things like the large income inequality(including large tax breaks for corporations, welfare reform), education reform (including affordable higher education), and the environment.
This is probably the stupidest thing that has ever come out of your mouth. You are just bias and are happy with the the comic shit show on stage, you don't care about the real issues, people like you is why America is so screwed up.
I think the Republican Party narrative is so vastly out of tune with the facts on these issues that it is hard for me to take them seriously. And I mean actual facts. Facts like welfare recipients spend on average 50% less than purchases than families off of welfare. That most welfare recipients are already working jobs. Yet the Republicans demonize them as dead beats that spend all their government money on high end goods. That statement is false and the proposed steps Republicans which to take on Welfare only hurts them more.
Even on fiscal responsibility and good economic practices, the area Republicans are supposed to be strong in, the party seem to be offering flat tax rates, that include a healthy tax break for the rich, that are unrealistic in curbing the national deficit issue.
Which saddens me because in theory I agree with Republicans on a lot of what they say they believe. For instance I believe in putting more power in the hands of the individual and giving them more personal freedom. I believe in cutting back spending on programs that wasting money. I also know extremely intelligent conservative people. The problem is the only candidate in the race for the Republicans that even come close to that economic standard is Kasich who is so far behind he may as well be out of the race at this point.
Everyone else in the running is a simply following the FALSE party narrative that social conservatives want to hear.
That decreasing taxes makes everything better, that you only earn what you get in this country, anyone on hard times are there because it is their own fault and they are trying to be lazy. That it is okay to discriminate if you are Christian conservative. That climate change isn't happening or there is nothing we can do about it. I can't stand the flat out lies the Republican party continues to spew.
If you are concerned with wealth gap, why do I get the sense you are going to vote for Hilary.
I didn't see one republican up there demonizing welfare receipts.
Actually most up there have a way to cut taxes on the poor, a few of them want a flat tax of 17% which most agree would solve pretty much all the problems.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialI will vote for Hillary only if Bernie doesn't get the nod, and only because I honestly feel the Republicans are simply worse on subjects I care about while at least in theory Hillary falls closer on the spectrum to what I want to see happen.
If you are concerned with wealth gap, why do I get the sense you are going to vote for Hilary.I didn't see one republican up there demonizing welfare receipts.
Actually most up there have a way to cut taxes on the poor, a few of them want a flat tax of 17% which most agree would solve pretty much all the problems.
They probably won't directly insult welfare recipients while on campaign because they would lose potential voters that way.
Still when you look at their stances and quotes it is pretty clear where they stand. They think people on government welfare is spawning a generation of entitled lazy citizens. Who will rely on the government instead of working. You see it social conservative media all the time. I recently saw a quote going around that said welfare recipients need to get a job and stop being entitled to money to spend on iphones.
Which is a false statement. It ignores what is actually happening to these people and why they are welfare. Most people that go on welfare are off of it within 5 years. Half of them are off it within a year. Most of them are already working jobs.
A flat tax rate only helps somewhat the main issue is that they are simply not earning enough money to sustain them above the poverty line. The only people a flat tax rates truly helps are the rich who already get large tax breaks to begin with. And reducing taxes overall has often helped lead to recessions and hurt any recovery.
The simple answer is companies need to pay their employees a living wage. Whether that is through a raise in minimum wage or some other mechanism I don't care. Large corporations are earning record profits and if they raised their prices by like 3-10 cents they could pay their lowest paid employees double their salary.
Stopping the top 1% from gaining 95% of economic growth is also a good step.
Economics is the hardest area to pin down, imo. Like, I'm practically libertarian in my economic views, but I also recognize that partial implementation of libertarian ideas, while trying to exist with many of our current policies, could be disastrous. Those views should also align me more closely with Republicans (and, with exceptions, they do). But it's hard to separate the rhetoric from the reality with any politician, and I'm very much of the mind that market forces are >>>>>>> any control a President has over an economy. They get the credit/blame for factors that are largely independent of the central gov't.
So, given all of that, other areas like social issues, environmental, education, foreign policy, etc. are much easier for me to pick a side, so to speak. I can see the good that equal marriage rights causes, for example. But economic initiatives are so abstract as to be unrecognizable in everyday life. As a result, though I'd love to prioritize economic issues higher, I tend not to in my voting habits.
...
In other news, Fiorina admitted she was wrong about a key debate statistic:
http://news.yahoo.com/carly-fiorina-says-she-wrong-92-claim-153359201.html#
I'm not parading this as a negative. I think it's great. Every politician sites bogus numbers at some point. The ability to correct one's stance is a plus in my book.
Originally posted by DigiYeah I also agree that our economy is such a beat it is hard to really determine what impacts what.
Economics is the hardest area to pin down, imo. Like, I'm practically libertarian in my economic views, but I also recognize that partial implementation of libertarian ideas, while trying to exist with many of our current policies, could be disastrous. Those views should also align me more closely with Republicans (and, with exceptions, they do). But it's hard to separate the rhetoric from the reality with any politician, and I'm very much of the mind that market forces are >>>>>>> any control a President has over an economy. They get the credit/blame for factors that are largely independent of the central gov't.So, given all of that, other areas like social issues, environmental, education, foreign policy, etc. are much easier for me to pick a side, so to speak. I can see the good that equal marriage rights causes, for example. But economic initiatives are so abstract as to be unrecognizable in everyday life. As a result, though I'd love to prioritize economic issues higher, I tend not to in my voting habits.
...
In other news, Fiorina admitted she was wrong about a key debate statistic:
http://news.yahoo.com/carly-fiorina-says-she-wrong-92-claim-153359201.html#I'm not parading this as a negative. I think it's great. Every politician sites bogus numbers at some point. The ability to correct one's stance is a plus in my book.
That is a good thing that Fiorina did that. I hate politicians that stick to obviously false information.
In the wake of the debate debacle that’s delivered a gut punch to CNBC, many staffers at the business network are divided over whether “extremely biased” and “far left” correspondent and moderator John Harwood should have been allowed on stage.
“Everyone in the newsroom knows he’s extremely far left,” a network insider told TheWrap about the prevailing opinion that pervaded the newsroom even before the debate.
Harwood is “not just extremely biased and partisan, but he’s the worst kind who isn’t self-aware that he is,” the insider continued. “Blindness to that is what allowed him on the debate stage.”
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why would anyone let this sick offent on stage to begin with. He is a disgrace to professional journalism. He should be fired, or put in the mail room, never on live television again. What a shameful disgusting piece of shit.
I agree but it wasn't only him doing that. They were all biased and asked inflammatory questions. You certainly won't ever see dumbocrats getting asked questions like that. 👆