Gonna have to scroll through some news sites before I say much. I watched parts, but was also taking care of a few things around the house this evening. So I wasn't glued to my TV. And the polarized reactions of the few of us here on KMC are rarely indicative of the general trend(s) in media and public reaction.
I have a friend - definitely in a Republican tax bracket - who almost feels forced to vote for a Republican because of his economics. It's an interesting dilemma. He dislikes Trump for expected reasons, but says that if Trump surrounded himself with enough of the right people, he'd probably vote for him in the general election. I'm not sure repping Palin for a Cabinet position is a great start, but I'd actually be interested to see what he tries to do if he gets the GOP nomination. A good VP selection or a few decisions to make it seem like he's not going to alienate literally everyone in the world who isn't his voter base would go a long way, but I'm not sure he has that kind of strategic tact in him. Because at this point, we've heard his blustering promises, and I'm not interested in quips or one-liners. So most of the time when I was watching the debate, I wasn't terribly interested in it, because it was a lot of posturing and sniping.
Originally posted by red g jacks
trump's facial expressions were the most interesting thing happening in this debate imo
Yea we really see now Trump is going all the way. People like Bardock can hope he will "**** Up" but if he can recover from telling Carly "your ugly" he can recover from just about anything..
People are fed the **** up with this PC world we live in. Carly was about to cry on stage just by having it come up. She is weak.
I saw Carson/Trump as Presidential Candidates, with Rubio as a VP and future President.
Santorum, fail,<-More Liberal then Trump
Christy is a fat chance
Huckabee is just bland boring example of old men that shoot dust for piss.
Ron Paul is boring and not as exiting as his father.
Jeb had some moments but a total miss on Trump
The dude from Minnesota was also a complete failure. "We don't need another apprentice." Like he rehearsed that as best as he could and still failed.
I'm not sure it's about being PC. I don't give a **** about being politically correct. That may be one of the few things I like about Trump. But I think he often mistakes being PC for being respectful. Being PC means tiptoeing around issues so that you don't upset a particular voter base or media group. I abhor that. Say what you believe. But that's on issues, not people. And it's hard to feel great about a lot of them being the next President when their primary interest seems to be insulting those around them, or coming up with the best line to blow up on social media.
That's honestly my chief disappointment. The news articles coming out so far are focusing on those one-liners. Not issues. Not positions. Not political dialogue. It's early yet, at least, and I've only done a few Google searches. Hopefully that changes.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea we really see now Trump is going all the way. People like Bardock can hope he will "**** Up" but if he can recover from telling Carly "your ugly" he can recover from just about anything..People are fed the **** up with this PC world we live in. Carly was about to cry on stage just by having it come up. She is weak.
I saw Carson/Trump as Presidential Candidates, with Rubio as a VP and future President.
Santorum, fail,<-More Liberal then Trump
Christy is a fat chance
Huckabee is just bland boring example of old men that shoot dust for piss.
Ron Paul is boring and not as exiting as his father.
Jeb had some moments but a total miss on Trump
The dude from Minnesota was also a complete failure. "We don't need another apprentice." Like he rehearsed that as best as he could and still failed.
I don't hold Carson in such high regard as I did after the first debate. I like Rubio as much as I like Trump now though. It's gonna be hard for me to decide which of those two to actually vote for GOP candidate. Carla was crying because she was reminded of the fact she lost a child, TI. I wouldn't call that "being weak" but having a heart. Still, as impressive as she was tonight on several issues, she still doesn't measure up to Trump or Rubio, imo.
I thought she was about to cry when it came up about "look at that face", I didn't hear about her losing the baby nor did I see that part.
She spent to much time attacking Trump and Christy picked up on it.
Carson on the other hand when the idiot moderator tried to make him attack trump, he took the high ground and didn't which was very crafty. Of coarse since he didn't bite the idiot moderator didn't give him much time.
Bush and Trump had some good exchanges.
Carly would be a good cabinet member, and I like her, I just think she failed on her approach and I don't think she would be bullet proof like trump and carson are.
Walker is just a complete failure.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I thought she was about to cry when it came up about "look at that face", I didn't hear about her losing the baby nor did I see that part.Carly would be a good cabinet member, and I like her, I just think she failed on her approach and I don't think she would be bullet proof like trump and carson are.
Here is the clip I'm referring to:
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/644340434697887745
I mispoke when I said she actually cried. I just remembered it wrong. However, if you watch and listen closely you can tell she had to make a conscious effort to avoid crying when she medntioned she lost a child to drug addiction.
I wonder what all the libs have to say to her saying this though:
Cruz seems so ridiculously phony in all of his responses. Something about that guy just seems fake all the time. The way he looks into the camera constantly, his tone of voice, just doesn't come off as sincere.
I think Fiorina did well and may go up in the polls as a result.
I don't think anyone else will move too much. Everyone just kinda went at Trump this time, so Trump may go down a little because he was forced to be kind of defensive. But I imagine things will stay mostly the same for a while. I hope the next debate has fewer people, 10/11 is too many. It's weird when you have someone up there and they don't say anything for upwards of 40 minutes or so.
And the destruction of the very valuable centrafuges, nuclear stockpiles, and inspections. The first two on their own increases the lead-time to nukes multiple times over.Also, we didn't give up any of our money. Their money in their own accounts was freed.
You're still trying to conflate 'you didn't think the results were worth it/worth doing' with 'Obama didn't succeed at what he was doing.'
One, you're refuting that the Obama administration got what it was aiming for.That's factually incorrect.
Two, you think that concluding such a deal does not constitute a 'success'. That's playing a semantic game to define away 'success'.
Or three, "I simply refuted your belief that it was a raging success for Obama and the US." - you're acknowledging it was a success but now characterizing me as saying it's a 'raging' success, goalpost shifting that the problem was not that I noted it was a success, but obviously that I must be viewing it as too big a degree of success, which is an addition condition you're just now adding on (and also takes in additional context when you ignore the two physical aspects of the nuclear program that Iran is physically giving up for the deal).It's a deal that Bush would've considered a success if he'd done it, because he was aiming for a nigh-identical one. And I think it'd have been a succeed if he had pulled it off.
You're trying to dismiss my arguments rather than refute them.
Which is it? The non-value "did someone accomplish which they set out to" way, in which case, objectively, yes, Obama did it, or the "value judgement, is the result positive enough," way, in which case, the value judgement is an opinion to begin with and thus crying bias is silly."You like X results too much, you're bias!" is not a useful accusation. I weigh values different than you,
You do realize they're a country that has bought oil from Iran in the past, and could've been dealing with Iran this whole time if they wanted, right? They agreed to sanctions when they did not have to, and would have actually materially profited from breaking them.So yea, Putin's up to something, but he worked in agreement with Obama to the benefit of Obama's diplomatic goals, which were concluded to Obama and Putin's satisfaction in this matter.
I like how you inserted "in the past", as if Russia depends on Iran for oil (a laughable notion). My point stands. We don't know why the other countries supported the deal but it doesn't look like anyone gained or lost from it.
You, notably, do not bring up counter-facts- You don't post numbers that contradict mine, you don't post events that show the events I posted happened different, or so on.
I present my opinions as opinions, but the facts that I post in support of them are independantly verifiable sources of information. When you deviate from the facts, I call you on it.
You need to stop trying to shut down disagreement with calls of bias when your opinions are threatened, it doesn't make a convincing argument.
Why would they be afraid of Reagan if they knew full well he wasn't using force, and was approaching them with words?
Countries in support include Vatican City, the US, Iran, Russia, China, Germany, England, France, Saudi Arabia (you know, Iran's big local enemy)... major players literally from around the world (Note again how you're trying to say my commonly used phrase is 'too much' praise, goalshifting that rather than what I said, it's how I said it that is supposedly now the problem).
And, importantly, The US, who polled 59% in favor at the time.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-fg-iran-deal-polls-20150721-story.html
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/
The rest of your post is just a rationalization of why people don't support the deal. Again, you intentionally try to post essays with the hope that nobody catches the b.s. I'm not saying you are anywhere as bad as TI because most of your stuff is factual, it's the 5% of bullshit that's obvious to spot to anyone who has the time to sift through your books.
Originally posted by red g jacks
lol trump is clearly going to wincan't believe you retards are still in denial about that
Its true, I have never seen so much denial in all my life.
Its always the same thing "oh he will never make it"
He was center stage, people need to wake up
Originally posted by BackFire
Cruz seems so ridiculously phony in all of his responses. Something about that guy just seems fake all the time. The way he looks into the camera constantly, his tone of voice, just doesn't come off as sincere.I think Fiorina did well and may go up in the polls as a result.
I don't think anyone else will move too much. Everyone just kinda went at Trump this time, so Trump may go down a little because he was forced to be kind of defensive. But I imagine things will stay mostly the same for a while. I hope the next debate has fewer people, 10/11 is too many. It's weird when you have someone up there and they don't say anything for upwards of 40 minutes or so.
And no backblaster, Trump will not go down in the polls as he won the debate. He handled the defense well and made people laugh, he also had specifics on his plans with China and Russia and Mexico.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You're kidding right? "Their money in their own accounts was freed"? Are you even going to attempt to be honest or objective anymore? So what you're telling us is, in a show of good faith, they froze their own 160 billion dollars? Come on Q99, this is sad. And if they want a bomb ala North Korea, they can still get one. If they mess up, they get to keep their money and we get to reimpose "Sanctions". Therefore, they won the deal.No Q99, if you're labeling it a success and I'm not, you're playing the same "semantics" game I am.
No, you're trying to say the only reason to call it a success is bias.
I'm saying one can either judge it by values- in which case it's an opinion thing, in which case, we can hold opposing viewpoints without either misrepresenting the data- or in the 'facts what happened,' "Did A accomplish what A set out to? Yes/No? Yes!", purely factual.
The rest of your post is just a rationalization of why people don't support the deal. Again, you intentionally try to post essays with the hope that nobody catches the b.s. I'm not saying you are anywhere as bad as TI because most of your stuff is factual, it's the 5% of bullshit that's obvious to spot to anyone who has the time to sift through your books.
Yeaaa, the "BS that's obvious," seems to be no problems with my factual 'bias' as you keep on insisting, but me drawing very different
Like, "Obama is a success on the economy." My reasoning is, "Most of the important numbers improved a lot, some did not [some for reasons involving getting the other numbers to improve], and a number that aren't great are still headed in the right direction, and here are how other people did in similar situations, and therefore I judge him a good economy success with some remaining problems."
Your objections regularly seems to be the "... and therefore!" bits. You can disagree without trying to attack the facts I'm presenting.
Accusing someone of just coming to a different conclusion to you is a misuse of the term bias.
(Also one recent post, you totally changed both subjects I was talking about, from 'Republican investigations' to 'All Democrats,' in order to accuse me of bias, and were caught in doing so. I don't know where that came from but it was a pretty big misrepresentation. So at least *some* of your 5% comes from either misrepresenting my stuff accidentally, or as a purposeful attack in order to discount my position, but either way, that stuff? Not cool)
No, you're trying to say the only reason to call it a success is bias.
I'm saying one can either judge it by values- in which case it's an opinion thing, in which case, we can hold opposing viewpoints without either misrepresenting the data- or in the 'facts what happened,' "Did A accomplish what A set out to? Yes/No? Yes!", purely factual.
Like, "Obama is a success on the economy." My reasoning is, "Most of the important numbers improved a lot, some did not [some for reasons involving getting the other numbers to improve], and a number that aren't great are still headed in the right direction, and here are how other people did in similar situations, and therefore I judge him a good economy success with some remaining problems."
Your objections regularly seems to be the "... and therefore!" bits. You can disagree without trying to attack the facts I'm presenting.Accusing someone of just coming to a different conclusion to you is a misuse of the term bias.
(Also one recent post, you totally changed both subjects I was talking about, from 'Republican investigations' to 'All Democrats,' in order to accuse me of bias, and were caught in doing so. I don't know where that came from but it was a pretty big misrepresentation. So at least *some* of your 5% comes from either misrepresenting my stuff accidentally, or as a purposeful attack in order to discount my position, but either way, that stuff? Not cool)