• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
No. The Pope does not need to follow it because he is not American and does not live in the United States. We don't expect Muslim leaders in the middle east to follow it, why would we require the Pope? After all, just look at all the things that are illegal under Sharia Law... including gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have laid the sarcasm on thicker? He is the Pope. I hope that religion is the basis for every decision he makes. My point was that he feels that religion should support climate change. We really do need a sarcasm emoji. :)
 
Hink said:
I guess I should have laid the sarcasm on thicker? He is the Pope. I hope that religion is the basis for every decision he makes. My point was that he feels that religion should support climate change. We really do need a sarcasm emoji. :)
Click to expand...

I did not pick up on the sarcasm. :-$


On a side note, there is biblical references towards being environmentally friendly, so even his stance on that is consistent with the faith.
 
michaelskis said:
On a side note, there is biblical references towards being environmentally friendly, so even his stance on that is consistent with the faith.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm not the portrait of "good Christian" by any wild stretch, but that legalistic "know your Bible backwards & forwards" southern conservative Church of Christ upbringing does come in pretty handy once in a while. I don't think I could count the number of times the Bible makes reference to being "stewards of the Earth" or "caring for His Creation," etc. It's a bunch. That's why I fail to understand opposition to environmental efforts by the Christian right.
 
Hmmm

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Maybe my favorite of the good book so far......I want a t-shirt that says this.....is that blasphemy?
 
Yes, I'm also always at a loss to understand why so many Republicans come off as such anti-environmentalists. What could be more conservative than conservation?
 
The One said:
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Maybe my favorite of the good book so far......I want a t-shirt that says this.....is that blasphemy?
Click to expand...

You should try one of my favorite books-Ecclesiastes. Solomon goes deep into the meaning of life.

Bloom County had an excellent trip about Trump's hair. I am so glad its back.
 
My favorite bible part is Leviticus only because everyone (except my esteemed colleges here) likes to pick and choose what to follow in the bible. You know, being gay is bad (Leviticus), but let's not worry about the no cutting you hair rule. My favorite is this one:

The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.
 
The One said:
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Maybe my favorite of the good book so far......I want a t-shirt that says this.....is that blasphemy?
Click to expand...

Money and the position of is not evil. But the desire to have it only to have it is. Money is a tool and some people do good things with it and some people do bad things with it. Doing nothing but accumulating it is a bad thing.

I would venture to guess that most people with money in DC don't do good things with it.
 
michaelskis said:
Money and the position of is not evil. But the desire to have it only to have it is. Money is a tool and some people do good things with it and some people do bad things with it. Doing nothing but accumulating it is a bad thing.

I would venture to guess that most people with money in DC don't do good things with it.
Click to expand...
I bet that depends on your definition of "good". ;)
 
Maybe.....

michaelskis said:
Money and the position of is not evil. But the desire to have it only to have it is. Money is a tool and some people do good things with it and some people do bad things with it. Doing nothing but accumulating it is a bad thing.

I would venture to guess that most people with money in DC don't do good things with it.
Click to expand...

Corporations and billionaires are the biggest hoarders on earth. Drops mic and walks away.

:r:
 
Habanero said:
I bet that depends on your definition of "good". ;)
Click to expand...

I have personally met several guys who make well over a million a year, and give away more than half of that to their church, various charities and nonprofit organizations, and work to have their money be a tool for good. They have good life styles, but in all of their cases they live on 10% to 15% of their income.

In the book "The Millionaire Next Door" Dr. Tomas Stanley did a study of people who make more than a million per year. The majority of them live on less than 20% of their income, donate 40% to 50% of their income to church and charities, and live in older middle class neighborhoods. They drive vehicles that are at least 2 years old, buy their clothes at Wal-Mart or similar places, and visually don't appear to make more than anyone else.

The people that you see in massive houses, driving crazy expensive cars, owning personal jets, and living a 'wealthy' lifestyle make up less than 5% of people who make over a million a year. In many cases, those who appear to be rich are living on credit.

The One said:
Corporations and billionaires are the biggest hoarders on earth. Drops mic and walks away.

:r:
Click to expand...

When it comes to corporations, I will agree. Billionaires, I would like to see the data or references.
 
michaelskis said:
When it comes to corporations, I will agree. Billionaires, I would like to see the data or references.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you here. Billionaires in general are not the group that hoards. They are mostly self-made, and work pretty hard for their money. They earned it. Sure the Walton's didn't earn it, but many others did - Gates, Buffet, Ortega, Ellison, Arnault, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, etc. (the list could go on) all earned their money. They worked for it, and created hugely successful businesses. Most of their money isn't real money. It is paper money - that is money on paper. Not tangible in your hand money. They own value. Value THEY created. Why we demonize these people is beyond me.

There is an equity issue. A serious equity issue. But the idea that billionaires and millionaires should be persecuted because they don't spend all their money is insane. The truth is, and I think Mark Cuban said it best about Trump - many rich people don't have money. They have value. That value isn't spendable. It isn't quickly accessed and used. The value is in the brand / business / name they created.

Hoarding of money is done by corporations, and "non-profits" through loopholes and deceptive business practices. If our tax code penalized this behavior, that would help, but it doesn't come close to regulating it.

I agree with piling on the corporations, but not all wealthy people are the enemy of the middle class. Honestly very few are or should be.
 
Hink said:
I actually agree with you here. Billionaires in general are not the group that hoards. They are mostly self-made, and work pretty hard for their money. They earned it. Sure the Walton's didn't earn it, but many others did - Gates, Buffet, Ortega, Ellison, Arnault, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, etc. (the list could go on) all earned their money. They worked for it, and created hugely successful businesses. Most of their money isn't real money. It is paper money - that is money on paper. Not tangible in your hand money. They own value. Value THEY created. Why we demonize these people is beyond me.

There is an equity issue. A serious equity issue. But the idea that billionaires and millionaires should be persecuted because they don't spend all their money is insane. The truth is, and I think Mark Cuban said it best about Trump - many rich people don't have money. They have value. That value isn't spendable. It isn't quickly accessed and used. The value is in the brand / business / name they created.

Hoarding of money is done by corporations, and "non-profits" through loopholes and deceptive business practices. If our tax code penalized this behavior, that would help, but it doesn't come close to regulating it.

I agree with piling on the corporations, but not all wealthy people are the enemy of the middle class. Honestly very few are or should be.
Click to expand...

I have never heard Mark Cuban said that but he is 100% right. I have said this before, money is like bricks. You can use them to bust a window or build a hospital. Doing nothing with the bricks can be just as bad as doing bad stuff with them.

It is one of the reasons I like Elon Musk so much. He uses is money to advance an agenda to help the planet and to make humans live on Mars.
 
I kind of hope Trump wins it all, not because I like the guy or believe in anything he stands for, but because it would make for one hell of a Simpsons episode.
 
Sousaphone trolling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4P1kKK-5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExnBadkFZg
 
Bubba said:
I don't want to be forced by Elon Musk to live on Mars. 8-!
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "allow" instead of make.


On a side note, what stupid thing did Trump say over the weekend? I haven't heard any news about him the past few days.
 
michaelskis said:
On a side note, what stupid thing did Trump say over the weekend? I haven't heard any news about him the past few days.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is going to war with Scott Walker after being called 'DumbDumb' by one of his supporters
"I'm being very nice to him. And today I read this horrible statement from his fundraiser about Trump. I say, 'Oh, finally I can attack. Finally. Finally.' I would have never done this," Trump said in the middle of a Saturday speech in Iowa.
Click to expand...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-going-war-scott-135027502.html
 
Can someone explain Hillary Clinton's tax and economic policies? Do you think they will work to improve the American society as a whole long term? As much as I hate it, I think she will be elected because the Republicans have their heads up their backsides, while trying to participate in a butt kicking contest.

Anyone who thinks that the US economy is stable does not understand economics. There are a bunch of bubbles, and like the mine games, when one goes, they all will go.
 
Easy.......

michaelskis said:
Can someone explain Hillary Clinton's tax and economic policies? Do you think they will work to improve the American society as a whole long term? As much as I hate it, I think she will be elected because the Republicans have their heads up their backsides, while trying to participate in a butt kicking contest.

Anyone who thinks that the US economy is stable does not understand economics. There are a bunch of bubbles, and like the mine games, when one goes, they all will go.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it will seem complicated, but here it goes......sorry for the complexity of this answer before hand.......

Pheew....ok.....here it is:

BILL CLINTON circa 1994
 
The One said:
Yes, I know it will seem complicated, but here it goes......sorry for the complexity of this answer before hand.......

Pheew....ok.....here it is:

BILL CLINTON circa 1994
Click to expand...

So it depends on the meaning of the word "is" is?

Or will it be let the Republican congress and senate balance the budget while continuing to spend like they have an endless supply of money? (Ok they took office in 1995)
 
I am going to post this here because it is bound to become polical, but how do you define value and cost. For example, because of inflation, the cost of everything is much more expensive than it was 20 years ago. But has the value of that item gone up or has the value of our money gone down?

Why should the value of our money go down? Take the price of a Big Mac. I personally remember when I could get it for 99 cents. Today it runs around $3.59. Why? The employees still make crap, but more than they did 20 years ago. The price of materials is more... But why?
 
michaelskis said:
I am going to post this here because it is bound to become polical, but how do you define value and cost. For example, because of inflation, the cost of everything is much more expensive than it was 20 years ago. But has the value of that item gone up or has the value of our money gone down?

Why should the value of our money go down? Take the price of a Big Mac. I personally remember when I could get it for 99 cents. Today it runs around $3.59. Why? The employees still make crap, but more than they did 20 years ago. The price of materials is more... But why?
Click to expand...

Material costs, labor costs, and overhead costs are what make the price of a Big Mac. I would add in demand too if you want to get detailed.

Labor costs have risen, overhead costs have risen (price of land, rent, gas for shipping trucks, etc.), and material costs have risen (cost of wood to make paper, etc.). Why? Because over time people expect to get paid more, and with all other things being equal, "value" changes innately with time. When McD's was selling 400,000 BigMacs a second, they had a high enough demand to keep the price low. Now that they are only selling 4,000 a second, they can't do that.

Look at Subway. $5 footlongs don't exist anymore. Why? Because people realized that it was a shitty sandwich and stopped buying enough of them to make the $5 price cover the costs.

Long story short - costs have gone up, and demand has gone down.

I don't think much of it has to do with the "value" of the dollar. But I am sure some people might.
 
Inflation: it's been going on for centuries. Here's a look at inflation rates in the US since before the Revolutionary War. Note there are some interesting trends to be found.

800px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png
 
Maister said:
Inflation: it's been going on for centuries. Here's a look at inflation rates in the US since before the Revolutionary War. Note there are some interesting trends to be found.

800px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png
Click to expand...

Yes, but the factors that they use to measure inflation and the CPI have not been consistent. Things like food and energy are calculated differently than they were a few decades ago.
 
The definition of inflation is "a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money" So it is actually a combination of both the items you mentioned.

I don’t remember my economics that well, but as I recall, some of the major elements impacting inflation are:

  • Demand-pull: when a product is so popular or in demand that there becomes a shortage of supply. Producers are then in a position to charge more because everyone wants it.
  • Cost-push: This has many elements. One is that a product is in short supply but there is enough demand to raise prices. Monopolies can create cost-push inflation too. Also, wage demand as with strong labor unions.
  • Expansion of money supply (ie. printing more money): This is pretty obvious. The more money you print, the less each currency unit is worth.
 
wahday said:
The definition of inflation is "a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money" So it is actually a combination of both the items you mentioned.

I don’t remember my economics that well, but as I recall, some of the major elements impacting inflation are:

  • Demand-pull: when a product is so popular or in demand that there becomes a shortage of supply. Producers are then in a position to charge more because everyone wants it.
  • Cost-push: This has many elements. One is that a product is in short supply but there is enough demand to raise prices. Monopolies can create cost-push inflation too. Also, wage demand as with strong labor unions.
  • Expansion of money supply (ie. printing more money): This is pretty obvious. The more money you print, the less each currency unit is worth.
Click to expand...

So, the demand for everything has increased, the cost for all raw goods has increased, and we have been flooding the markets with more money to cover these increases. Something makes me think this will not end well.
 
michaelskis said:
Yes, but the factors that they use to measure inflation and the CPI have not been consistent. Things like food and energy are calculated differently than they were a few decades ago.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that things like large agricultural subsidies prevent consumers from paying the true costs of food.
 
Maister said:
Not to mention that things like large agricultural subsidies prevent consumers from paying the true costs of food.
Click to expand...

We subsidize everything in life. Agricultural subsidies are not the only problem with our price / value matrix. We buy shoes for $20, we buy phones for $300. We subsidize this by giving free "economic development" to companies in the form of free land, tax breaks, and international labor. I support agricultural subsidies primarily because they can't be outsourced.

We can import labor for agriculture, but we can't export fields. It is something that actually gets done in the U.S. We are okay paying for Apple to make phones in China, and HEAVILY subsidizing that (and other like goods), but it seems we focus on Ag. I think we probably overfarm in the U.S., but in my mind that helps with sprawl. I am glad Kansas is fields. That is possible because of subsidies.

I think we should all be required to know what the "true" cost of goods would be, or the subsidies that help bring the cost to what they are. It would be eye opening to know the milk we buy should be $12 / gallon, or the pants we wear should cost $100.

Interesting concept.
 
Hink said:
We subsidize everything in life. Agricultural subsidies are not the only problem with our price / value matrix. We buy shoes for $20, we buy phones for $300. We subsidize this by giving free "economic development" to companies in the form of free land, tax breaks, and international labor. I support agricultural subsidies primarily because they can't be outsourced.

We can import labor for agriculture, but we can't export fields. It is something that actually gets done in the U.S. We are okay paying for Apple to make phones in China, and HEAVILY subsidizing that (and other like goods), but it seems we focus on Ag. I think we probably overfarm in the U.S., but in my mind that helps with sprawl. I am glad Kansas is fields. That is possible because of subsidies.

I think we should all be required to know what the "true" cost of goods would be, or the subsidies that help bring the cost to what they are. It would be eye opening to know the milk we buy should be $12 / gallon, or the pants we wear should cost $100.

Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

And those subsidies are not always what people think they are. In terms of Agriculture subsides, very little goes into consumable foods. Most of it is soy and corn production for other things besides direct consumables. Talk to the farmers at the next farmers market and ask how much of their product is subsidized. Our over-processed prepackaged chemical laden foods might be 50% cheaper than if the government wasn't involved, but their production reduces incentives for farmers to grow consumable crops.
 
michaelskis said:
So, the demand for everything has increased, the cost for all raw goods has increased, and we have been flooding the markets with more money to cover these increases. Something makes me think this will not end well.
Click to expand...

This process has been going on as long as there has been currency but I still feel the need to hone up on my survival skills just in case I need to skin a rabbit after TSHTF. I think "the end" often comes in the form of conflict and revolution (think about how out of control hyper inflation in Germany gave rise to Hitler and Nazism). I think it is the kind of catastrophe that the preppers imagine as well. Remember when we all bought pallets of mac n cheese before Y2K? Wait, you guys didn't do that? Er...anyway, a lot of it is perception and people don't generally notice it if wages keep pace with inflation. Pay me in pennies or $100,000 bills, I don't really care so long as I can still comfortably meet my needs. The value of any currency is arbitrary anyway. That piece of paper doesn't have much value beyond what we agree it has.

Uuuur, duplicate post!


Moderator note:

*Hink Merged duplicate posts. Now everyone will be confused.... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, Trump will be front and center at the Fox News debate on Thursday. 2 of the top 5 are not politicians. Perhaps it is a sign that people are fed up with the Republican party.

I want to watch only because with Trump in the middle of the stage, you know it will be a nonstop comedy show. I would love it if he told Christie "Your Fired".
 
I wish that the moderator would ask Donald Trump: "Mr. Trump, with all your money why don't you spring for some hair plugs? And a followup question, Mr. Trump, is that pelt on your head from an endangered species?"
 
Found a bar to watch it at. Trump all but said that if he does not get the nomination (which he thinks he will) he will run as an independent.

And from his first question about his view of women he said he does not have time for political correctness. Oh and Rosie Odonnel is not is favorite person.

I have to say his response is refreshing.
 
In the end, I think that Trump and Carson won this debate. Everyone else was rattled. Christie/Paul exchange was an instant classic.
 
The debate was really actually good. I mean it was full of stupid discussions, but I think it made it pretty clear who was crazier and who was maybe less crazy.

I loved the #gopdebate because of amazing one liners....

Not one other candidate willing to take a hard line on Rosie O'Donnell. Shameful. #GOPDebate
Click to expand...

Trump: Trump is nuts. I think his polling numbers are going to sink soon. He clearly was loved at the beginning and very neutral or negative at the end. The crowd clearly wanted to like him, but he is just so non-presidential it seeps into any thoughts of electability.
Bush: Bush was boring. Maybe he was going for that?
Walker: I think Walker was a non-factor. Which was surprising.
Carson: I don't understand why he always looks like he not sure of the question or is just overthinking things. His line about not getting enough time was funny, but sadly his time is probably up anyways.
Huckabee: Yea... this guy. I wish someone would just give him money so he didn't have to do this every 4 years.
Cruz: More nuts than Trump and less interesting. At least Trump is funny. Cruz is crazy in that scary way.
Rubio: Great lines about how he would combat Hilary Clinton. Seemed normal enough. Really needs to work on his water intake though as he licked his lips again a bunch. Medical condition maybe?
Paul: Was once considered the crazy one of the candidates. Now he just seems like Bernie Sanders-lite.
Christie: Didn't really get much traction. Really tried to say things he thought would get applause, but they fell flat. He isn't going to go up in the polls anytime soon.
Kasich: Was normal albeit odd. His mannerisms are awkward, but his words seem to actually make sense. His responses were more central leaning, and he still got applause.

Kasich was probably the best, with Rubio in second. Trump tried to hack at everyone, and some took the bait. Many did not.

Fox News - particulary Megyn Kelly - actually did a pretty reasonable job. They didn't ask lots of gimme questions, and clearly showed the weaknesses of many of the candidates. Trump's response to Ms. Kelly about the war on women was painful to watch. He wanted applause and he got awkward clapping by white guys. If the republican party doesn't see this as a clear problem they are kidding themselves. Trump running as a third party pretty much gives it to Clinton/Sanders so in reality all of this might not matter if Trump actually follows through on something he says he will do.

My early money goes to Rubio, with a small bet on Kasich. I think Kasich and Fiorina will go up a lot in the polls because of their debate performances. Trump down, Walker down.
 
I didn't catch the whole thing, but I actually liked some of Bush and Christie's comments. They seemed more moderate than the crackpots that were up on stage.
 
Hink said:
The debate was really actually good. I mean it was full of stupid discussions, but I think it made it pretty clear who was crazier and who was maybe less crazy.

I loved the #gopdebate because of amazing one liners....



Trump: Trump is nuts. I think his polling numbers are going to sink soon. He clearly was loved at the beginning and very neutral or negative at the end. The crowd clearly wanted to like him, but he is just so non-presidential it seeps into any thoughts of electability.
Bush: Bush was boring. Maybe he was going for that?
Walker: I think Walker was a non-factor. Which was surprising.
Carson: I don't understand why he always looks like he not sure of the question or is just overthinking things. His line about not getting enough time was funny, but sadly his time is probably up anyways.
Huckabee: Yea... this guy. I wish someone would just give him money so he didn't have to do this every 4 years.
Cruz: More nuts than Trump and less interesting. At least Trump is funny. Cruz is crazy in that scary way.
Rubio: Great lines about how he would combat Hilary Clinton. Seemed normal enough. Really needs to work on his water intake though as he licked his lips again a bunch. Medical condition maybe?
Paul: Was once considered the crazy one of the candidates. Now he just seems like Bernie Sanders-lite.
Christie: Didn't really get much traction. Really tried to say things he thought would get applause, but they fell flat. He isn't going to go up in the polls anytime soon.
Kasich: Was normal albeit odd. His mannerisms are awkward, but his words seem to actually make sense. His responses were more central leaning, and he still got applause.

Kasich was probably the best, with Rubio in second. Trump tried to hack at everyone, and some took the bait. Many did not.

Fox News - particulary Megyn Kelly - actually did a pretty reasonable job. They didn't ask lots of gimme questions, and clearly showed the weaknesses of many of the candidates. Trump's response to Ms. Kelly about the war on women was painful to watch. He wanted applause and he got awkward clapping by white guys. If the republican party doesn't see this as a clear problem they are kidding themselves. Trump running as a third party pretty much gives it to Clinton/Sanders so in reality all of this might not matter if Trump actually follows through on something he says he will do.

My early money goes to Rubio, with a small bet on Kasich. I think Kasich and Fiorina will go up a lot in the polls because of their debate performances. Trump down, Walker down.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that you think Tump's numbers will go down. Granted I don't agree with the guy and he is crazy, but his "I don't have time for political correctness" attitude is refreshing. He didn't hide what he has said in the past, stood up for his ideas, and told it like it was (or at least like he saw it). I think people are stick of the existing political system because all the politicians are the same. People are looking for different. Trump is one of the few people who is loud enough to show that he is different. Unfortunately, it is a bad different instead of a good different.
 
michaelskis said:
I am surprised that you think Tump's numbers will go down. Granted I don't agree with the guy and he is crazy, but his "I don't have time for political correctness" attitude is refreshing. He didn't hide what he has said in the past, stood up for his ideas, and told it like it was (or at least like he saw it). I think people are stick of the existing political system because all the politicians are the same. People are looking for different. Trump is one of the few people who is loud enough to show that he is different. Unfortunately, it is a bad different instead of a good different.
Click to expand...

The best line I have read about Trump today is that he crossed the fine line between outspoken and ungentlemanly. He was blatantly rude. He was off putting. He made it clear that he doesn't like women. He is bad for the Republican party. The sooner they get him to stop opening his mouth the better. The idea that his views touch on what people truly think is only so true. It touches on a cord with many tea partiers and closet (as well as uncloseted) bigots. He just makes it easy to understand what his true goals are. I understand why people like him on the far-right. He has no chance with the middle or even slightly left leaning voters. None. Zero.

Anyone who touts their personal wealth, is not going to connect with the poor. Even if he has a charity (which I would imagine he does in his name), he isn't like people. He has no understanding of what would help the middle class (or even the upper-upper-middle class for that matter). He comes off as pompous and thin-skinned. Just ask him about his bankruptcy. Ask him about his political donations or gaming the system.

He has too much baggage to actually have a chance. He just showed the entire world how unqualified he is. Only those who truly believe will still follow. I see numbers shrinking by 5-7 points quick, and by November / December he will be polling around 8-10% tops.
 
Fiorina is the overall winner in that I think she'll get a bump in the polls that gets her into the top tier. She got herself back on the map.

I think Kasich benefited as well--he represented himself well as a guy that "gets" the middle class. I do know from research that his words don't always match his actions as governor, and I've heard some bad things about local government support.

Rubio was the overall debate winner. He got in some memorable lines and actually explained stances on a few issues. He came off like an adult. I think he has some public speaking anxiety that causes his mouth to dry out--that is a really common issue. He needs to be careful exaggerating his family history--his father came to the U.S. two years before the Cuban Revolution. If you're making that part of your narrative, then you better fact check it.

Trump will begin a slow decline in the polls and probably hit the primaries at around 10%. There's a difference between outspoken and rude. He conflates "politically correct" with being "polite." The only description that fits him at this point is "bloviating asshole."

Carson is demonstrating why it is important for presidential hopefuls to get at least a little experience running for elected office. He cannot efficiently convey any message. He might be wicked smart, but I see much "paralysis by analysis" in his personality that would limit his ability to actually govern, accomplish anything or respond to issues (domestic or foreign). You see this a bit in comparing him to Fiorina--she has run for office in the past and therefore understands how to communicate better.

Some say Bush seemed boring. I think it is worse--he seemed disinterested. He needs to straighten himself out because I'm sure his support money is beginning to shop around.

Christie is done. He has clearly lost his mojo.

Cruz, for being a supposed expert debater, was remarkably unimpressive. This surprises some, but not this Texan. He has always been a mile wide and an inch deep. Or to use a Texas phrase, he is "all hat and no cattle."

Walker appears to be a failure to launch at this point. I expected a stronger performance from him, but he just looked lost & unprepared. I don't think he'll recover.

Huckabee is just the angry preacher from Footloose except less likeable. I'm bored with him and it appears a lot of folks agree with me.

I think it is too bad that Rick Perry wasn't on the main event since he has taken the sharpest stabs at Trump. But I'm perfectly happy with that moron not getting air time.

Megyn Kelly actually surprised me the most by doing a reasonable job managing the circus. I was expecting questions like "Ronald Reagan... great President or greatest President?" She actually asked some real questions targeting known weaknesses of candidates. In that regard she accomplished the intent of this early debate to flush out some of the also-rans.
 
Regarding the future of Trump's polling numbers: I don't know that Trump will see a massive decline in his numbers anytime soon but I have to imagine that he's at (or near) his ceiling and he'll hover around his current level of support until he opens his mouth one time too many and finally tanks.

Why won't he rise further in the polls? As some of the current candidates start to eventually drop out of the race, there isn't a single candidate in the GOP field who I can see their suporters moving over to Trump. Trump has a record of supporting gun control and women's reproductive rights. Would a supporter of Jindel or Huckabee, who I think could be the first two to drop out, or Walker or Santorum supporter ever go for Trump with that in his past? Not likely.
 
I'm wondering if Bush is pushing for the moderate vote, which may come off as boring, but might be a good move to distinguish yourself against a field of right wingers (I'm over generalizing, but not by much). I'm not going to say Bush is the right guy or will will the nomination, but it's a plan.
 
Back
Top