• 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

Planit said:
So if Ben Carson is elected, do we have to call him Dr. President?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. One thing is for sure, if he does get elected, I hope that he gets people around him who understand economics and foreign relations because I don't think he understands either.

As of right now, I don't know who I am going to vote for... it might be a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party candidate... or might be RJ. All I do know is none of them on either side have demonstrated that they have similar views as I do.

In another thread it talked about millennials wanting someone who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. If someone with charisma came along with those platforms and understood how to work the media, they would win in a freaking landslide. Heck, depending on their viewpoint on abortion, I might even vote for them even if they ran with the D's.
 
I was unable to watch the debate last night. But from what I hear, it was an embarrassment. Not because of the answers by the candidates, but because of the questions CNBC asked. The main stream media sucks and the political agenda is evident.
 
The moderators were bad. They just asked questions about how awful the candidates were. I thought the point of the debate was to ask a question and get out of the way. Let the candidates go after each other. I don't care what the moderators think.

With that said, the republicans really need to stop crying about it. They may win points with the audience, but if you spend half the time given to you crying about the "mainstream" media screwing you, you waste half your time. Suck it up and move along. We all know it is an issue.

My rankings of who "won":

Rubio
Fiorina
Kasich
Christie
Trump
Carson
Cruz
Jeb
Huck
Paul

The fact that Carson is in the lead now if painful to watch. He just needs to go to sleep already. Leave the guy alone. He clearly doesn't want to stay awake that late. Trump was a no show. Weak and had really stupid answers. Rubio was on point and responded well to criticism. Fiorina and Kasich both went after people but harped on their achievements. Christie was actually vocal and reminded people why they once liked him. Paul, Huckabeee, Cruz, and Jeb probably need to pack it in. They just waste space on the stage. None are doing anything that brings value.
 
Hink said:
The moderators were bad. They just asked questions about how awful the candidates were. I thought the point of the debate was to ask a question and get out of the way. Let the candidates go after each other. I don't care what the moderators think.

With that said, the republicans really need to stop crying about it. They may win points with the audience, but if you spend half the time given to you crying about the "mainstream" media screwing you, you waste half your time. Suck it up and move along. We all know it is an issue.

My rankings of who "won":

Rubio
Fiorina
Kasich
Christie
Trump
Carson
Cruz
Jeb
Huck
Paul

The fact that Carson is in the lead now if painful to watch. He just needs to go to sleep already. Leave the guy alone. He clearly doesn't want to stay awake that late. Trump was a no show. Weak and had really stupid answers. Rubio was on point and responded well to criticism. Fiorina and Kasich both went after people but harped on their achievements. Christie was actually vocal and reminded people why they once liked him. Paul, Huckabeee, Cruz, and Jeb probably need to pack it in. They just waste space on the stage. None are doing anything that brings value.
Click to expand...


Has Trump ever given anything other than a stupid answer. Your right about Carson. He needs to channel Bill Clinton and get some charisma if he stands a chance. I will be interested to hear Rubio's responses to things being that you think he won the debate.




On a different note and to change gears... by now almost everyone has watched the video of the cop flipping over the desk of an uncooperative student and tossing her across the floor. First and foremost, the cop was wrong in the way that he reacted to the situation. There is video of her pushing him and swatting at him, but it was not in a way that would have resulted in physical harm. However, it does have me thinking, how should the cop have addressed the situation. He was called to remove her from the class because she was being disruptive and would not respond to anyone in authority at the school. Personally I don't have the answer.

It also makes me wonder about how she was raised. It was evident that she was disrespectful to everyone in authority. Did she come from a troubled childhood? Did her parents teach her that it was ok to act like this? I fear that we will see more situations like this were students will just refuse to cooperate and ignore directions from authority. What are your thoughts?
 
I'll stay off the debate topic since I didn't watch it. Trump's answers might be stupid, but he'll tell you they're the best answers and they're on top of the polls.

I think the cop should have just dragged the girl and the chair into the hall or outside. She can sit there not distracting anyone until her parents get there to pick her up. Make the parents stop work once or twice and she'll have an attitude change. I know what the cop did is wrong, but part of me says she put herself into the position to get beat. She provoked the teacher, and then provoked the cop by refusing to listen to authority. The cops other choice was to drag her out of the chair and cuff her. It was not going to go down well either way, but flipping the chair was just wrong. For the media outlets this was not a black thing, it was a stubborn kid and a poor decision by the cop.
 
I actually remember when I was in HS, a teacher pushed the desk (slid it across the floor) with kid in it out of the classroom and into the hall and just left him there. It was actually kinda funny
 
michaelskis said:
I will be interested to hear Rubio's responses to things being that you think he won the debate.
Click to expand...

I think you will like them. He will get a big bump from this. Hopefully he kicks crazy 1 (Trump), and crazy 2 (Carson), from the top spot. At least he can say he got elected as a senator.



michaelskis said:
On a different note and to change gears... by now almost everyone has watched the video of the cop flipping over the desk of an uncooperative student and tossing her across the floor. First and foremost, the cop was wrong in the way that he reacted to the situation. There is video of her pushing him and swatting at him, but it was not in a way that would have resulted in physical harm. However, it does have me thinking, how should the cop have addressed the situation. He was called to remove her from the class because she was being disruptive and would not respond to anyone in authority at the school. Personally I don't have the answer.
...

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think we need to find a way to discuss responsibility in our society. Being a policeman is tough. Very rarely is it safe. They make tough decisions on a split second time frame. Sometimes they make the wrong decision. Sometimes they are killed because they make the wrong decision. I have never been profiled. I can't understand what it must feel like. I can't comprehend the anger and distrust that I know many feel. And they feel it rightfully so. With that said, I do not understand how people treat policeman like they are your drunk best friend. Cursing at them, and not listening. It is hard for me to assume anything about specific situations, but I think we as a society have to default to the police being good. Most are doing the right thing. We shouldn't resist or make their job more dangerous. All that leads to is more danger for both parties.
 
michaelskis said:
On a different note and to change gears... by now almost everyone has watched the video of the cop flipping over the desk of an uncooperative student and tossing her across the floor. First and foremost, the cop was wrong in the way that he reacted to the situation. There is video of her pushing him and swatting at him, but it was not in a way that would have resulted in physical harm. However, it does have me thinking, how should the cop have addressed the situation. He was called to remove her from the class because she was being disruptive and would not respond to anyone in authority at the school. Personally I don't have the answer.

It also makes me wonder about how she was raised. It was evident that she was disrespectful to everyone in authority. Did she come from a troubled childhood? Did her parents teach her that it was ok to act like this? I fear that we will see more situations like this were students will just refuse to cooperate and ignore directions from authority. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

The cop shouldn't have been there to begin with. It was the school's problem, they should have handled it. That being said, the cop was wrong in several ways. First, he shouldn't have flipped the desk. Secondly, he should have been aware that it would be recorded, especially with that age group. It was the girl's fault for acting like an ass. She should have put the !@#$%^%$ phone up or given it to the teacher. But given that age group, critical thinking skills aren't exactly well developed. Word to the wise, do what a cop tells you to do without any lip and things go a whole lot better for you.
 
michaelskis said:
On a different note and to change gears... by now almost everyone has watched the video of the cop flipping over the desk of an uncooperative student and tossing her across the floor. First and foremost, the cop was wrong in the way that he reacted to the situation. There is video of her pushing him and swatting at him, but it was not in a way that would have resulted in physical harm. However, it does have me thinking, how should the cop have addressed the situation. He was called to remove her from the class because she was being disruptive and would not respond to anyone in authority at the school. Personally I don't have the answer.

It also makes me wonder about how she was raised. It was evident that she was disrespectful to everyone in authority. Did she come from a troubled childhood? Did her parents teach her that it was ok to act like this? I fear that we will see more situations like this were students will just refuse to cooperate and ignore directions from authority. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

According to the attorney for the teen, she is 16 years old, her mother recently died and she has entered the foster care system. Other students knew about her situation but I don't know about the teacher or administration.t

The officer involved had a reputation at the school as "Officer Slam" for having slammed students to the ground the way he did in the video. When he arrived in the classroom, a girl began to object apparently because she knew the reputation of the officer (she has since been arrested for disruption at the school and filming the incident). This is why a number of kids were already filming on their phones before the officer engaged the student.

I am so distressed that we even have police officers in school, let alone in a manner that presents them as overseers conducting surveillance on the children. If you are going to have people in the schools to help keep things safe, how about they wear plain clothes? How about they be a special kind of officer who establishes supporting relations with students, defusing tense situations and helps direct struggling kids to services they might need or mentors who can guide, or any of the many other things we know are successful ways to give hope and support to our most vulnerable kids?

The sheriff has stated that the methods used by this officer are not taught or approved by official training. That goes for schools or anywhere else. The officer was not in danger or under imminent threat. This was a school classroom, not out on the streets where public safety might be a concern. This situation should have been handled so differently - de-esclation, not violence. Schools are a place to nurture. Even at 16, 17, 18, these are still CHILDREN in more ways than we realize. They are not adversaries. WTF?!
 
wahday said:
According to the attorney for the teen, she is 16 years old, her mother recently died and she has entered the foster care system. Other students knew about her situation but I don’t know about the teacher or administration.t

The officer involved had a reputation at the school as “Officer Slam”...WTF?!
Click to expand...

Complain all you want about teens walking around with their face locked on their phone, who is not grateful that smartphones exist, if only to capture these acts of police violence that would be buried otherwise?
 
wahday said:
According to the attorney for the teen, she is 16 years old, her mother recently died and she has entered the foster care system. Other students knew about her situation but I don't know about the teacher or administration.t

The officer involved had a reputation at the school as "Officer Slam" for having slammed students to the ground the way he did in the video. When he arrived in the classroom, a girl began to object apparently because she knew the reputation of the officer (she has since been arrested for disruption at the school and filming the incident). This is why a number of kids were already filming on their phones before the officer engaged the student.

I am so distressed that we even have police officers in school, let alone in a manner that presents them as overseers conducting surveillance on the children. If you are going to have people in the schools to help keep things safe, how about they wear plain clothes? How about they be a special kind of officer who establishes supporting relations with students, defusing tense situations and helps direct struggling kids to services they might need or mentors who can guide, or any of the many other things we know are successful ways to give hope and support to our most vulnerable kids?

The sheriff has stated that the methods used by this officer are not taught or approved by official training. That goes for schools or anywhere else. The officer was not in danger or under imminent threat. This was a school classroom, not out on the streets where public safety might be a concern. This situation should have been handled so differently - de-esclation, not violence. Schools are a place to nurture. Even at 16, 17, 18, these are still CHILDREN in more ways than we realize. They are not adversaries. WTF?!
Click to expand...

We have militarized our schools. I didn't know anything about this case, until Mskis said something above. After looking into it, it is really sad. All around. This girl probably just needed a support system. Not a beat down. :(
 
Hink said:
We have militarized our schools. I didn't know anything about this case, until Mskis said something above. After looking into it, it is really sad. All around. This girl probably just needed a support system. Not a beat down. :(
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I was not aware of her past but figured something was up. I also think you are dead on with the militarized schools statement. In almost every case, I support police officers who are there to serve and protect. But then you get people on power trips like this jerk that damage the reputation of them all. I agree with the comments above and I think having a couple of the administration slide her and the desk out of the room would have been the most appropriate course of action. In the hall, they could work with her a bit more to find out what is really going on.

All the cops that I have ever known in school have been awesome and a welcome addition into the school. Most of the time, they were there to enforce drug situations but were called in when there was a fight that involved weapons.

I am a bit surprised that the school and administration was not aware of her mother's death. That is strange.
 
Most departments assign school resource officers with the best intentions in mind. They are supposed to be there mostly to foster positive interactions with students so that those students will come to them when something is wrong (domestic/child abuse situation at home or school, drugs, weapons, etc.) and to address violent situations where school administration is ill-equipped to intervene. It is often used as a final gig before retirement for some of the older street officers. The SRO's in my elementary, middle & high schools were actually really popular with the students. One of my friends in high school got busted with drugs in his locker by the SRO and actually told him he was sorry that he disappointed him. The SRO was at my friend's adjudication and actually testified about the kid being a solid A/B student that stayed out of trouble other than this incident. Got my friend into a rehabilitation program instead. In my middle school I remember hearing that a student told the SRO that another student was getting beat up at home. That is how a SRO is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, some departments do not operate that way and instead assign officers to those duties as an attempt to get problem officers off the street that they were not able to or unwilling to fire. I suspect that was the case with this incident, particularly since the cop already had the kind of reputation that resulted in multiple students filming the second he entered the classroom. I'm aware of one department near me that assigned an officer as a SRO because he had some incidents in which he used excessive force and provided inaccurate testimony that would result in his cases being called into question any time he went to court. Not exactly the type of officer you want around kids, but it was viewed as the best way to reduce department liability when the police union for inexplicable reasons fought successfully to keep a bad egg on the force.

Likewise, some school districts bring in officers simply for security, ignoring the "community policing" benefits. This is the militarization Hink mentions.

I'm not surprised the school was unaware of the parent death. Guidance counselors are spread way to thin and the current state of educational focus (high stakes testing, large classroom populations & stressed teachers) make it less likely that other school faculty were able to note critical changes for this individual. I am a little surprised with this situation though because usually the CPS case worker reaches out to the school to let them know the situation and to provide critical contact information for the foster guardians.
 
Seriously, they have regular police officers in schools now-wow. I retract what I said about the girl. Sounds like she was, understandably, acting out.
 
Well this is interesting. The media jumped the gun to go all anti-cop and said that she recently lost her parents. While she is in a foster home, her lawyer has since clarified that her mother and grandmother are in-fact alive, and he met with both of them. I don't know the details of why she is not living with one of them, but she is not an orphan.

However, I fully agree that he used way too much force. However I think it has gotten out of control. Maybe he did deserve to be fired but apparently whe was arrested, she had a bit of rug burn from being thrown to the ground. Some media sources say she has two casts on her arms and other injuries. Personally, I think she is playing it.

I do think the cop should have been disciplined in some way, but not to the level of being fired. It sounds like the students at the school he was at agree as they had a walk-out today in support of the cop.

I think this is a perfect example of how truth in journalism is dead.
 
So the Republican campaigns all got together without the RNC and decided they would rule how the future debates go.

Well that is great! Let's have Sean Hannity ask them the hard questions. God forbid they have to get out of their comfort zone. The first debate was good. CNBC sucked, but the idea that we need to change the debate structure because of it, is absurd.

So because your candidate isn't one of the top 10 you want to bitch Lindsay Graham? Really? You have no chance. Go home.
Ben Carson is complaining because they are making him answer any questions. He just wants to sleep.
Trump wasn't the center of the debate and therefore he wants more time.
Carly Fiorina didn't get a chance to talk about her HP "experience" enough.
Kasich wants to only be asked what he has done for Ohio. He hasn't told everyone everywhere a million times yet.
Christie and Cruz won't have a platform anymore, since the only thing they bitch about is the moderators.
Huckabee will have more time to shill Trump merch and get a TV show back.

I find this awful. The TV networks need to say no. Don't invite the ones who are complaining. Particularly NBC. Don't invite Trump or Carson. Who cares? I bet you Rubio, Fiorina, etc. will all show up. They actually want to talk about issues. They get that it is part of the ride. The idea that the campaigns will okay the questions, and the moderators is stupid. I hope this doesn't go unnoticed. It is wrong.
 
It's the target the media debate! You can get a lot of people to your side if you just bash the press, provided it's not Fox. Besides, none of these candidates want to be pundits or have a show on any of the other networks. They're all trying for a spot on Fox. You can't tell me Trump or Huck really want to be pres. They just want a show.
 
I support the RNC on this one. There were stupid questions asked of the GOP candidates over the past few debates. Come on... who's face would you have on the $10 bill? How does that freaking matter. The whole goal of the GOP debates was to get each other to turn on each other and make the entire stage look like idiots, insensitive jerks or both.
 
True the questions were bad and Christie called them out on the fantasy football thing, but then you get Ted Cruz attacking after being questions about the budget. I'm sure he was tired of bad questions, but I also think he had that pre loaded idea to attach the media (granted they made it easy for him).

Speaking as just an annoyed consumer (since I'm not voting yet), the RNC needs to get its shit together and force some of the losers off the stage. Condense the field and the media won't think the whole thing is a joke. You can't keep giving these guys gold stars just because they want to participate. Pick maybe four and let's all move on.

My other political complaint, the reason the RNC is losing the presidency is that they have no (or a crappy) platform. Basically they spend their time bashing the Dems. That's not a platform. I know they like immigration, gun control, religion, abortion, and more, but that's to fire up the base. It's not a real platform of change or action. The Dems, like it or not, have a decent candidate that people will support who can take time to talk about issues and not just bash the other sides action or lack of on the topics (although she does that too). This works both ways, my thought as to why the Dems lost to the RNC after Clinton, all they did was bash the RNC and they didn't have a platform. They got their shit together and had 8 years and are ready to launch another 4-8. The RNC needs to listen to America, not the people who come out to the rallies. Realize that 90% of those people represent 20% of actual American values (my made up numbers). I actually believe that most Americans are either moderate Ds or Rs and just want decent government officials.
 
dvdneal said:
True the questions were bad and Christie called them out on the fantasy football thing, but then you get Ted Cruz attacking after being questions about the budget. I'm sure he was tired of bad questions, but I also think he had that pre loaded idea to attach the media (granted they made it easy for him).

Speaking as just an annoyed consumer (since I'm not voting yet), the RNC needs to get its shit together and force some of the losers off the stage. Condense the field and the media won't think the whole thing is a joke. You can't keep giving these guys gold stars just because they want to participate. Pick maybe four and let's all move on.

My other political complaint, the reason the RNC is losing the presidency is that they have no (or a crappy) platform. Basically they spend their time bashing the Dems. That's not a platform. I know they like immigration, gun control, religion, abortion, and more, but that's to fire up the base. It's not a real platform of change or action. The Dems, like it or not, have a decent candidate that people will support who can take time to talk about issues and not just bash the other sides action or lack of on the topics (although she does that too). This works both ways, my thought as to why the Dems lost to the RNC after Clinton, all they did was bash the RNC and they didn't have a platform. They got their shit together and had 8 years and are ready to launch another 4-8. The RNC needs to listen to America, not the people who come out to the rallies. Realize that 90% of those people represent 20% of actual American values (my made up numbers). I actually believe that most Americans are either moderate Ds or Rs and just want decent government officials.
Click to expand...

Republicans need to realize their "base" is what is killing them. Old bigots, religious zealots, and corporate CEOs aren't the future. There are TONS of young republicans who want to vote for the R party, but won't because they grew up in a world that has gay people, has people who unfortunately have to make the horrible decision to have an abortion, have healthcare because of the ACA, agree climate change exists, has little job mobility, and doesn't see equality the same as just try harder and you will be equal.

The republicans need to re-frame their arguments. They can certainly compete with Hillary, as she has weaknesses everywhere, but they need to actually change. They need to move past Huckabee. They need to chastise and move past Cruz. They need to embrace positions that help fiscally manage our country. Focus on policy that fits within the framework of a 21st century country, not an 18th century country and "what our framers" wanted.

I think 8 candidates would be nice. We get to hear them, and they get to respond and attach each other. The idea that we need to coddle these guys / gals is crazy. You are asking for the most important position in the world. You get no coddling. You get attacked. Deal with it like big kids and stop crying.
 
I don't think the fantasy football question was a bad one as it was trying to get at how the candidate would deal with new/novel situations that arise and may need to be regulated at the federal level. It might have been even more interesting if it had been asked directly to Christie who has been working for years on trying to get the federal government to allow sports bookmaking in New Jersey. Sure, some people could not care less about fantasy football in particular, but it is sometimes helpful to use a topical real world example. If you don't want the Q to be about fantasy football, it could just as easily be about internet privacy and doxing, personal use of drones, online alcohol sales...
 
Good point, off base questions have a way of getting a real reaction, not some programmed talking points. I think Hink's idea of reframing the issues is right. Immigration is a problem, but there is a difference between condemning all immigrants and calling them illegal and criminals. Playing off fear that they'll rape someone or look at you funny when you drive by is bad politics. They need to actually address the issue. If you're fix is to build a giant wall and hope they stay out, ask China how that worked for them. Everyone keeps taking these absolute stances for the far right base that it leaves them no room to negotiate. I've always considered myself a republican (until recently) I remember the old platform used to be about building strong families with a focus on education and keeping everyone working. Today it's still about families, but only if it follows they're definition of family which means no gay people or other religions. It's also a lot more constitutional rights based making it sound like no one follows the constitution except them, but history is showing they seem to violate on judicial rulings on the constitution more than anyone else. Part of the constitution is respecting the decisions of the court, not just saying they're wrong.

Sorry, I can rant a while on how wrong today's politicians are.
 
This Ben Carson thing is interesting. It sounds like the media is trying to through everything they can at Carson to see what sticks. Sounds like most of it hasn't and the West Point thing might be the only real thing in question.
 
The painting with Jesus looks kinda creepy, but I'm sure that doesn't effect his ability to be president.
 
michaelskis said:
This Ben Carson thing is interesting. It sounds like the media is trying to through everything they can at Carson to see what sticks. Sounds like most of it hasn't and the West Point thing might be the only real thing in question.
Click to expand...

Most of it is true though. Nuance is only something you argue when you are lying. He insinuated a whole lot. And he keeps doing it. People fact check him, and can't find any evidence of what he is saying. None. Which most of the time means they are lying. But of course instead of Brian Williamsing it, and mis-remembering, he just goes after the liberal media.

Try being honest for once. Own up to lies.

He is not only the same as the politicians by his lying, but he is worse, because he doesn't even know how to work the system. That and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge,etc.

Here's to "Tax Guys" dancing for President! ;)
 
Hink said:
Most of it is true though. Nuance is only something you argue when you are lying. He insinuated a whole lot. And he keeps doing it. People fact check him, and can't find any evidence of what he is saying. None. Which most of the time means they are lying. But of course instead of Brian Williamsing it, and mis-remembering, he just goes after the liberal media.

Try being honest for once. Own up to lies.

He is not only the same as the politicians by his lying, but he is worse, because he doesn't even know how to work the system. That and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge,etc.

Here's to "Tax Guys" dancing for President! ;)
Click to expand...

I am only pointing out the hypocrisy of the media and thinking, "this is the worst they could find... they can't prove that something happened, so it must be a lie?" Given the other candidates who are running, it is almost comical. I think that he needs to be fully vetted, there is no question about that. But can you tell me that there is documentation to back up every word that was written in every book by the rest of those running? Trump has written several books, why hasn't the media gone after him? Is the guy who offered him the scholarship still alive? Find out if such a conversation happened. His mom backed the stabbing story in a 1997 interview. I say find the kid that was almost stabbed. See if he can confirm or deny it.

I am not voting for the guy in the primary because I don't think he fully understands economics or foreign policy and I think that his lack of personality is a major liability. I am not sure who I am voting for, but none of them are all that awesome. Hillary scares the crap out of me, and if it was Trump v Sanders, I might vote Bernie.
 
Funny......

Bernie is just talking about a modicum of fairness that we use to have in this Country. So the fantasy about Socialism and Commies is just that....fantasy.
 
Thoughts on the GOP debate last night:
Trump was less Trump like, but still an idiot, which was confirmed every time he talked.
Paul, I agree with some of what he said regarding the economy, but when he attacked others regarding military, he didn't really give any info on what he would do to keep the US safe.
Kasich, you need to stop interrupting people, you sound like a jerk. Oh, and that goes for the majority of people.
Rubio did better, but still is weak on explaining how his numbers would work.
Cruz, what is the 5th department you want to cut?
Carson, ok, everyone pays 10% and zero loop holes. Sounds reasonable but can you show how the numbers would work? What parts of the government would need to be cut to make it balance out. On the other hand, he is the only one who didn't get into an interrupting match with others.
Carly, 3 page tax code? That would be awesome. Zero based budget makes sense. But how will the tax structure work out to make everything balance? Will you cut programs or raise taxes?

Thank you Fox Business for not asking stupid questions, but next time, keep the debate under control.
 
Cutting Commerce Dept - what would he do with the

Census Bureau - do planners need data ? - see what has happened in Canada.
NOAA - National Weather Service - do communities need hurricane or tornado warnings ?

Also Cutting HUD
Cities don't need any grant monies either.
 
Anyone else sending Bernie Sanders their vacuum pennies?

wcGFnpO.png


Can one be a progressive centrist? Call me comrade, I guess.

I really want to see Chris Christie get some traction. If anyone can bridge the aisles of Congress, it's him. Why Christie and the other establishment Republican candidates don't have the Teflon armor of Trump and Carson, I don't know.
 
Since I was gone yesterday.... my take on the debate.

Fox Business went the Fox way, and didn't ask any hardball questions, and basically let candidates get away with outright lies. Which was annoying, but still not as annoying as CNBC.

Trump - Was he there? Very weak.
Carson - His inability to speak on topics that matter is quite amazing. How is this guy leading any polls?
Cruz - http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...e-american-can-stand-four-seconds-of-ted-cruz
Rubio - He did well again. Probably the winner, but he is just getting that title because so many of them are bad.
Kasich - Ouch. Mean old white man does not play well with a national audience. He is one of the few sane republicans on a lot of topics, but he didn't help himself with this debate.
Fiorina - She wasn't good. Not horrible, but certainly not good. I would put her in the top 5....
Paul - He picked fights, which was fun. He just continues to think his policies make sense. Which will end his campaign, because he is crazy.
Bush - Well he didn't burn down like he did in the last one. He certainly didn't make any inroads with people though.

My Current Ranking of where people will finish in the Spring (based on the debate):
Rubio
Bush
Kasich
Fiorina
Trump
Paul
Cruz
Carson
 
Hink said:
Since I was gone yesterday.... my take on the debate.

Fox Business went the Fox way, and didn't ask any hardball questions, and basically let candidates get away with outright lies. Which was annoying, but still not as annoying as CNBC.
Click to expand...

What would be a good example of a hardball question for a primary debate?

I agree that the questions were on the soft side, but it really highlighted the differences in the candidates, and isn't that what primary debates are all about?
 
Had them......

The question to Fiorina about the number of jobs created during Obama and Clinton years vs. Bush years was a hard ball question......the answer was limp and went the opposite direction with the statement about how bad things are being complete fantasy. A follow up calling her out for not even acknowledging the point of the question would have been hard ball......but then they would be attacked for not just accepting the fantasy answer.
 
michaelskis said:
What would be a good example of a hardball question for a primary debate?

I agree that the questions were on the soft side, but it really highlighted the differences in the candidates, and isn't that what primary debates are all about?
Click to expand...

I agree they didn't really hardball (The One provides a good example of how they could've hardballed had they chosen to). This "debate," however, was really the first GOP debate to at least sort of focus on some policy issues and did successfully differentiate the candidates. A full year out from the election, that is what a debate should be doing at this point. It would've been nice to see some hardball on fact checking some of their statements as follow-up. I think that was a product of the time restrictions to some degree... allowing a 90 second answer with that many candidates makes follow-up questioning difficult. Cut the field in half and then I think this format would have allowed for and resulted in follow-up questions to deal with the loose relationship with the truth on display. Overall though, Fox Business did a better job than I expected.

Trump & Carson didn't hurt themselves, but also didn't stand out. I can at least sort of understand how Trump is a candidate and getting some support... Carson is an enigma to me--I don't understand support for him. Personally, I think he has something going on from a physical and/or mental health standpoint. I don't understand his desire to embellish his life story when I believe even the likely real version of his story is more compelling and likely to resonate with GOP voters. Any voter appreciates the grew up poor-->now a renowned neurosurgeon story. That's a good bootstrapper if there ever was one. His command of, well, virtually all of the important presidential issues is atrocious.

Cruz was weak and I felt was trying to dodge meaningful discussion the most of all of them. That is nothing new... he did the same thing in Texas when he ran for Senate. Nobody has attacked him for this yet, but his whole "I'm an ideological outsider" shtick has made him exceptionally ineffective as a senator. He can point to very few achievements, even excusing the fact that the GOP was the minority party and he was only elected in 2013.

Rubio looked like the winner, though I agree that this is more an indictment of the other candidates. If he can hone an explanation and math behind his tax plan (even if it doesn't pass a fact check), he'll move way up the standings. If he can get his plan to look viable as a fact/math check, then he vaults to the top. Simplified tax code is a winning issue.

Kasich appeared to be attempting to channel a conservative version of Bernie Sanders. It didn't work, which is a shame since he might be the only grown-up in the room. Angry conservative white guy just comes off sounding like an asshole. Needs to back up his statements with more than "it worked in Ohio blah blah blah." He needs to identify WHY something worked in Ohio and how that translates to a nationwide solution. He needs meaningful metrics that can stand up to fact checks.

Fiorina was meh. She was on the right track with relating back to personal stories that resonate with voters, but then steered away and struggled with economic questions (which theoretically should be her area of strength).

Paul's brain is one helluva echo chamber. He is starting to look/act more & more like his crazy ass dad.

Bush was improved, but he did not make the inroads he needed to. I don't remember if it was on here or somewhere else that I read it, but Romney must be kicking himself over letting Jeb scare him out of the race.
 
Seems like if you want to be the presidential nominee of the Republican party, intelligence and veracity are liabilities.
 
Trump's campaign speeches are becoming even more angrier and bizarre. Now he's calling Iowa voters stupid because he's down in the polls. Time for the circus to roll up the tent.
 
Well, it looks like Hillary's lies are also catching up to her. There are now questions about her attempt to become a Marine in 1975. Especially because he was a vocal anti war lawyer who just started a new job.
 
The Dem Debate is very entertaining. You almost forget they are all in the same party.
It's not over but thus far I think Berine's bashing Hillary's big bank connections will help him. Hillary is just pandering to the poles and has been called out on it. Gov O'malley gained some ground, but I don't think he will catch the other two.

I would be interested to hear more about their gun control measures. I am all for some level of control but I doubt it will be consistent with what they are proposing.

The questions have been good and to the point.
 
michaelskis said:
The Dem Debate is very entertaining. You almost forget they are all in the same party.
It's not over but thus far I think Berine's bashing Hillary's big bank connections will help him. Hillary is just pandering to the poles and has been called out on it. Gov O'malley gained some ground, but I don't think he will catch the other two.

I would be interested to hear more about their gun control measures. I am all for some level of control but I doubt it will be consistent with what they are proposing.

The questions have been good and to the point.
Click to expand...

The debate is pointless. It was low rated because everyone knows Hillary is going to win. They need to just move along....
 
Hink said:
The debate is pointless. It was low rated because everyone knows Hillary is going to win. They need to just move along....
Click to expand...

For the love of God, I pray she does not become president. ABC... Anyone But Clinton!

I wonder how her base liked the $12 per hour minimum instead of the $15 per hour minimum like they are demanding. Part of the problem is the cost of living is so much different from City to City even even within the same region or state.
 
michaelskis said:
For the love of God, I pray she does not become president. ABC... Anyone But Clinton!

I wonder how her base liked the $12 per hour minimum instead of the $15 per hour minimum like they are demanding. Part of the problem is the cost of living is so much different from City to City even even within the same region or state.
Click to expand...

I meant the Democratic nomination. Having Bernie and O'Malley up there is pointless.
 
Proof (more of it)

http://www.chn.org/human_needs_repo...me-tax-credits-remain-uncertain/#.Vku48k3fNaR

Continued massive tax breaks for corporations that aren't sharing the massive amounts of wealth that are being hoarded. Wages have been stagnate for oh.....about 40 years now. Trickle down my ass! They would rather pay for the poor through meager government subsidies financed by the middle class than pay a higher base wage.

:r:
 
Back
Top