The Repub Debate

[carlfense]

Finally, FWIW, I have very low expectations for President Clinton.

1. Nominate justices,

2. Hold the line against attempts to dismantle the ACA and Dodd-Frank, and

3. Don't start any idiotic wars.

Fortunately Obama is leaving the country in much better shape for President Clinton than his predecessor did for him.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Hillary is a lousy candidate, worse than John McCain was, and on top of that has tons of baggage with no record of accomplishments.

Up to this point I have tried to consider the armchair conservative commentators' opinions with a degree of reflection and respect, but I'm afraid you guys have crossed the line into delusional thinking.

I intend to support Bernie Sanders for president of the United States. I'm not a Clintoniite. Nevertheless, I do so recognizing that Hillary Clinton was, is, and likely will be a political juggernaut the likes of which is rare in politics (the last being Obama). Beating her is no small task, and pretending otherwise is wish thinking. She's not only one of the most recognizable candidates in American politics; she's one of the most famous people on earth. That is not a value statement. That is a political fact, which conservatives tend to ignore like science, math, and common sense. (Reflect for a moment that the same exact bunch of clowns that had the right wing believing Romney was going to beat Obama in a landslide the day before he was slaughtered in a landslide are now telling you the current GOP lineup is one Abraham Lincoln after another.)

Pretending for a second that serving as an active first lady, a senator, and Secretary of State were all by some voodoo logic "not accomplishments", it's an act of deliberate ignorance to pretend she hasn't done anything. The crap you swallow and regurgitate from Fox News and talk radio may give you a warm patriotic feeling in your belly, but it doesn't make it reality. Maybe I'm going a bit too far there, because Fox News actually did publish a list of accomplishments she will undoubtedly use in her campaign. These are not all encompassing, either. It doesn't even include the part about how Clinton is partially responsible for the meager healthcare reform we did manage to get (against the forces of insanity that tried to keep the insurance company death panels healthy and active). Her unsuccessful attempt in the 90s ultimately gave birth to what we have now. If you want some more, here's some more.

And last point. How can a conservative bring up Hillary's vote for the Iraq War? How can you even talk about it? As if somehow being deceived by someone is the same thing as causing the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history. At least Hillary admitted her vote––and the war––was a mistake. Jeb Bush, one of your "frontrunners," won't even do that. The only one shouting about it on stage is Donald Trump, who as of this moment still has a comfortable lead in the Republican primaries. Hillary also gets partial credit for the Iran Deal, which is lauded by the global community, and opposed only by one wing of one party––incidentally the same wing that beat the drums for the aforementioned disastrous war in Iraq.

For starters, I don't like Jeb or Trump either, so suggesting that is a mistake. Also, your link to "accomplishments" from Hillary came from a Democratic pollster on Fox News, and while you can say that Fox does not present opposing views, I would love for you to find me an article on MSNBC or some other liberal website that discusses accomplishments of Bush 43. Tell me a time when Hillary has actually achieved results as Senator or SOS or First Lady that she was in the lead position on. Her first attempt at Hillarycare was a blew up in her face. Her most notable vote as Senator was for the Iraq war, and all politicians who supported the were were basing if off the same intelligence. The suggestion that you and your counterpart had on here that Bush lied intentionally to go to war is just as bad of a conspiracy as those that suggest he wanted 9/11 to happen and knew it was imminent. If you truly believe in that conspiracy, just as some buffoons on the right believe in the birther conspiracy about Obama, that is really a non-starter for me to believe anything further you say.

As for the Iran deal, that is about the only position Hillary has taken recently where she is willing to put her name on it, and it now must first pass given Schumer and other Dems are abandoning it. She better hope that Iran doesn't start acting out between now and election day. And I'm sure you are looking at Huffington Post, the NY Times and other liberal outlets touting what a great deal it was, but we (the US) basically caved on anything we wanted to achieve with that deal. As for Hillary being a famous person on earth, I don't think anyone would dispute that she has a strong name identification both here and abroad. Heck, Donald Trump has great name identification which is a big reason why he's leading in many polls, followed by a Bush which also has a lot of name identification. Many survey respondents do not follow politics closely until it gets really close to election day, and when they are asked to respond, they often pick names they know or are hearing in the news. Sanders is doing worse in national polls against Hillary than in state polls where those voters have gotten to know him. I'm not sure why calling out that she is a famous person adds any value to the debate at hand.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Wow, you show no ability to have an independent perspective even if you are a leftie. For starters, the 4 governors I mentioned all still have very favorable ratings in the states they led. Jeb is still wildly popular in Florida many years after he left, and that is now a very purple state. Kasich is very popular in Ohio too after turning that state around, and the same is true of Walker and Perry.

Show me. (You have a few options here. You can admit that you're wrong. You can re-define "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Or you can ignore this after actually looking up the numbers.)First, here are some poll numbers showing the popularity factor.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/10/poll-kasich-approval-rating.html

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/rick-perrys-approval-ratings-unchanged-in-texas-following-indictment-but-voters-split-over-whether-hes-innocent-or-guilty.html/ (This despite the allegations against Perry that were politically motivated)

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25002454/wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-approval-rating-remains-about (this in a very progressive state)

For any politician to have an approval in the 50s is very notable in this day and age of so much partisanship.

So you're going with option two, redefining "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person.
Nice.

(Also, were you being dishonest when you cited a Walker poll from more than a year and a half ago when his approval rating was ten points higher? Looks like he's down around 41% now.)

As for lack of resume, you still haven't explained how you feel Hillary or any other Dems running are qualified based upon a resume of results. Do you defend her lack of trustworthiness (destroying servers, making false claims about Benghazi, turning on a southern accent in the South, etc...)?

You just invoked Benghazi? Oof.
Also, did you vote for Romney? Be honest.

I am not hearing any GOP candidate outside of Lindsey Graham who nobody really likes calling for another Iraq war. Did you hear any candidates pushing for this in the debate. Please provide your sources of any candidate stating they want another war in Iraq or elsewhere. And you are dodging the fact that Hillary supported the Iraq war.

Listen, if you're honestly suggesting that the eventual DNC candidate, whether Hillary or anyone else, is as or more likely to start another war in the Middle East this isn't worth either of our time.
Hillary definitely supported the Iraq War. She acknowledges her mistake and I'll freely admit that it was erroneous. What do you think? Was it a mistake for W. and company to lie us into Iraq?

As for Carly, I wouldn't speak to soon. The way Hillary's campaign is in a free for all, I sometimes wonder if the only female to be on the top of either ticket would be Fiorina. Hillary is a lousy candidate, worse than John McCain was, and on top of that has tons of baggage with no record of accomplishments.

Let's talk in mid-November 2016, eh? Some people need to beat their chest with predictions before the contest because they're never quite convinced that they'll be able to do it after. I'd lay odds at about 70% that we're both going to have to get used to saying President Clinton again. And that's even with me agreeing with you that Hillary isn't impressive on campaign stops. She's average at best at campaigning. Fortunately for the DNC (and the country) she's running against a party who is currently infatuated with Donald Trump. Haha.

Wow, you really don't see any concern with Hillary's handling of Benghazi. If that's the case, then you are showing a complete lack of independent judgment. I am a center-right guy and have found plenty of reasons to criticize Bush 43, and do not simply support a candidate because of their political identification. Also, as I said in the last response, if you truly are a conspiracy theorist believing that Bush knew the intelligence was not accurate and/or asked someone to create faulty intelligence, then that really negates anything else you have to say on here. That is as bad as the many "birthers" on the right that are going after Obama's citizenship.

 

[carlfense]

So were you intentionally providing dated and incorrect information to falsely support your claims or were you uninformed as to Walker's "wild popularity"?

 

[carlfense]

Also, as I said in the last response, if you truly are a conspiracy theorist believing that Bush knew the intelligence was not accurate and/or asked someone to create faulty intelligence, then that really negates anything else you have to say on here.

Oh. Do you deny that Bush lied about the existence of intelligence supporting his claims about Iraq's WMD program?
That should be a "yes" or "no" question.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Also, as I said in the last response, if you truly are a conspiracy theorist believing that Bush knew the intelligence was not accurate and/or asked someone to create faulty intelligence, then that really negates anything else you have to say on here.

Oh. Do you deny that Bush lied about the existence of intelligence supporting his claims about Iraq's WMD program?
That should be a "yes" or "no" question.

No, I don't think Bush lied or misled the country. He is a stand-up guy and under no circumstance do I believe he would make up intelligence, or know that intelligence was made up, to support going to war. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there who suggest otherwise. As for Walker, his poll numbers have hovered above and below 50%, and given he's taken a hard stand against unions, he's had the entire DNC attacking him on multiple occasions. I live near the Wisconsin border, have friends (who aren't political) and co-workers that are not GOP-bots who continue to praise what he has done for their state. Again, Wisconsin is one of the homes of the Progressive movement, and the fact alone he's been able to win 3 elections statewide is telling.

Now, time for you to answer some questions which you seem to want to avoid.

1. Do you see any wrongdoing on Hillary's part with Benghazi, and what other criticisms do you have of her. I have called out many GOP politicians throughout this dialogue.

2. Which candidate are you currently supporting and why?

3. Do you have any concerns that none of the Democratic candidates have criticized Planned Parenthood?

 

[carlfense]

No, I don't think Bush lied or misled the country. He is a stand-up guy and under no circumstance do I believe he would make up intelligence, or know that intelligence was made up, to support going to war. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there who suggest otherwise.

Oh. Conspiracy theorists like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? ". . . the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
If that's too much reading I can give highlights. Heck, there are even videos of W. claiming that an IAEA report said that Iraq was six months from a nuke. No such report existed. But hey . . . that's just an extremely well documented and factually supported conspiracy theory.

As for Walker, his poll numbers have hovered above and below 50%, and given he's taken a hard stand against unions, he's had the entire DNC attacking him on multiple occasions. I live near the Wisconsin border, have friends (who aren't political) and co-workers that are not GOP-bots who continue to praise what he has done for their state. Again, Wisconsin is one of the homes of the Progressive movement, and the fact alone he's been able to win 3 elections statewide is telling.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't trying to deceive when you posted dated numbers . . . but you might want to give up on your attempt to define "wildly popular" to include 41% of people thinking you're doing an acceptable job.

1. Do you see any wrongdoing on Hillary's part with Benghazi, and what other criticisms do you have of her. I have called out many GOP politicians throughout this dialogue.

No wrongdoing whatsoever on Benghazi. Don't take my word for it . . . take a stroll through the 9 (NINE!) investigations since the attack. Frankly, it doesn't sound like you are in on the joke that the conservative entertainment complex and GOP pols are playing.
Criticisms of Hillary? She's mediocre on the campaign trail. She's hostile to the press (often with good reason, admittedly). She's overly secretive.

2. Which candidate are you currently supporting and why?

Currently supporting? None of them. In the general when there's a high probability that we'll get to decide between Jeb(!) and Hillary I'll vote for Hillary.

3. Do you have any concerns that none of the Democratic candidates have criticized Planned Parenthood?

No. None. In fact, we should probably increase funding for womens health programs.

 

[Scratchtown]

3. Do you have any concerns that none of the Democratic candidates have criticized Planned Parenthood?

No. None. In fact, we should probably increase funding for womens health programs.

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

 

[carlfense]

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular.

 

[Scratchtown]

The bottom line is that there is a stigma with the GOP, and all the uneducated garbage in this country won't vote for GOP because of the damn MORAL issues. The uneducated left side only votes left because they don't support pro-life or anti-gay marriage etc. The uneducated right only votes right because they SUPPORT pro life and anti gay marriage.

I'm pretty hardcore conservative but when it comes to voting issues, and deciding who I like as a candidate. I have a priority list of things I want to see done first, second, etc.

The "moral" issues of Abortion, and Religious Freedom, and Gay Rights are way way way down my list. Because those aren't going to fix our damn national debt/country.

In my opinion the first level of getting this country back on track starts with our kids. Get rid of the Dept of Ed, and have no national educational standards. Then someone needs to put more emphasis on Phys Ed, and get this damn countries childhood obesity rate down. Tackle the childhood obesity, then the adult numbers in that category drop as well.

Cut gov't entities that aren't needed.

 

[Husker_x]

For starters, I don't like Jeb or Trump either, so suggesting that is a mistake. Also, your link to "accomplishments" from Hillary came from a Democratic pollster on Fox News, and while you can say that Fox does not present opposing views, I would love for you to find me an article on MSNBC or some other liberal website that discusses accomplishments of Bush 43. Tell me a time when Hillary has actually achieved results as Senator or SOS or First Lady that she was in the lead position on. Her first attempt at Hillarycare was a blew up in her face. Her most notable vote as Senator was for the Iraq war, and all politicians who supported the were were basing if off the same intelligence. The suggestion that you and your counterpart had on here that Bush lied intentionally to go to war is just as bad of a conspiracy as those that suggest he wanted 9/11 to happen and knew it was imminent. If you truly believe in that conspiracy, just as some buffoons on the right believe in the birther conspiracy about Obama, that is really a non-starter for me to believe anything further you say.

As for the Iran deal, that is about the only position Hillary has taken recently where she is willing to put her name on it, and it now must first pass given Schumer and other Dems are abandoning it. She better hope that Iran doesn't start acting out between now and election day. And I'm sure you are looking at Huffington Post, the NY Times and other liberal outlets touting what a great deal it was, but we (the US) basically caved on anything we wanted to achieve with that deal. As for Hillary being a famous person on earth, I don't think anyone would dispute that she has a strong name identification both here and abroad. Heck, Donald Trump has great name identification which is a big reason why he's leading in many polls, followed by a Bush which also has a lot of name identification. Many survey respondents do not follow politics closely until it gets really close to election day, and when they are asked to respond, they often pick names they know or are hearing in the news. Sanders is doing worse in national polls against Hillary than in state polls where those voters have gotten to know him. I'm not sure why calling out that she is a famous person adds any value to the debate at hand.

A democrat can say 2 + 2 = 4 and it remains a fact. Your extremist, goal post-moving position on Hillary Clinton which is undoubtedly aped from talk radio or Fox News hosts is silly, and frankly a little offensive. I would be careful with that one in the general election. I don't think repeating that a tireless advocate for women's issues has never accomplished anything when in fact she has accomplished a great deal in life will play well. My point about her name recognition is to point out a political reality that you (or I) may not like, but which nevertheless has a lot to do with who gets elected in this country and cannot be ignored.

The second bold is another fallacy: a straw man argument. I'm not a 9/11 truther, or a conspiracy theorist. The Senate investigations and testimony of top Bush Administration officials paint a clear picture that the administration was intentionally deceptive in crafting their case for war. They trumped up evidence that was extraordinarily weak and ignored all dissent within the intelligence communities. This in turn led to shifting rationalization as to why we were at war at all over the years. Was it that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Or that he harbored Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Or that he had nuclear weapons (remember the aluminum tubes)? Okay, how about biological weapons? Well then, I guess it was for democracy and freedom and all that. Whatever you happen to think about the situation, I hope you are not satisfied with "whoops" as an answer to a needless war of aggression that left thousands of our own dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and squandered trillions of dollars in the process.

Which leads me to the last point. Your characterization of the Iran deal is downright comical––and also obviously copied from clueless (or is it spelled CLOOLESS?) talk radio hacks and Fox News propagandists. We didn't cave. We didn't give up sh#t to get this deal. Not one thing. Not one missile or aircraft carrier or military installation is moved. The international community gets to blanket their country with surveillance. We control every link in the uranium supply and enrichment chain. We inspect everything, we see everything. The United States has total authority––unilateral authority––to reauthorize the sanctions if Iran does not follow the agreement. It was our own sanctions that drug them to the table in the first place. Every member of the UN Security Council supports the deal; in fact the entire world––with the exception of Fox News/talk radio partisan propagandists––support it. And now that all parties have agreed to it, if your wingnut conservatives manage to sabotage it in the House, what you have just ensured is another war in the Middle East. Iran, who already has little reason to trust us, will have no alternative but to pursue a bomb upon hearing that their concessions were rejected by the very people that demanded them. God help you. I wouldn't want to be the one to explain to our soldiers why thousands of them are going to die in a war caused by short-sighted, self-centered partisan hackery.

Edit: Oh, and for the record, I do not watch cable news. And if the New York Times is your idea of a "liberal" publication, it just reaffirms what I've been saying for a long time: conservatives live in a political alternate reality where words and definitions have no meaning whatsoever.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The bottom line is that there is a stigma with the GOP, and all the uneducated garbage in this country won't vote for GOP because of the damn MORAL issues. The uneducated left side only votes left because they don't support pro-life or anti-gay marriage etc. The uneducated right only votes right because they SUPPORT pro life and anti gay marriage.

I'm pretty hardcore conservative but when it comes to voting issues, and deciding who I like as a candidate. I have a priority list of things I want to see done first, second, etc.

The "moral" issues of Abortion, and Religious Freedom, and Gay Rights are way way way down my list. Because those aren't going to fix our damn national debt/country.

In my opinion the first level of getting this country back on track starts with our kids. Get rid of the Dept of Ed, and have no national educational standards. Then someone needs to put more emphasis on Phys Ed, and get this damn countries childhood obesity rate down. Tackle the childhood obesity, then the adult numbers in that category drop as well.

Cut gov't entities that aren't needed.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said.

Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides.

It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something.

 

[TGHusker]

The more I think about it, the more Trump appears to be in this for the long haul.

Fox News has the largest viewership of any media outlet for the past decade. They've spent the last seven years building Obama up into this terrible, scary boogie man, alarmist stories every week. Donald Trump is just taking the audience Fox created with that fear-mongering and telling them what they want to hear, what they've been conditioned to hear, for the better part of a decade.

I thought he was in it for the long haul when he announced. Now I believe there is a tremendous possibility (God I'm even starting to sound like Trump) that he will run a third-party candidacy after that attempted political assassination. Apparently the word came down to execute Citizen Trump because that hand raising question, followed by Megyn's "why are you a misogynist?" style question, was a naked attempt to burst Trump's bubble––and no one learned anything they didn't already know by staging it.

Other than that, I thought the moderators did an excellent job with questions in that debate. They completely avoided climate change, student debt, income inequality, and campaign finance reform (except where Trump made an open declaration that the corruption not only exists, but he was party to it along with most of the candidates on the stage). But I'm a forgiving sort of person when you have ten candidates and a little under two hours to let them all say something.

There is also increased chatter that Trump is doing this to help out Hillary. I've seen more and more reports detailing how close Trump has been with the Clintons in the past, he had high praise for Hillary in 2012, and has really limited his criticism of her so far in this campaign which is odd. He and Bill also talked before Donald announced his candidacy. I know there are always conspiracy theories out there, so not saying this is definite, but the man has had many very liberal positions in the past, and it seems odd he would wake up in the past couple years and now be just the opposite.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. My guess is Clinton never once told Trump to run. He's too smart for that.

What he probably did do was indirectly encourage him by feeding his narcissism. "You know, Donald, they just don't respect your ideas like they should." Kind of like pointing a Frankenstein Monster in the direction of your enemies and letting him shamble on over there by himself. It doesn't matter if he implodes in a week or wins the nomination; either way it ends up working for Hillary.

And pretending Bill did intend this––which we can't prove, but say he did. What does it say about the Republican Party that it worked? You have to tip your hat. If Bill poured honey in Citizen Trump's ear, it was a masterful strategy.

Good one - Bill is always massaging things (political and otherwise)

 

[TGHusker]

Putting aside the discussion on the GE and bnilhome/carl's discussion. How do the other candidates overcome the continued air being sucked out of the room by Trump - or do they? That is my concern - Trump has effectively taken a hold of the limited # of 30 second air bites to center the conversation on him and no one else or their ideas. Many of the repub candidates are one issue guys and as mentioned above there remains more broad based issues that need to be addressed - economy, immigration, military, and budget issues.

I see this air sucking going all the way to Iowa and NH. Trump has the ego and the $$s to keep it up but it will be at the hurt of the larger discussion and the primary process as a whole.

 

[TGHusker]

The bottom line is that there is a stigma with the GOP, and all the uneducated garbage in this country won't vote for GOP because of the damn MORAL issues. The uneducated left side only votes left because they don't support pro-life or anti-gay marriage etc. The uneducated right only votes right because they SUPPORT pro life and anti gay marriage.

I'm pretty hardcore conservative but when it comes to voting issues, and deciding who I like as a candidate. I have a priority list of things I want to see done first, second, etc.

The "moral" issues of Abortion, and Religious Freedom, and Gay Rights are way way way down my list. Because those aren't going to fix our damn national debt/country.

In my opinion the first level of getting this country back on track starts with our kids. Get rid of the Dept of Ed, and have no national educational standards. Then someone needs to put more emphasis on Phys Ed, and get this damn countries childhood obesity rate down. Tackle the childhood obesity, then the adult numbers in that category drop as well.

Cut gov't entities that aren't needed.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said.

Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides.

It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something.

BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue.