GOP Debate Threads

[moevillini]

I'm sure I'd get more fat than broth.

I believe it's called tallow. Stick a wick in it and you can burn it at both ends.

 

[Nate505]

They believe that government is expensive and inefficient. They believe that we are adults and do not need massive amounts of governance.

Ahh yes, from the guys who gave us the drug war and blue laws

 

[sirkickyass]

Prediction: The terror attacks on France (and other countries) will ultimately be the beginning of the end for Carson/Trump.

Carson appears incoherent on Syria and other foreign policy issues and that's going to be at the forefront for the short to intermediate term.

Trump's posturing and chest beating looks a lot less serious when he can't just say "I met ISIS in a green room for the View" or whatever the hell he does.

 

[b_line]

Serious question:

Is Mitt going to be persuaded to enter the Race?

If Mitt is the eventual nominee, what chance does he have to win the general election?

 

[sirkickyass]

Serious question:

Is Mitt going to be persuaded to enter the Race?

I don't think so. I believe there are some practical hurdles. Romney isn't going to sway Carson/Trump voters; he's going to sway Bush/Rubio voters. There may also be some deadline issues just getting him on the ballots in some of the early primaries which means he's effectively hoping for a convention fight even if he does get into the race.

Plus, think of poor Anne Romney. I'm pretty sure she hated the last two campaigns.

If Mitt is the eventual nominee, what chance does he have to win the general election?

50/50.

 

[b_line]

I don't think so. I believe there are some practical hurdles. Romney isn't going to sway Carson/Trump voters; he's going to sway Bush/Rubio voters. There may also be some deadline issues just getting him on the ballots in some of the early primaries which means he's effectively hoping for a convention fight even if he does get into the race.

Plus, think of poor Anne Romney. I'm pretty sure she hated the last two campaigns.



50/50.

I think mitt were to run it would have to be because the party asked him to and guaranteed him the nomination.

Anne Romney probably hates all the work, for sure. And mitt is not a young man anymore.

I was thinking that if hillary had a catastrophic melt down, Romney would jump in. It looks like hillary is still pretty electable so that might not happen.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ahh yes, from the guys who gave us the drug war and blue laws

First, do you agree with every single stance that happens to be labeled liberal?

Second, has your life been effected by any blue laws? Mine sure hasn't (at least as far as I know).

 

[One Brow]

You're clearly going to cling to your version of events despite the established facts, but I will give you a timeline once again. If you honestly believe upon studying this that the Clinton and the administration handled this in a reasonable fashion then we will just have to agree to disagree.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

So, your position is:
Someone receives an email at 6:07pm that an organized group is claiming credit.
At 10pm Clinton issues a statement that does not say it was a mob nor an organized group that led the attack.
At 11:12pm Clinton says people were killed by "an al Qeada-like" group to her daughter.

Somehow, for you this sequence means there is a "difference between the story that Clinton told the victim's families and the American public" and "She repeatedly told the American public and the families of the victims that the attack on the US Embassy was the result of a spontaneous demonstration resulting from anger over a video that had been posted on the internet."

So, where is the quote where Clinton specifically claimed it was a spontaneous attack? It's not in the article you quoted. Rice made that claim from a list of CIA talking points.

As for "handled this in a reasonable fashion", I would not bother trying to prove nor dispute something so subjective.

Fox News is right wing.

So, why would I think the mainstream media is centrist?

Seriously?

Seriously. I'm still waiting to hear about a single inappropriate email. You got one yet?

Looks to me like what you are waiting for is confirmation of your bias. Since that's not going to come your strategy is apparently to deny the evidence that does arrive. That's your prerogative, but there's no point in discussing this further given your .
continued denial of the evidence.

Yawn. When you can't even name of piece of evidence I have denied, a paragraph like this reveals the hollowness of your position.

 

[One Brow]

My uncle is a very successful businessman in Calgary. He and his entire family travel to the US every time they need medical care, even though their coverage is free in Canada. Why do you think they do that?

Because if you are rich, you can get much better care in the US, as much as your pocketbook can afford. If you are poor, you get better care in Canada. Duh.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So, your position is:
Someone receives an email at 6:07pm that an organized group is claiming credit.
At 10pm Clinton issues a statement that does not say it was a mob nor an organized group that led the attack.
At 11:12pm Clinton says people were killed by "an al Qeada-like" group to her daughter.

Somehow, for you this sequence means there is a "difference between the story that Clinton told the victim's families and the American public" and "She repeatedly told the American public and the families of the victims that the attack on the US Embassy was the result of a spontaneous demonstration resulting from anger over a video that had been posted on the internet."

So, where is the quote where Clinton specifically claimed it was a spontaneous attack? It's not in the article you quoted. Rice made that claim from a list of CIA talking points.

As for "handled this in a reasonable fashion", I would not bother trying to prove nor dispute something so subjective.

Why did you leave this out:

Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Why didn't you mention how inconsistent that is with what she told the public both before and after? If you're okay with her deceptively worded denials and explanations that's your choice. I want nothing to do with a narcissistic who manages and massages the truth the way she does.

 

[One Brow]

Why didn't you mention how inconsistent that is with what she told the public both before and after? If you're okay with her deceptively worded denials and explanations that's your choice.

So, you have stepped back from a claim that she said something was the result of a spontaneous attack, to merely saying she gave "deceptively worded denials". I'm fine with that characterization.

I don't particulary like the idea that there are such secrets in govenment, but I do accept that such denials are part and parcel of how governments operate, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. I'm a little surprised that you would be so naive as to think there has ever been an American Presidency that operated otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Ah yes, the ever-meritful anecdotal evidence. I will stand by and wait to see if you manage to bring forth any actual evidence that indicates Canadians want to revoke public healthcare in significant numbers.




Here's a question for you, and please take it seriously: if the number of Canadian voters who want an American-style healthcare system isnt an extreme minority, why is it that not a single member of parliament in the entire House of Commons (analogous to congressmember) has ever mentioned a willingness to revoke a single-payer healthcare system? Why hasnt any party, whether left-wing or right-wing, made promises to citizens that they will attempt to remove single-payer healthcare?

The conservative party of Canada has some policies that are arguably even more conservative than the states-- however, they 100% step away from health care.


Here is why: Tommy Douglas, the politician who spearheaded the fight for single-payer healthcare in Canada is routinely voted as the greatest Canadian of all time, across all population strata. A movement to revoke public healthcare is tantamount to political death. It would be like an American politician stating that they refuse to consider Israel's sovereignty-- actually, maybe even worse.


So while you have managed to have named three Canadians who (allegedly) prefer American healthcare, thankfully there isnt a single Canadian politician in the House who is even professing a desire to change the system to multi-payer.

Oh and tell your cousins to move to the States if they like it there so much. Many refugees would die to take his spot.