GOP Debate Threads

[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.

 

[Nate505]

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).

Every single one? No. However, I would not make a blanket claim about them when there are some serious holes in the claim.

As for blue laws, I wanted to buy a car last Sunday. No dice in this state. Why can't I, a responsible tax paying adult, buy a car on any day of the week I please?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

I'm a little surprised that you're so jaded that you are willing to accept deception of this kind from your leaders. Take a look at what she said at the Sept. 14 transfer of remains ceremony:

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

While, on close examination, you may be correct that she never actually said that the raid was the result of a protest related to the video, it is clear from private messages that she and her staff had determined unequivocally that the video and the raid were unrelated, yet she continued to juxtapose the two in her comments so that any reasonable person would assume that these topics were intimately related. And since other government officials were simultaneously putting out the word that they were definitely connected the result of her words was exactly what I claimed. Go ahead and let her off on what you see as a technicality. I won't. Electing this woman as president would be a disaster.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Every single one? No. However, I would not make a blanket claim about them when there are some serious holes in the claim.

As for blue laws, I wanted to buy a car last Sunday. No dice in this state. Why can't I, a responsible tax paying adult, buy a car on any day of the week I please?

I don't understand the bolded sentence.

As for the blue laws, I didn't even realize that car dealerships were required to close on Sundays, but who cares? If it is so urgent to buy a car on that day just go to KSL.com. My guess is that the dealerships are the ones who are actually behind this law anyway. If they wanted it reversed it would be.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

He owns a business in Canada. Should I tell him to give it to you?

 

[Stoked]

I don't understand the bolded sentence.

As for the blue laws, I didn't even realize that car dealerships were required to close on Sundays, but who cares? If it is so urgent to buy a car on that day just go to KSL.com. My guess is that the dealerships are the ones who are actually behind this law anyway. If they wanted it reversed it would be.

If that individual dealership chose to close on Sunday than whatever. If they were forced or coerced into closing...why? Why do we need to gov. to tell us when we can or cannot buy a car? legislating for the sake of legislating.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If that individual dealership chose to close on Sunday than whatever. If they were forced or coerced into closing...why? Why do we need to gov. to tell us when we can or cannot buy a car? legislating for the sake of legislating.

Like I said, I didn't even know such a law existed until Nate brought it up. I agree with both of you that it shouldn't. Seems like a pretty minor issue compared to the rest of our discussion, though.

 

[magic]

I have a question: Why do you guys argue about politics? Nobody is going to change their mind, so seems like a pointless exercise.

 

[b_line]

I don't understand the bolded sentence.

As for the blue laws, I didn't even realize that car dealerships were required to close on Sundays, but who cares? If it is so urgent to buy a car on that day just go to KSL.com. My guess is that the dealerships are the ones who are actually behind this law anyway. If they wanted it reversed it would be.

In Utah, LHM was behind the sunday closure thing. The law is actually that they can only be open one of the weekend days, and they wisely chose saturday.

 

[b_line]

He owns a business in Canada. Should I tell him to give it to you?

No, tell him to give it to me. Now I know you are lying. Everyone knows individuals can't own business in Canda, it's socialist. The govment owns that ****.

 

[sirkickyass]

I have a question: Why do you guys argue about politics? Nobody is going to change their mind, so seems like a pointless exercise.

You know, I wonder sometimes.

I gave a very very detailed post earlier in this thread about how Sanders budget proposals work. It was some of my most intricate work on the board.

No responses. It might have been a TL;DR.

That said, I made and like this thread because we're in the midst of a clown-car primary. And those are always good for a laugh.

RIP Jindal!

 

[b_line]

You know, I wonder sometimes.

I gave a very very detailed post earlier in this thread about how Sanders budget proposals work. It was some of my most intricate work on the board.

No responses. It might have been a TL;DR.

That said, I made and like this thread because we're in the midst of a clown-car primary. And those are always good for a laugh.

RIP Jindal!

I thought it was a great post. But then again, I agree with you on a lot of things politically.

The thing I liked about that post is that Bernie at least acknowledges where the money that is going to be spent will come from. In relation to some of the other guys budgets (Trump, Carson) Bernie looked like a genius.

 

[One Brow]

I'm a little surprised that you're so jaded that you are willing to accept deception of this kind from your leaders.

Secrecy and deceit is essential in government. If we have intelligence of a plot, you don't expect anyone to release the name of the source, do you? I would be surprised if you genuinely thought there should be no secrets nor deceit from any government official, but I actually believe this is a standard you apply to Clinton more than others, which is unsurprising.

Take a look at what she said at the Sept. 14 transfer of remains ceremony:

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

While, on close examination, you may be correct that she never actually said that the raid was the result of a protest related to the video, it is clear from private messages that she and her staff had determined unequivocally that the video and the raid were unrelated, yet she continued to juxtapose the two in her comments so that any reasonable person would assume that these topics were intimately related. And since other government officials were simultaneously putting out the word that they were definitely connected the result of her words was exactly what I claimed. Go ahead and let her off on what you see as a technicality. I won't. Electing this woman as president would be a disaster.

So, she made two completely true statements, and you have a problem with their being next to each other, because a lower-level (than Clinton) in State used the talking points of the CIA. That's all fine, but don't expect me to believe that you hold all politicians to this standard. You are not a fool.