A high growth strategy is just what the Bush name is known for.
Can't wait for tonight's debate.......
- Thread starter InsHAWK
- Start date
The Ronald Reagan stuff reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Lois Griffin just says 9/11 a lot.
Clear eyed? She knows Lady Liberty is a statue right? A statue with a century of copper patina over its eyes. Look at her face, no way she is clear eyed.
The good news for the candidates is most people most likely turned the debate off before the questions really got dumb.
Amazing stuff. I'm watching the 10 o'clock news and getting "highlights" of the debates - both the bottom 4 and the upper however many. Amazing. What a bunch of demented loons. It just staggers the imagination. You righties have a long road to walk looking for a slightly sane candidate. Not going to find it in that bunch. I don't particularly care for Hilary but she's safe so far. God.
Too close to New Jersey, Christie would just take it away.
Saw this on Twitter. For someone so adamant about the low quality of Bush's appointees, he sure whiffed on this.
Just Ted Cruz fact checking: Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, authored Obergefell. Roberts dissented and Souter wasn't on the Court
Just Ted Cruz fact checking: Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, authored Obergefell. Roberts dissented and Souter wasn't on the Court
I don't think anyone bombed tonight. Most candidates carved out a spot for themselves. Trump didn't win, that much is clear. He looked a little out of his element.
Fiorina will certainly climb in the polls after tonight. And, the question is who will lose numbers to her? Trump or Carson? There isn't anyone out there with more than 10 percent besides those two.
Fiorina will certainly climb in the polls after tonight. And, the question is who will lose numbers to her? Trump or Carson? There isn't anyone out there with more than 10 percent besides those two.
The questions from CNN were a joke.44% of them involved trump it had all the trappings of a Hillary for President PAC as a sponsor.
Because you are just sure that somewhere out there is a better candidate, right? Well, there isn't. To be a "better candidate", you have to be willing to run. These folks were. Others were not. These are the best we have. Now pick!
I am too lazy to read all previous posts, but the fact-checking this morning is showing how someone can twist the truth and cherry pick stuff.
Fiorina is getting ripped for her claims about success at HP during her tenure. The "doubling" of the company is the result of the buyout of Compaq, not solely on anything she did in regards to her strategy while there. I think once folks dig further into her background, she's going to drop some. She looked a little too stern and angry tonite. The sympathy she has gotten for being attacked by Trump won't last forever.
As much as people hate career politicians, the thought of people like CF, Trump, and Carson dictating foreign policy is damn scary to me. Hiring some foreign policy advisor from the Bush administration to give you your talking points isn't going to cut it for some of these candidates. John Bolton is the advisor I'm referring to. He comes off as one damn vindictive man.
Fiorina is getting ripped for her claims about success at HP during her tenure. The "doubling" of the company is the result of the buyout of Compaq, not solely on anything she did in regards to her strategy while there. I think once folks dig further into her background, she's going to drop some. She looked a little too stern and angry tonite. The sympathy she has gotten for being attacked by Trump won't last forever.
As much as people hate career politicians, the thought of people like CF, Trump, and Carson dictating foreign policy is damn scary to me. Hiring some foreign policy advisor from the Bush administration to give you your talking points isn't going to cut it for some of these candidates. John Bolton is the advisor I'm referring to. He comes off as one damn vindictive man.
CF knows what she's talking about when it comes to foreign policy, unlike some of the others.
And as for fact-checking......we've discussed that bogus crap before. I am not familiar with the specific one you are citing. It may be entirely correct and objective. But most of these are not. I will say, however, that if you are correctly relaying what it says -- that she didn't have anything to do with the Compaq acquisition -- I would look at it pretty carefully, because it's my understanding that it was her idea and is one of the primary reasons she was sacked.
I'm not saying the Compaq acquisition wasn't her idea, but including any of that revenue to say you doubled something is really stretching the truth. That type of info seems pretty easy to verify, so that fact check seems relevant. I know you like her as a candidate, all I'm saying is she hasn't really been under the microscope yet as she has been pretty far behind until recently. When the other guys see her as a threat... some dirty stuff might be revealed.
What do you expect from CNN? This is the network that gave us the tag-team debate with Candy Crowley and Barack Obama vs. Milt Romney.
People say they are tired of "career" politicians, but when someone comes along who speaks his mind, he/she get skewered.
People want candidates to put forth ideas and plans...but when they do, they get skewered.
The fact is: during the vetting process, most will identify with the candidate who has the same opinions as they do...everyone else is an "idiot", a loon, a whack job, etc. Once the final candidates are determined, most people will vote for the person in "their" party. Libs would vote for a Hitler/Stalin ticket if they ran as democrats and promised free government goodies.
People want candidates to put forth ideas and plans...but when they do, they get skewered.
The fact is: during the vetting process, most will identify with the candidate who has the same opinions as they do...everyone else is an "idiot", a loon, a whack job, etc. Once the final candidates are determined, most people will vote for the person in "their" party. Libs would vote for a Hitler/Stalin ticket if they ran as democrats and promised free government goodies.
I was thinking of you when I wrote that, since everybody knows it's true of Hillary
I guess you would know pretty much all there is to know about what it's like to to be a demented loon so I will defer.I was thinking of you when I wrote that, since everybody knows it's true of Hillary
That is a wise decision on your part. It's possible you aren't as demented as it seemed.
Ummmmmm...if that's your big issue, pretty sure that Lindsey Graham is your guy.
Wouldn't you if you were Jeb. Jeb felt, like Hillary does on the Dem side, that he was the anointed choice to be the nominee and how dare anyone challenge him. Not only did Trump challenge him he blew up Jeb's chances into a million tiny pieces. Jeb is done and he's pissed that Donald killed his chances. Nothing pleases me more. The last thing the GOP was another Bush to screw things up. It's still amusing listening to the chattering political class as they still think Bush is relevant. It's like, folks, it's ok to get out of Wash or NYC once in a while. Outside of establishment crowd, I'm trying to find any Republican in Iowa who supports Jeb. I'm sure it's the same thing in NH.
He never called them "low quality", he said Bush missed an opportunity to appoint rock solid conservatives. His argument is one of judicial philosophy. He said Bush didn't want to appoint a conservative, but Bush Sr nominated Souter, and W nominated Roberts because they had a thin paper trail. They would be easy confirmations. Cruz is correct. Both Sr and Jr. have admitted as much. They didn't want to expend any political capital on their SC choices. Cruz is saying, that you never see the Dems (Clinton or Obama) pull back from choosing a wild eye liberal who has a long paper trail. Cruz states the Bush's would have had to fight for a Edith Jones and Mike Luttig, but believes that fight is worth having when talking about the power the court has in these times.
Per CNN here's one of his comments about Roberts in Wed debate:
"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a former clerk to Roberts' mentor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said that even though he originally supported Roberts, he had now come to view the nomination as a "mistake" especially for his two votes in favor of President Barack Obama's health care plan.
Cruz said that Roberts is "a good enough lawyer that he knows in these Obamacare cases, he changed the statute, he changed the law ,in order to force that failed law on millions of Americans for a political outcome."
Similar threads
