but it's ok and never questioned by dem debate monitors that the Hilldabeast sold influence to Russia and Libya among others in exchange for large donations to the Clinton crime initiative.
Republican Debate
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Trump is doing what he always does. In fact, he wrote a book on it. Always begin negotiations with an extreme position that the other side will never go along with- in fact, some on your side will think your position is crazy. Then when you begin to move a little, people think you are being reasonable.
Exactly. He'll do what you said....start our way right then get a bit more moderate (all candidates have to, from both sides, after the primary) but will settle on something like what you said, which I am completely supportive of.
It's absolutely absurd to try to round up all illegals. The first step is to build the wall and secure the border, THEN deal with those who are here. Anyone with a criminal record should go. The rest should get the privilege of a (somewhat challenging but not overly so) path to citizenship.
Probably. She certainly wouldn't be my first choice, and I don't trust her any farther than I can throw her. But at the end of the day, her policy positions align more closely to mine than just about any Republican's are likely to. Plus the potential appointment of a Supreme Court justice can't be ignored. Of the GOP candidates, Rubio is probably the only one with any shot that I would be likely to seriously consider, but I still think his views are probably too far from mine to ultimately get my vote.
It doesn't bother you that she was willing to sacrifice national security and the security of US personnel abroad for her own convenience? Hmmmmm...
I agree that it is certainly a gray area….BUT, if that is the biggest issue with Carson, then he is a frickin saint! I know that you did not bring up Billary….but talk about a suspicious history…we all know about the latest issues but her and Bill's time and history in Arkansas is full of questionable relationships and actions….my wife is from Mena AR and the crap surrounding that little town that involves Billary is crazy…and it has gone on for years!!!
So we can look forward to 12 months of you disparaging everyone without offering an alternative?
If I find one, I'll eagerly offer them here.
I've not been too disparaging about these candidates really. I haven't derided anyone here for supporting anyone in particular. I haven't been bothering anyone here in this thread. I've not singled-out any candidate in this thread. I just said they are all pandering sell-outs. And... they are!
Absolutely spot on. I think they all did great but someone needs to tell Bush, imo, that the current climate does not favor him for several reasons. No need to elaborate. Kasich has a great track record, has done well as governor but the climate does not favor him either. I think it's between Carson, Cruz, Trump and possibly Rubio but he hurt himself badly in the senate on immigration. Big mistake and probably will mean he can't become president, at least not this round. All of them performed well, however, except Bush.
I disagree. This is the best crop of candidates I've ever seen, frankly. Any one of them would be better than the past 4 presidents.
Yep but he's sounding a bit wishy-washy lately in his stances, contradicting things he's said before. His whole thing about limiting immigration period resonated, not just illegals, but now he sounds fine with opening the spigots so big companies can fire people to get cheaper labor. That severely undercuts his candidacy, both now and for the general election.
Disagree. This is the best set of candidates in a very long time. Every person on that stage would be better than the last 4 presidents.
Honestly think every person on the GOP stage would make a better president than the last 4 presidents. I am not for Bush, though I think he'd be better, since he's so pro-immigration and pro Common Core. His time has passed, imho. I think Kasich doesn't fit the mood of the country but he's a very competent person. Christie, think he'd be good but have several reasons he's not my man. But I still think they'd do better than most presidents. Cruz, Carson, Carli, Rand Paul, Rubio and even Huckabee and yes, Trump, would all be far better than the crook Hillary or a socialist, and bet they'd all be decent presidents. I think it comes down to Cruz, Carson, Trump or perhaps Rubio.
Good point. I just want to know what he thinks the reasonable position is. He may be a bit liberal and statist for me.
You mean your policy position is to help her get rich? That's about it as far as principles for her, isn't it....greed, power, small-minded idiocy.....what else is there? She's a power mad warmonger. Bragged about getting Ghadafi killed in a most unseemly way, ignoring that despite he being crazy and a bad guy, he was doing everything we wanted after Bush took Saddam down. Now the jihadists have a new Afghanistan-type safe haven. Don't forget Kosovo and Iraq. She voted for that. She wouldn't even put Boko Haram on the terrorist list. Bet she made good money on that one. Exactly what are her principles you identify with? Lying? Greed? Corruption? Or incompetence?
We have to live with reality. Better than the past 4 presidents is pretty darn good considering things.
Here's a very insightful and perfectly honest assessment of the American political climate and what takes place in our country.
Of course they would. Clinton was horrible the nation. The reason China has become a strategic threat has to do with all the tech and top secret transfers he made for mere campaign cash. Absolutely corrupted the whole process, a traitor basically. Fortunately once the public saw what he wanted to do, they threw the dems out of the House and then we had some good economic growth but that was in spite of him, not due to his presidency. But I gotta say he wasn't as bad as he could have been because he at least would make deals and recognize when the public rejected the leftist stuff, unlike Obama, and so he wasn't the worst but he was bad for the world and the country in a lot of ways.
I understand it's an expression. It's a random expression you used to base your assertion that ANY would be better than the last 4. That bar is low.
The last 4 have grown government exponentially. They have all spent and grown our national debt. They have kept the nation's military in near-perpetual, constant war somewhere, or in several places. They have strengthened departments like the TSA, NSA and signed other pieces of legislation to further restrict our own domestic liberties. Now, I dunno if you see someone up there that I don't, but, there isn't one who won't be following the exact same path as the last 4. Maybe Rand Paul, but he's not executive material. Bernie Sanders MIGHT be the only one who would deviate, but I'm not convinced he would do anything different once he got in office. He might want to, but, I doubt they let him even sniff the oval office either. Hillary and the other GOP candidates are practically identical, except Clinton wouldn't bother claiming she can, or will, change abortion. Maybe you have a different understanding, or expectation, of "better."
Just out of curiosity, what to you determines the level of success of a president?
Better or considering things refers to what is possible. I certainly believe Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Rand Paul would all cut government spending and curtail government overreach and stupid regulations harming us all. That would be a huge improvement. I think Katich would also cut spending but not curtail government as much. Trump? Not sure but he would bring some energy into whatever he thought was pragmatic and sensible. Jeb? He'd probably be a centrist but at least would show some fiscal restraint. I could go over each candidate but every one of them would be better than the last 4 presidents, Bernie who wants to massively expand government and the warmongering Hillary.
Paul might actually try to. Hell, they all might try to, or give the illusion that they'd like to try to. That's their commercial. None of them ever do. The last 4 are proof positive. The last 44 are proof positive! Well, that's not true. I think Andrew Jackson may have gotten the country, technically, out of debt. But, that didn't last long.
Presidential administrations are not built to shrink government. That is why I, earlier, answered "No one." Well, assuming that's what you're looking for. If you're okay with growing government, then you have a wonderful group from which to make your choice. You can choose one based on anything of substance- hairstyle, height, favorite comfort food, how attractive their wife is, who they pull for in sports, etc. Whichever one has the best bullsh*tting ability.
I think it can happen. Truman, for example, massively cut government spending. True, not really cutting government's reach and it was due to demobilization but still, we're talking cutting half of government spending in a year. The Keynesians predicted disaster but the private economy boomed.
Harding and Coolidge greatly scaled back Wilson's police state and cut spending as well. It can happen.
Sure, it CAN happen. I just know it won't happen when the candidates are all talk.
So heres what I dont get. Why do you spend time on these threads if you think the situation cannot be improved?
Probably the most important factor would be economic stability for the middle class. Clinton also balanced the budget and erased the deficit during his administration. No mean feat, especially considering at the time of his inauguration he was faced with the largest deficit in American history. So we were doing pretty well until Bush came along and crashed our economy with his deregulation policies, while at the same time blowing multiple trillions of dollars on a war in Iraq that further destabilized the region.
I get it though. Most of the people on this board hold an extreme partisan bias. So they use words like "evil" or "traitor" a bit too liberally with anyone who is on the other side of the fence.
But at the end of the day, every single one of these candidates have been bought off by special interest groups and large private donors. They don't care what any of us think. At all. Except for the one guy who refused to have a super PAC and take big money. Bernie Sanders.
I believe it CAN be improved. I think it's quite obvious it drastically needs improving. I never said, or even meant to imply, that it "cannot be improved."
If republicans had never taken over congress Clinton would have never erased the deficit.
You are 100 on that. He was dragged along kicking and screaming on the deficit, just like with welfare reform, and then was front and center when it was time to take credit for it. He vetoed the first two bills on welfare reform AFTER making it a central theme of his 1992 campaign.
Similar threads
