ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Debate

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.

So the middle class has become less stable under Obama than any other president in history. Are we then in agreement that he is at least the worst president since reconstruction?

As far as Bush and the middle class, that didnt go south til the subprime explosion, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuk'EM Heels
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.
Total BS. Bush did not crash the economy. Moreover, he didn't deregulate either. Clinton's crowd are the ones that changed the banking regulations, and the democrats stonewalled reform when it became clear it was going to crash. Bush tried to enact reforms but waited too long as the gems were formidable when the minority and once they held the House, it was impossible to stop the bank fraud. Bush and Paulson, even though I disagreed with TARP, actually rescued the economy and financial system before Obama came into office. Perhaps had we not done the stimulus, Obamacare and the like, we'd have a strong, robust recovery.
 
So the middle class has become less stable under Obama than any other president in history. Are we then in agreement that he is at least the worst president since reconstruction?

As far as Bush and the middle class, that didnt go south til the subprime explosion, correct?

Lol wut... Its like some of you just stuck your heads under a rock when the effing economy collapsed during Bush's administration. If you think the middle class is less stable now than in 2008 then idk what else to say
 
Lol wut... Its like some of you just stuck your heads under a rock when the effing economy collapsed during Bush's administration. If you think the middle class is less stable now than in 2008 then idk what else to say

How about now vs 2006?

How about anytime since Jan 2009 vs anytime 2001-2007?
 
Lol wut... Its like some of you just stuck your heads under a rock when the effing economy collapsed during Bush's administration. If you think the middle class is less stable now than in 2008 then idk what else to say

And how do you define stability? I thought it was "wealth inequality" and employment.
 
Ugh! I want to throw up when I hear "Clinton balanced the budget." Thats horse crap. He was an unwilling partner to Congressional plans for balancing the budget. A republican controlled congress to boot. He submitted 4 budget proposals that were shot down by Congress until the 5th one where he acquiesced to the republican controlled Congresses balanced budget requirements. The 20 something's don't get that because they read liberal spin looking to rewrite history. That's the benefit of experience they didn't get. Newt Gingrich has more to do with a balanced budget than Clinton did during his presidency.
 
Didn't watch. Just no great candidates for the GOP which is depressing.

That being said, Fiorina and Carson are smarter than just about anyone else running (with the possible exception of Trump). Are either electable? Doubt it, and that's a shame.

Carson is most definitely electable. Where he is going to have to make up ground is his lack of political background. Fiorina's time with HP is going to be what dooms her.
 
Carson is most definitely electable. Where he is going to have to make up ground is his lack of political background. Fiorina's time with HP is going to be what dooms her.
How's Carson electable? Liberals will absolutely skewer him if he becomes the GOP nominee. The spin machine will be put into overdrive and you know exactly how the Liberals will paint Carson.
 
Carson is most definitely electable. Where he is going to have to make up ground is his lack of political background. Fiorina's time with HP is going to be what dooms her.

Lol there is nothing even remotely electable about Ben Carson.
 
Being electable is subjective... highly subjective. I think Ben Carson would galvanize and invigorate the GOP base to vote for him, without question. Their base is probably shrinking when measured against the rest of the population, but he could easily get their base inspired. A black male, with no political experience, who will parrot all of the common-denominator conservative talking points, a doctor (not a Washington insider), and insists he is a conservative (whatever that means), and the right's talk-radio/Fox talking heads love the guy! I don't think he would stand a chance in the general, but the GOP base would love him. I think he'd lose by a huge margin in the general election, but the election show would be fun to watch for a few months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tru Blu Tar Heel
Lol I'll give you a call when I turn 35

Dude, everyone on the board would vote for you over Hillary.

Well, everyone but Strum, that is. He just likes to tell us all how we are idiots and mind numbed robots for voting for any candidate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick
Dude, everyone on the board would vote for you over Hillary.

Well, everyone but Strum, that is. He just likes to tell us all how we are idiots and mind numbed robots for voting for any candidate.

My Cabinet positions are wide open if you get on board early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
My Cabinet positions are wide open if you get on board early.
I got your secretary of education right here...

69449-28227.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
How's Carson electable? Liberals will absolutely skewer him if he becomes the GOP nominee. The spin machine will be put into overdrive and you know exactly how the Liberals will paint Carson.
Liberals are going to skewer whoever the Republican Nomination is. He's no non-sense, doesn't play the political game, a straight shooter (without being a total a-hole ala Trump), is a brilliant neurosurgeon that came from nothing in Detroit to become the youngest head of neurosurgery at John's Hopkins. Tell me why he isn't electable? I don't know what you're implying, but I get the feeling that it would've made Ronald Reagon un-electable.
 
Liberals are going to skewer whoever the Republican Nomination is. He's no non-sense, doesn't play the political game, a straight shooter (without being a total a-hole ala Trump), is a brilliant neurosurgeon that came from nothing in Detroit to become the youngest head of neurosurgery at John's Hopkins. Tell me why he isn't electable? I don't know what you're implying, but I get the feeling that it would've made Ronald Reagon un-electable.

None of those things qualify him to be President of the United States. Being a brilliant neurosurgeon, and being the leader of the free world are two entirely different jobs.

And you think an extremely qualified surgeon who says that god cured his cancer, but he had the tumor removed to be "a good role model" is a straight shooter? Puhhhhhlease
 
None of those things qualify him to be President of the United States. Being a brilliant neurosurgeon, and being the leader of the free world are two entirely different jobs.

And you think an extremely qualified surgeon who says that god cured his cancer, but he had the tumor removed to be "a good role model" is a straight shooter? Puhhhhhlease
Neither did being a "community organizer" qualify someone to be president but look what that got us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GACMAN
I like Carson but he is a 7th day adventist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old and dinosaurs were on the ark. The dems would have a field day with his faith and it would be a disaster if he were the candidate imo.
 
I like Carson but he is a 7th day adventist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old and dinosaurs were on the ark. The dems would have a field day with his faith and it would be a disaster if he were the candidate imo.

I mean when you believe something that has been totally disproven by science, it crosses the line from faith to ignorance. It isn't about what the dems would do to him, he disqualifies himself.

Neither did being a "community organizer" qualify someone to be president but look what that got us.

Well President Obama was also a Senator, and taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for quite awhile. Much better qualifications than being gifted at brain surgery.
 
Being electable is subjective... highly subjective. I think Ben Carson would galvanize and invigorate the GOP base to vote for him, without question. Their base is probably shrinking when measured against the rest of the population, but he could easily get their base inspired. A black male, with no political experience, who will parrot all of the common-denominator conservative talking points, a doctor (not a Washington insider), and insists he is a conservative (whatever that means), and the right's talk-radio/Fox talking heads love the guy! I don't think he would stand a chance in the general, but the GOP base would love him. I think he'd lose by a huge margin in the general election, but the election show would be fun to watch for a few months.
I think that's wrong. First, any of the GOP candidates have a good shot at winning for a number of reasons; first the country usually turns to the other party after 8 years minus some exceptional success and Obama has been a failure. Second, the gems have sorry candidates. Third, the red states will still be red. Carson has a few advantages. First, if he is attacked by the Left, it may turn off a lot of their voters since he's black and soft-spoken, not a bomb thrower and obviously very smart. The attacks won't stick. Second, he'll turn out the base. The big issue is whether he can win a significant portion of the black vote, and frankly I don't know if he can. At the same time, I suspect some will vote for Carson simply because he's black and if he gets 20% or more the the black vote, the democrat loses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tru Blu Tar Heel
I mean when you believe something that has been totally disproven by science, it crosses the line from faith to ignorance. It isn't about what the dems would do to him, he disqualifies himself.



Well President Obama was also a Senator, and taught Constitutional Law at Harvard for quite awhile. Much better qualifications than being gifted at brain surgery.
A senator for very little time who voted present most of the time. He never sponsored any important legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tru Blu Tar Heel
I think that's wrong. First, any of the GOP candidates have a good shot at winning for a number of reasons; first the country usually turns to the other party after 8 years minus some exceptional success and Obama has been a failure. Second, the gems have sorry candidates. Third, the red states will still be red. Carson has a few advantages. First, if he is attacked by the Left, it may turn off a lot of their voters since he's black and soft-spoken, not a bomb thrower and obviously very smart. The attacks won't stick. Second, he'll turn out the base. The big issue is whether he can win a significant portion of the black vote, and frankly I don't know if he can. At the same time, I suspect some will vote for Carson simply because he's black and if he gets 20% or more the the black vote, the democrat loses.
Carson's stance on same-sex marriage and abortion alone will cost him the general. Same-sex marriage is here to stay, legalized abortion is here to stay. Like it or not, they are here to stay. Now, those opinions resonate well with the GOP base, but the GOP base isn't going to win any general election for their candidate. The same could probably be said for Bernie Sanders. The only difference between Sanders and Carson- in a present-day general election sense- is Sanders' views are the views of what is to come, and Carson's views are obsolete. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with all of their views, respectively, but, that's how I see their opinions and ideologies playing-out in a general election. Carson, like much of the GOP, want to go back to the 1950's in a social sense, and continue to grow government and make sure the military, and the global war on terror, continues to be the main priority. The War on Drugs is an absolute failure. Marijuana is finally becoming an accepted legalization... unless you get the GOP involved.

As far as the war on terror, the Democrats do just as good of a job making sure America's military meddles in one place after another, creating more future terror threats and costing our country more money and lives.
 
Pres Elections are decided by moderates. The ones who dont blindly vote for their party's candidate. Abortion, same sex marriage, gun control...all the "hot button" topics dont mean jack to them. Its all about the wallet. Who will make them prosper. The moderates blamed the repubs for the economy when obama was elected. Now theyre prob gonna credit the dems for the recovery. The only issue that might sway the election to the repubs is the fear of ISIS. If a us soldier gets executed on line (god forbid) or theres a successfull attack, then the moderates will want someone to kick ass and it wont be hillary. .
 
It's been a while, but there was a Democrat in the White House from 1933-1953. That was before the 2-term max, but you still had two Democrats with multiple terms in office without a break.
 
I like Carson but he is a 7th day adventist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old and dinosaurs were on the ark. The dems would have a field day with his faith and it would be a disaster if he were the candidate imo.

Wait. Carson is one of those 6000 year old Earth believers? Are you sure? Or is it that he is just a member of a congregation that espouses such beliefs and that is one belief he finds ludicrous?

If Carson really believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, then I don't need to hear another word he says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
Actually, this makes sense now as to why the media is playing him up and not talking at all about this view of his. They know that anyone who believes in the 6000 year old Earth has no chance of winning the presidency.
No, he doesn't. But the hardcore GOP base would love it. This is why the GOP is diminishing as a viable alternative, politically. They're becoming more and more of a religious cult. The worst thing that EVER happened to the Republican Party began in 1980 when they allowed the religious fundamentalists into the tent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
Wait. Carson is one of those 6000 year old Earth believers? Are you sure? Or is it that he is just a member of a congregation that espouses such beliefs and that is one belief he finds ludicrous?

If Carson really believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, then I don't need to hear another word he says.


I have to stand corrected. While his denimination believes it he would not directly answer the question in the interview i saw. He only said he doesnt know if its 5000 years old or not. He does believe in literal translation of an inerrant Bible and a 7 day creation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
I have to stand corrected. While his denimination believes it he would not directly answer the question in the interview i saw. He only said he doesnt know if its 5000 years old or not. He does believe in literal translation of an inerrant Bible and a 7 day creation.
This may not be the belief of Carson or others who believe in God but my opinion (as a believer) is that time has not always been kept the same way. 1000 years may be represented as a day, for example. I have no doubt that evolution has and is happening. I have a B.S in biology and a masters as well but I can believe that creationism and evolution are intertwined. Therefore I believe Carson may feel the same way or have similar beliefs.
 
Some of you make me laugh at how you think you know how old the earth is and furthermore how mortal man could harm it. Funny stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GACMAN
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT