dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 28, 2016 15:51:24 GMT -5
Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification.
You forgot that she was also a Senator, is a woman, and was SoS. Get her out of here!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 28, 2016 16:43:37 GMT -5
Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification.
You forgot that she was also a Senator, is a woman, and was SoS. Get her out of here! Even Rubio said that if the election was based on resume, Hillary would win. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her political views, she is easily the best qualified for the job. Hands down.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 28, 2016 16:46:51 GMT -5
i think that most of the candidates running are qualified. why don't you, tallguy and VB? what makes these candidates UNQUALIFIED, iyo? I guess we have a different definition of qualified. Sanders- an avowed socialist, disqualifies him Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification. Trump-just about anything is a disqualifier Rubio-He admitted he quit the Senate but takes the pay check, plus first term Senator, we tried that the last seven years, plus he does sweat a lot Cruz-just about anything makes him disqualified, plus first term Senator, as well as Canadian rather than American Carson-you have to be kidding Kasich-my home boy now, but we all know he ain't crossing the finish line So why do suppose more Republicans aren't supporting Kasich?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2016 17:31:57 GMT -5
Because he is neither "noisy" enough nor crazy enough, and too many Republicans have been conditioned to want noisy and crazy.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 28, 2016 17:38:50 GMT -5
I guess we have a different definition of qualified. Sanders- an avowed socialist, disqualifies him Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification. Trump-just about anything is a disqualifier Rubio-He admitted he quit the Senate but takes the pay check, plus first term Senator, we tried that the last seven years, plus he does sweat a lot Cruz-just about anything makes him disqualified, plus first term Senator, as well as Canadian rather than American Carson-you have to be kidding Kasich-my home boy now, but we all know he ain't crossing the finish line So why do suppose more Republicans aren't supporting Kasich? The honest answer is after the last 30 years of Republican Presidents and Congressional delegations lying to there party members (the voters) are totally turned off by any politicians that are in office. This is the evolutional result of the transformation of the Tea Party. Kasich is Ohio, I am from Indiana, so technically, he is not my home boy The party is at a crossroads. Some think it will implode. Some think Trump and his show is bringing in Democrats and some Independents as well as the old core of Republicans to re-invigorate the party. With the record number of voters showing up for the Republican party, there might be some truth to it.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 28, 2016 17:49:34 GMT -5
Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification.
You forgot that she was also a Senator, is a woman, and was SoS. Get her out of here! Secretary of State www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hillary-clinton-%E2%80%98smart-power%E2%80%99-and-a-dictator%E2%80%99s-fall/ar-BBq6mrM?li=BBnb7KzBetween destroying Libya (you would think the Obama administration would have learned something from Bush and Iraq) and not knowing any e-mails she received were actually secret..................and not to be on her private server...........she disqualified herself. The last two weeks of virtually damning the white race as pertaining to race relations with blacks is also good enough to send her home to Bill. P.S. just wonder how she comes out with Putin in world discussions? How does she win that one?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 28, 2016 18:26:43 GMT -5
The woman part?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2016 18:31:51 GMT -5
VB- would you mind answering #488. i am trying to follow your argument.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:01:20 GMT -5
i wanted to reiterate a point i made in another thread this morning. Trump is not widening his lead. his lead is actually narrowing, and has been for two months. here is how it has gone since his polling peak on 12/27: Trump -3% Cruz +3% Rubio +5% Kasich +6% during this time the following candidates have dropped out: Paul, Santorum, Christie, Huckabee, Graham, Fiorina, Jindall, Pataki, Bush Trump claims that he is going to get some of the vote from the people dropping out. where is it, Donald? NINE people have dropped out, and you have LOST 3%. so, let's see- when other candidates dropped out, that took away vote? how does that work? what do you think we are? a bunch of idiots? or maybe YOU are one, if you really think half the shit you say. If no one else drops out after "Super Tuesday" though... he may just get it by virtue of all the "winner take all" states he gets. He doesn't have to win by "over 50%" if enough other candidates keep their hats in the ring long enough... and he may be banking on that. Rubio & Cruz are (basically) a tie... so as long as both remain, he's got a shot... AND as long as they both remain in a tie, neither of them sees good reason to pull out because they both see themselves as possibilities.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:03:21 GMT -5
I guess we have a different definition of qualified. Sanders- an avowed socialist, disqualifies him Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification. Trump-just about anything is a disqualifier Rubio-He admitted he quit the Senate but takes the pay check, plus first term Senator, we tried that the last seven years, plus he does sweat a lot Cruz-just about anything makes him disqualified, plus first term Senator, as well as Canadian rather than American Carson-you have to be kidding Kasich-my home boy now, but we all know he ain't crossing the finish line ok, so are you saying that "unqualified" candidates would make a bad president? what precedent would you offer? Obama? I don't know if VB would make that assertion, but I definitely would. Obama is the first President to make Carter look GOOD... and that's saying something.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:05:28 GMT -5
Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification.
You forgot that she was also a Senator, is a woman, and was SoS. Get her out of here! Most intelligent people don't care about the bolded. But her tenure as SoS is relevant... and doesn't show positive reason FOR her... only negative reasons AGAINST her.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2016 19:06:38 GMT -5
ok, so are you saying that "unqualified" candidates would make a bad president? what precedent would you offer? Obama? I don't know if VB would make that assertion, but I definitely would. Obama is the first President to make Carter look GOOD... and that's saying something. nah. W was the first president to make Carter look GOOD. edit: W was the worst president since Harding. it will be hard to beat that, but Trump might come close.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 28, 2016 19:06:51 GMT -5
Most people would have figured out the sarcasm.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:09:24 GMT -5
Clinton, any part of about ten different reasons, and being a wife of a President is not a qualification.
You forgot that she was also a Senator, is a woman, and was SoS. Get her out of here! Even Rubio said that if the election was based on resume, Hillary would win. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her political views, she is easily the best qualified for the job. Hands down. Depends on how you check the resume though... "Secretary of State" looks great on a resume... until you look at her history while in that office (the part that's NOT on the resume). It's like someone putting down "CFO of {company}" and not disclosing that they were constantly being investigated for embezzling and fraud and other violations... and the company went belly-up under them. "CFO" looks great on the resume though!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:10:11 GMT -5
There are people from Cruz and Rubio who will not go to th other though... Because those Cruz supporters see Rubio as establishment, and those Rubio supporters see Cruz as a crazy asshole.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2016 19:11:59 GMT -5
I don't know if VB would make that assertion, but I definitely would. Obama is the first President to make Carter look GOOD... and that's saying something. nah. W was the first president to make Carter look GOOD. edit: W was the worst president since Harding. it will be hard to beat that, but Trump might come close. As would Cruz. If he had an actual chance to be elected, that is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:12:25 GMT -5
I don't know if VB would make that assertion, but I definitely would. Obama is the first President to make Carter look GOOD... and that's saying something. nah. W was the first president to make Carter look GOOD. edit: W was the worst president since Harding. it will be hard to beat that, but Trump might come close. Naaah. W just made carter look "not as bad"... I don't think he made Carter look "good". We disagree on your edit, as, in my opinion, Obama is much worse than W.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:16:10 GMT -5
nah. W was the first president to make Carter look GOOD. edit: W was the worst president since Harding. it will be hard to beat that, but Trump might come close. As would Cruz. If he had an actual chance to be elected, that is. What scares me is that all the current likely victors Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, AND Sander... all look like they will make Obama look good... and that's the scariest thought of all. If he's worse than Carter (and he is)... how bad will THEY be?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2016 19:18:21 GMT -5
nah. W was the first president to make Carter look GOOD. edit: W was the worst president since Harding. it will be hard to beat that, but Trump might come close. Naaah. W just made carter look "not as bad"... I don't think he made Carter look "good". We disagree on your edit, as, in my opinion, Obama is much worse than W. according to you. but not according to presidential historians. historians have been surveyed (5) times since 2008. Carter's ranking has ranged from 32 to 18 during that time, and averages 27th. Bush has ranked as high as 31, and as low as 39, averages 34th, and was NEVER higher than Carter during that time. not even close. there is no way that Obama is ever ranked below W, imo. W was exceptionally awful. i won't bother telling you why. if you are over 30, you know why.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 28, 2016 19:20:10 GMT -5
Richard is easily as smart as any of those historians so their opinions can be easily devalued.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2016 19:22:54 GMT -5
Bush was horrible. Carter was ineffective. Obama is average.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 19:28:18 GMT -5
Obama is probably a little better than average just because of the environment when he entered. I really have no clue what to think when people try to insist he's 'the worst president ever'
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2016 19:31:33 GMT -5
Serious lack of perspective, for one thing.
And if he were really a good President he would have been better able to either handle or even create a new environment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2016 19:31:59 GMT -5
Bush was horrible. Carter was ineffective. Obama is average.
i agree completely. Bush is one of the 10 worst presidents in US history. worse than Nixon, worse than Hoover, and the worst since Harding. Carter is one of the 20 worst presidents in US history. he was the worst president since Nixon, until W took that away from him. Obama is one of the 30 worst presidents in US history. Obama is the worst president since Bush.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 20:00:42 GMT -5
I actually think he has been able to create a relatively better environment... I'm not saying everything is awesome, but I'm definitely not in O worse than B camp by any means...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2016 20:29:35 GMT -5
I thought you were referring to the political environment. With the polarization and animus between the parties it is not better. I don't blame him for it as the right does (he did not begin his term vowing to not work with them as they did, after all) but he could have done better in fixing it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 3:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 21:23:22 GMT -5
I thought you were referring to the political environment. With the polarization and animus between the parties it is not better. I don't blame him for it as the right does (he did not begin his term vowing to not work with them as they did, after all) but he could have done better in fixing it. What's a vow worth when he breaks it? He may have "vowed" to work with them, but he never actually even tried. Everything with him was "My way or no way"... and for two years (while Democrats controlled both sides of Congress) he got "his way", without even appearing to give a crap about what Republicans wanted.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2016 22:06:17 GMT -5
VB- would you mind answering #488. i am trying to follow your argument. topping for VB.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 29, 2016 11:47:52 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,554
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 29, 2016 12:14:23 GMT -5
I think it's a disaster for the GOP as well. Fracturing it into a Trump led progressive party and the conservative GOP, IMHO.
I have heard some talking heads suggest the other GOP candidates may 'try' something at the GOP convention.
What might they try, is it legal, and does it have a chance in working? It would run Trump into a third party candidate who would cannibalize voters away from the GOP, but at least the GOP could run someone more cut from their mold.
|
|