U.S. Politics

Page 801 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Not in the general. Paul only appeals to the fringe right/libertarian folks and his nutso past will come back to haunt him - the comments he made about Civil Rights and his hypocrisy on reproductive rights (odd how libertarianism abruptly ends at the uterus) will be enough to sink him with minorities and women, and the GOP can't win without increasing their appeal to both groups. Rubio's a lightweight who has never said or done anything of substance, he'll be this year's Rick Perry, and even if he did make it through the primaries Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Even Rand Paul has some charisma and charm. Of the three Jeb's the only one who would be a strong general candidate.

I think the guy to watch is Kasich. Appeals to conservatives but without coming across as bats**t crazy to everyone else and doesn't have much baggage. Could be an out-of-right-field-Bill-Clinton-type sleeper.

Don't understand why conservatives aren't rallying around Trump, though, after insisting that the country should be run like a business and thus needs a businessman in charge. Who better than Trump? Although I have to admit that I'd almost like to see a President Trump for the sheer entertainment value. Course, it's always fun until someone starts a nuclear armageddon.
Very Obamaesque. Speaks well, done nothing, good story to tell. Except Obama has won 2 general elections. So Rubio's prospects are pretty good.

Agree with you on Kasich.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
djpbaltimore said:
I don't see a single strong GOP general election candidate. Quantity does not equal quality in this case. But the 'deep bench' false narrative keeps getting played up nonstop. If Fiorina gets shunted off the main stage for debates, that is going to be a major 'optics' problem for the Republicans.
That is because you are glossing over with Democrat glasses on.

Paul
Bush
Rubio

Those guys strong GOP candidates.
Not in the general. Paul only appeals to the fringe right/libertarian folks and his nutso past will come back to haunt him - the comments he made about Civil Rights and his hypocrisy on reproductive rights (odd how libertarianism abruptly ends at the uterus) will be enough to sink him with minorities and women, and the GOP can't win without increasing their appeal to both groups. Rubio's a lightweight who has never said or done anything of substance, he'll be this year's Rick Perry, and even if he did make it through the primaries Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Even Rand Paul has some charisma and charm. Of the three Jeb's the only one who would be a strong general candidate.

I think the guy to watch is Kasich. Appeals to conservatives but without coming across as bats**t crazy to everyone else and doesn't have much baggage. Could be an out-of-right-field-Bill-Clinton-type sleeper.

Don't understand why conservatives aren't rallying around Trump, though, after insisting that the country should be run like a business and thus needs a businessman in charge. Who better than Trump? Although I have to admit that I'd almost like to see a President Trump for the sheer entertainment value. Course, it's always fun until someone starts a nuclear armageddon.
Very Obamaesque. Speaks well, done nothing, good story to tell. Except Obama has won 2 general elections. So Rubio's prospects are pretty good.

Agree with you on Kasich.
....now there is an endorsement you can take to the bank, and you could bet that just about any bank will be more than happy to take it...but then banks are like that, real salt of the earth types, always looking out for the little guy and so on and so forth...

Cheers
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
red_flanders said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Ted Cruz "a bit" nuts?

- Ted Cruz launched his filibuster against Obamacare by claiming that failing to fight the implementation of Obamacare was akin to appeasing Adolf Hitler, and anyone who didn’t support his plans to stop health care reform were like Neville Chamberlain.

- Cruz once told a group of conservatives, “You no longer have a president,” because Barack Obama had implemented health care reform in a “lawless” way.

- Cruz claimed that court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage are “a real threat to our liberty.”

- Cruz claimed that Houston pastors may soon be “hauled off to jail for a hate crime,” due to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.

- Cruz claimed that legislation to protect access to abortion services is “a manifestation of the war on women.”

- Cruz said the Democrats seeking to amend the constitution to give Congress the power to regulate campaign financing were really out to “expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.”

- Cruz also derided “Farenheit 451 Democrats,” claiming that a proposed campaign finance amendment shows that liberals wanted to ban and burn books.

- Cruz claimed the amendment to get money out of politics would “censor” Saturday Night Live, and “Lorne Michaels (of Saturday Night Live) could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician.”

- Cruz also claimed that the amendment to repeal Citizens United would “muzzle” pastors.

- Cruz called the standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of scofflaw and racist rancher Cliven Bundy, the “unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

- Cruz claimed that the United Nations/George Soros “Agenda 21” would “abolish ‘unsustainable’ environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads.”

Full on nuts. I fear for all of us if the above is "a bit nuts".
Cruz is nuts but he is exactly the kind of nut that appeals to a lot of Teabagger government hating nuts.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
 
Yeah, but when you're really outed, it doesn't look good.

Have to agree with Scott on Rubio. Not that I'd want the guy President, but his comparison to Obama's history is food for thought. You also have to remember, some people who find his occasional misspeak and lack of savvy to be that of a real person. I will take his personable manner over many of the others. Cruz is a perfect example. He speaks with clarity, but it also seems calculating. Also, remember what an incredibly awesome speaker George W Bush was?! Elected to two terms...

I however will ignore Carly at my own peril. Unelectable. I do hope though that she gets to partake in the early debates.
 
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
You are joking with this right? Interesting that you choose 2007 which is exactly meaningless in terms of actual effect and actions.

Passion? Charm? I guess maybe he possesses those things for prescription medicated, middle aged liberals.

Mendacity comes to mind for others.

Obama got into office by being the anti-Bush and not a woman. He stayed there because--as many are gleefully pointing out--the Republicans are incapable of producing a lucid candidate who can capture both swing voters and the lunatic fringe of their base. Nothing more.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.
Sounds like a man-crush. You went from an interesting post to a silly one. Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate. Bernie is as crazy as they come and look what's starting to develop... Hillary sycophants made a huge mistake in 2008 and are making the exact same mistake again.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time. As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.

If Carly makes the first cut she'll be in for a while and if I'm Jeb or Rubio I'm already vetting her for veep.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from. It beats the *** out of a community organizer/one term Senator in terms of resume.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
aphronesis said:
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
You are joking with this right? Interesting that you choose 2007 which is exactly meaningless in terms of actual effect and actions.
Comparing pre-election Obama to Rubio, dude. Keep up with the posts.

Passion? Charm? I guess maybe he possesses those things for prescription medicated, middle aged liberals.
Yep. Passion, charm. Lost on those who like to play the role of world-weary cynic, I suppose. And we're talking about politicians here so everything's relative and contextual.

Mendacity comes to mind for others.
Show me a politician who isn't mendacious. Most people don't expect a politician to be a saint. For a cynic you sure are easy to shock.

Obama got into office by being the anti-Bush and not a woman.
With all due respect, ***.

He stayed there because--as many are gleefully pointing out--the Republicans are incapable of producing a lucid candidate who can capture both swing voters and the lunatic fringe of their base.
Probably because it's impossible to find a candidate who will appeal to both the lunatic fringe base and the swing mainstream, dude, R or D. At least try and be realistic. Romney was their best bet for mainstream appeal and even though they disliked Romney the loonie fringe right sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Obama, and Romney got trounced. Obama won twice because he was smart enough to recognize that he had to largely sacrifice the far-left fringe - the far-left strongly dislikes Obama, dude - and appeal to the center. Which is the choice the Rs will have to make at some point in the future - it's either the base or the center, can't have both.

Nothing more.
Again with all due respect, also ***.
 
Nonsense. All the democrats had to do was manage a more forceful candidate than Kerry or Gore and they would win. You're right it's *** of course. Let's see: Obama had anti-bush sentiment on his side at near suffocating levels, the housing bubble, an untested Hillary who then pointed backwards and McCain to defeat with his team of hail Mary strategists who gave us the spectacular collision of late twentieth century substitution of media for political engagement and criticality and a last gasp demented ruse of the '90s culture wars in Palin.


And you put the success of the snake oil down to masterful intelligence. Don't let a little history get in the way of knee jerk ideology.

It's not cynicism, there's a body of thought out there called realism. Nor am I shocked. The point stands--and I know the pre-election comparison you were making--that quoting citizen Obama on climate change undermines the rest of your camp follower claims.

And don't call me dude: I don't have a yard and I don't wear sandals.
 
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.
Sounds like a man-crush. You went from an interesting post to a silly one. Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate. Bernie is as crazy as they come and look what's starting to develop... Hillary sycophants made a huge mistake in 2008 and are making the exact same mistake again.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time. As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.

If Carly makes the first cut she'll be in for a while and if I'm Jeb or Rubio I'm already vetting her for veep.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from. It beats the **** out of a community organizer/one term Senator in terms of resume.
Even if she ran corps into the ground?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.
Sounds like a man-crush. You went from an interesting post to a silly one. Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate. Bernie is as crazy as they come and look what's starting to develop... Hillary sycophants made a huge mistake in 2008 and are making the exact same mistake again.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time. As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.

If Carly makes the first cut she'll be in for a while and if I'm Jeb or Rubio I'm already vetting her for veep.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from. It beats the **** out of a community organizer/one term Senator in terms of resume.
Like the Washington Post once said, if you're not ready to accept concrete science then you're not ready to be President. An example of the gulf between Obama and Rubio at similar stages in their careers - Obama was ready to be prez. Rubio is not.

Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/democrats.poll/

Revisionist history is always fun but it's still revisionist history.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time.
Obama the politician may be aloof at times - disengaged is conservative *** - but Obama the person is indeed both charismatic and charming. Now I'd be the first to agree that personal appeal shouldn't matter but it does, and the "who'd you rather have a beer/bbq with, Obama or Hillary/Romney" factor played a big part in his wins, no different than GW Bush and Reagan. Unless you also want to claim that Reagan only won in 1980 because he was up against a weak opponent in Jimmy Carter and that Reagan's charm, charisma, etc had nothing to do with his being elected? Obama beat Hillary and McCain and Romney for a variety of reasons, one of which is that voters simply liked him more.

As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.
Political cunning is being able to get a ton of *** done and leaving the country in a far better condition than you found it despite spending the entire 8 years faced with a nihilistic obstructionist party that believes that cooperation and compromise are akin to treason.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from.
Nope, it isn't. Doesn't remotely qualify you to be president, though. And if it does, then wouldn't that make Trump far more qualified than Fiorina? But you know as well as I do that he'd be a total disaster as a president. Perhaps that's because you understand, even though you don't want to admit it, that running a country is in fact nothing remotely like running a business? Fact is, dude, being a lawyer/community organizer/Senator is far better prep for the presidency than is being the CEO of HP.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20101031

"It would be obvious to any business person who had spent a day in public administration that government and business are antithetical. That's not a flaw in the system. Government exists to take on precisely those tasks the private sector can't or won't do."

Yep. Or just ask the South Koreans about electing CEO's some time.

In any event, Fiorina, turns out, wasn't even a very good CEO. Obama, turns out, was a pretty good community organizer.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Scott SoCal[/url]"]
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.
Sounds like a man-crush. You went from an interesting post to a silly one. Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate. Bernie is as crazy as they come and look what's starting to develop... Hillary sycophants made a huge mistake in 2008 and are making the exact same mistake again.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time. As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.

If Carly makes the first cut she'll be in for a while and if I'm Jeb or Rubio I'm already vetting her for veep.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from. It beats the **** out of a community organizer/one term Senator in terms of resume.[/b]
Even if she ran corps into the ground?
Is that what she did?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez[/url]"]I love the "credible/nuts" list. I'd like to add some honesty to it though, and try to be succinct.

Cruz - A bit nuts. Hurt when Rubio jumped in. Marco speaks better, has a better story, even more conservative.
Paul - Smart, but will face criticism. Has appeal to anti-government TP conservatives too.
Rubio - Definitely credible. Most conservative TP person, but doesn't come off as nuts when speaking. Connected to plutocrats and TP base. Running for Veep maybe?
Carson - Dr. Nuts. Should be in tier 2 debates.
Fiorina - Not nuts, smart. But her background isn't as strong as she'd have you believe. Hasn't aged well. I hope tier 1.
Huckabee - Not again. Let him debate with Carson and Jindal in tier 2.
Santorum - True to his word, but a bit wonky. History may get him into tier 1 debate or two.
Pataki - Definitely credible. A bit bland, will get hammered for some "liberal" past decisions.
Graham - Somewhat credible. Lake of zest, or history sticks him to tier 2 as well.
Perry - History of being nuts. Maybe there for comedic effect. No chance.
Bush - Absolutely credible. Name hurts. But he can go the distance, raise cash, and speaks much better than his brother, and flex a little.
The Donald! - Nuts. Fresh nuts. But still nuts. Can't wait!
Jindal - Not nuts, but not credible at all either, really. No chance. Maybe running for VP. Tier 2.
Kasich - Definitely credible. Sleeper. Wide ranging experience. Can swing some on issues without alienating many people. Would make decent President I think.
Christie - His intellect makes him credible, but he's now just a Jersey bully with baggage.
Walker - Bold speaker, will stir up votes, but too nutty to win.

I'll stick with Jeb coming out on top when it's all said and done. But he absolutely does not have this locked up. Several GOP candidates could make him look out of touch, even unelectable.

I still say HIllary wins the Democratic nomination easily, while being nice to Bernie who gets a surprising amount of votes, but few states.

In a general election, Dems will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary in droves and she'll win a close election.
Have to disagree about Rubio - no charisma, no charm, no gravitas, clumsy, lacks political savvy, in way over his head, all of which I expect will be exposed during the primaries. He actually reminds me a little bit of Sarah Palin, to be honest.

btw pathetic in this day and age but I don't think Graham has any shot at winning the R nomination for the simple reason that he's not married and doesn't have kids. That'll never fly with the religious right or "the party of family values".

Carson's just there to sell books and increase his speaking fees, Huckabee and Santorum are just egos inflated by self-righteous religious outrage who can't seem to understand why no one agrees with them that they've been personally chosen by god, Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Fiorina are just self-styled ideological warriors of varying stripes and the masters of empty and shallow conservative rhetoric who (imo) are more or less completely interchangeable, Paul's the token libertarian crank, and The Donald...is in a class all by himself.

I wish there could be a debate that involves just Bush, Pataki, Kasich, and Graham, ie the only people on that list who actually seem interested in responsible governance and not just pushing a stale and cartoonish ideological agenda. That I would watch out of genuine interest as opposed to simply for the entertainment value.
An interesting post. I disagree with a few points. Feel free to misundersetimate Carly at your own peril. I've heard parts of recent speeches and she's for real.

Tis odd how you dis Rubio the way you do and overlook all those same qualities in Obama. Your shifting standards are nothing if not entertaining.
2007 Obama: climate change as an "epochal, man-made threat to the planet" and vowed to lead an international coalition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2015 Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

Sure, they're exactly the same.

And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.

Under the pressure cooker of primary politics where backtracking and clarifying equals political death I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Rubio's foot-in-mouth disease lands him closer to clownish Rick Perry territory than the Presidency. Right from the beginning Obama came across as potential presidential material. Raw, but presidential. Rubio (imo) doesn't come close to appearing to be presidential material.

Carla Fiorina: "The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."

She's under the same delusion as Mitt Romney (or Donald Trump, for that matter): that being a highly successful businesswoman and running a company qualifies her to run a country. It doesn't.
And then you'll also have to subtract Obama's charisma, charm, passion, political cunning - Obama beat Hillary Clinton, dude - and willingness to take a position on a controversial issue rather than dodge the question.
Sounds like a man-crush. You went from an interesting post to a silly one. Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate. Bernie is as crazy as they come and look what's starting to develop... Hillary sycophants made a huge mistake in 2008 and are making the exact same mistake again.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time. As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.

If Carly makes the first cut she'll be in for a while and if I'm Jeb or Rubio I'm already vetting her for veep.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from. It beats the **** out of a community organizer/one term Senator in terms of resume.
Like the Washington Post once said, if you're not ready to accept concrete science then you're not ready to be President. An example of the gulf between Obama and Rubio at similar stages in their careers - Obama was ready to be prez. Rubio is not.

Obama beat Hillary because she wasnt and isn't a particularly strong candidate.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/democrats.poll/

Revisionist history is always fun but it's still revisionist history.

Obama has been criticized almost universally as being aloof and disengaged. He's neither charismatic nor charming most of the time.
Obama the politician may be aloof at times - disengaged is conservative *** - but Obama the person is indeed both charismatic and charming. Now I'd be the first to agree that personal appeal shouldn't matter but it does, and the "who'd you rather have a beer/bbq with, Obama or Hillary/Romney" factor played a big part in his wins, no different than GW Bush and Reagan. Unless you also want to claim that Reagan only won in 1980 because he was up against a weak opponent in Jimmy Carter and that Reagan's charm, charisma, etc had nothing to do with his being elected? Obama beat Hillary and McCain and Romney for a variety of reasons, one of which is that voters simply liked him more.

As for political cunning, he came to office with control of both chambers and he'll leave with stunning almost unbelievable losses since his first term. That's not political cunning.
Political cunning is being able to get a ton of **** done and leaving the country in a far better condition than you found it despite spending the entire 8 years faced with a nihilistic obstructionist party that believes that cooperation and compromise are akin to treason.

Running a major multi-national corporation is nothing to run away from.
Nope, it isn't. Doesn't remotely qualify you to be president, though. And if it does, then wouldn't that make Trump far more qualified than Fiorina? But you know as well as I do that he'd be a total disaster as a president. Perhaps that's because you understand, even though you don't want to admit it, that running a country is in fact nothing remotely like running a business? Fact is, dude, being a lawyer/community organizer/Senator is far better prep for the presidency than is being the CEO of HP.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20101031

"It would be obvious to any business person who had spent a day in public administration that government and business are antithetical. That's not a flaw in the system. Government exists to take on precisely those tasks the private sector can't or won't do."

Yep. Or just ask the South Koreans about electing CEO's some time.

In any event, Fiorina, turns out, wasn't even a very good CEO. Obama, turns out, was a pretty good community organizer.
1. If you think running on a climate science platform will be the key to winning the general then you are far dumber than I thought.

2. Obama wasn't ready to be Prez and really didn't develop until around the end of his first term. He's not even a quick study.

3. Aphro summed up nicely why Obama won in 2008. Nailed it actually.

4. Cry me a river over the opposition party. Good grief. Bigger whiners have never been.

5. Running a Fortune 50 multinational corporation... and coming through the ranks to do it is about as good of preparation as there is. If you honestly think that someone can't adapt from that background to public governance then up really is down.

6. It's nearly impossible to take anything the LA Times put out seriously. Sorry.

7. Good Community Organizer is about on par with being a good dog catcher. Neither are impressive.
 
This is a reporter calling Fiorina on her bullsh!t, can you imagine what a well funded candidate will do to her in relation to her record?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-joe-to-carly-fiorina-who-are-you-to-criticize-hillary-clinton/

Sanders isn't crazy, he's honest. Not only that, but he is the only candidate who understands that a reform of our system of elections is the most vital issue we actually face. But I get it, he doesn't get on his knees to blow every corporation that comes calling, and I guess that is crazy if you're trying to get elected...
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
This is a reporter calling Fiorina on her bullsh!t, can you imagine what a well funded candidate will do to her in relation to her record?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-joe-to-carly-fiorina-who-are-you-to-criticize-hillary-clinton/

Sanders isn't crazy, he's honest. Not only that, but he is the only candidate who understands that a reform of our system of elections is the most vital issue we actually face. But I get it, he doesn't get on his knees to blow every corporation that comes calling, and I guess that is crazy if you're trying to get elected...
Crazy doesn't have to mean dishonest. Nationalize oil and gas, 90% top marginal tax rate? Just those two things and his social utopia vanishes in a nano-second.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
This is a reporter calling Fiorina on her bullsh!t, can you imagine what a well funded candidate will do to her in relation to her record?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-joe-to-carly-fiorina-who-are-you-to-criticize-hillary-clinton/

Sanders isn't crazy, he's honest. Not only that, but he is the only candidate who understands that a reform of our system of elections is the most vital issue we actually face. But I get it, he doesn't get on his knees to blow every corporation that comes calling, and I guess that is crazy if you're trying to get elected...
Crazy doesn't have to mean dishonest. Nationalize oil and gas, 90% top marginal tax rate? Just those two things and his social utopia vanishes in a nano-second.
Yea, because the massive movement to the middle class in the 1950's never happened under the exact same rate...

But I'll grant you the fact that I don't believe the federal government should nationalize our oil.
 
I realize this is a bit outside the time limit, though I couldn't resist. In her infinite propriety of reason and historical awareness Ann Coulter, in response to Governor Nikki Haley's (another republican) call to ban the Confederate flag in South Carolina, has made the following remarks:

Ann Coulter: Nikki Haley 'an immigrant' who doesn’t understand Confederate flag: “I’d really like to like Nikki Haley since she is a Republican, but on the other hand, she’s an immigrant and does not understand America’s history,” Coulter told host Kennedy on her Fox Business show Tuesday evening.

“You think immigrants can’t understand history?” Kennedy asked.

“Well, she doesn’t,” Coulter responded. “The Confederate flag we’re talking about never flew over an official Confederate building.”

“It was a battle flag — it is to honor Robert E. Lee,” she added. “Anyone who knows the first thing about military history knows that there is no greater army that ever took the field than the Confederate Army.”

Apart from the fact that Coulter's intimation about an immigrant's status being less American and thus less capable of understanding US history demonstrates what level of cognitive reasoning we are dealing with here, her dubious historical knowledge (off the top of my head I'd say, if we have history in mind, Alexander the Great's army enjoyed a tad bit more success than the Confederate Army among many others, but let's concede Coulter her patriotic illusions) overlooks an obvious fact. Even if the Confederate flag never flew over an official Confederate building (though had the US split in two it certainly would have), it still remains true that it was borne on the battle field in honor of a military defending a homeland in which abject slavery was the virtuous patrimony of whites. On this account the Confederate flag has become, though in a historical sense always has been, a symbol of white "supremacy" over blacks.

By contrast Nikki Haley (I repeat a fellow republican, born in the US of Indian immigrants), in her alien misunderstanding explains with simple and perfect words why after the massacre of Charleston the Confederate flag should, as a symbol of white southern pride and of slavery, be banned from public display: "This flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state," she said.

Even today this symbol of southern pride and slavery is commercialized as a happy and cherished souvenir for American racist groups. This fact, though, goes unnoticed by Coulter, who rather criticizes Haley for her exotic background (intimating an inferior status with it - one wonders, though, about Coulter's own immigrant origins, as is necessarily the case) and for the insolent pride with which she has dared to invoke US history, of which she is obviously ignorant!

The logic of civil coexistence, however, even if today a product of political correctness, in a pluralistic age stipulates that if a discriminatory symbol or word "provokes pain for many," then it is appropriate to give it up. This logic has served its purpose the moment it renders social cohabitation less rough and avoids renewing the suffering of many citizens. To cite just one other example, the institutional taboo against the swastika confirms perfectly to this rationale in the name of avoiding the repugnant effect such a symbol causes for the extermination survivors and any civil person.

But when the political debate of the likes of Coulter has become so rudimentary, so historically biased, misconceived and hence falsified, it certainly isn't the fault of Haley's immigrant origins, but the oafish level of discernment that has for some time afflicted the level of public discourse and the appalling level of acculturation of US society at large.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY