PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on November 10, 2015, 07:22:17 PM
-
I watched the first debate, and thought Christie won handily. I could get behind him.
Also the moderators were great.
-
Rubio: "Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers."
-
I thought Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina had good nights. Trump didn't move, Kasich always looks angry, and Paul just fell flat. Jeb was ... Horrible.
-
Kasich looked like a bully and just decided he was going to try and get the most time no matter what. His comment on immigrants being good law abiding citizens was a bit over the top considering that most likely their first move here was to break the law in getting here.
-
I liked what Rubio said about being the party of the future. I wish they had left out the questions about Hillary. She deserves no airspace.
Still favoring Carson because he actually thinks, and doesn't thrust himself forward. I always have been suspicious of candidates who Want It Too Much.
-
I liked what Rubio said about being the party of the future. I wish they had left out the questions about Hillary. She deserves no airspace.
Still favoring Carson because he actually thinks, and doesn't thrust himself forward. I always have been suspicious of candidates who Want It Too Much.
Good points. I too look at Carson as a reluctant leader in the way the George Washington was a reluctant president. I feel with Carson that what you see is what you get.
-
When Kasich tried the old worn out line, "thinkif the children," I was done with him, forever.
-
When Kasich tried the old worn out line, "thinkif the children," I was done with him, forever.
He's the most liberal out of the bunch, no doubt.
On the radio yesterday a woman called and said that Kasich looked like a homeless guy standing on the corner waiving his finger and lecturing people walking by.
-
When Kasich tried the old worn out line, "thinkif the children," I was done with him, forever.
He's the most liberal out of the bunch, no doubt.
On the radio yesterday a woman called and said that Kasich looked like a homeless guy standing on the corner waiving his finger and lecturing people walking by.
Kasich has never been a viable candidate and it is because he does stuff like this. I like him as a pundit because he puts on his conservative panties when he was doing that, but as a candidate he falls back to Democrat-Lite because that is what it took to be a 'republican' in Ohio.
I have not been watching the debates but saw that soundbite on the news yesterday and I almost punched the TV - Jeb is just as bad with the 'we are talking about law abiding families'....news flash Jeb, illegal does not mean obeys the law.
I am still not able to get past Rubio's amnesty mistake, there are things about Cruz I have a hard time getting behind, I like Dr. Paul but he is too much his father's son for me, which leaves the 3 non-politicians and I currently rank them Trump, Fiorina, Carson.
It is almost like the South Park episode 'Giant Douche and Shit Sandwich'.
'Gimp
-
I like Cruz when he is speaking, instead of lecturing. when Someone else pointed that out, I took it as my own idea immediately. I love his ability to be mean without sounding like a jerk.
-
I like Cruz when he is speaking, instead of lecturing. when Someone else pointed that out, I took it as my own idea immediately. I love his ability to be mean without sounding like a jerk.
Cruz IS the smartest guy on the dais, hands down - followed by Trump, Paul, Carson/Fiorina, then Rubio, IMNSHO.
Cruz lacks the charisma needed for the general election. His story, and Rubio's, SHOULD be extremely engaging across all people, except they are from the 'wrong' party/ideology and therefore like Carson or Cain or Sowell can't be 'authentic' in the eyes of the gate keepers to the public psyche (mainstream media) because it puts the lie to the victimology/identify politics philosophy that has fed the Democrat machine for the last 40 years.
At this point I don't expect the Republicans to win the White House but may add seats in the Senate (~2). Hillary and The Bernster are playing Santa Claus and stoking the fires of class envy along with their increasingly fractious but still powerful coalition of the perpetually offended/special interests.
I don't believe the RNC can compete against that with current leadership - anybody other than Trump will be saddled with the RNC's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - I single Trump out because he will do whatever he wants, the RNC be damned - and THAT is what needs to happen, along with a wholesale replacement of every RINO/squish Rep and Senator, and the consultant class, and the entire population of K Street.
'Gimp
-
I watched the first debate, and thought Christie won handily. I could get behind him.
Also the moderators were great.
The most important observation, perhaps, is that the debates were fare more professional and informative than the ridiculous CNBC debates.
-
As to winners and losers, I'd say that most basically held their position.
I think Kasich is done, and will drop out in a few days. I also expect Jindal and Graham (who, of course, didn't even get to debate) to withdraw.
I think Christie was excellent in the undercard, and will move up.
Despite attempts to destroy Rand Paul, I think he holds his ground, but doesn't progress.
-
As to winners and losers, I'd say that most basically held their position.
I think Kasich is done, and will drop out in a few days. I also expect Jindal and Graham (who, of course, didn't even get to debate) to withdraw.
I think Christie was excellent in the undercard, and will move up.
Despite attempts to destroy Rand Paul, I think he holds his ground, but doesn't progress.
I agree on Kasich. He is way too liberal, and not positive. I think he should drop out soon. Ditto with Jindal, who I like, but had some childish statements in the undercard debate. Grahamnesty should have never even gotten in the race.
-
I liked what Rubio said about being the party of the future. I wish they had left out the questions about Hillary. She deserves no airspace.
Still favoring Carson because he actually thinks, and doesn't thrust himself forward. I always have been suspicious of candidates who Want It Too Much.
Good points. I too look at Carson as a reluctant leader in the way the George Washington was a reluctant president. I feel with Carson that what you see is what you get.
No question, but sometimes things move very quickly and as far as know Carson is untested in making good command decisions when the bullets are flying.
-
I liked what Rubio said about being the party of the future. I wish they had left out the questions about Hillary. She deserves no airspace.
Still favoring Carson because he actually thinks, and doesn't thrust himself forward. I always have been suspicious of candidates who Want It Too Much.
Good points. I too look at Carson as a reluctant leader in the way the George Washington was a reluctant president. I feel with Carson that what you see is what you get.
No question, but sometimes things move very quickly and as far as know Carson is untested in making good command decisions when the bullets are flying.
I agree completely.
-
Rubio's latest campaign ad is nothing but blatant pandering to Evangelicals.
Depressing.
-
Rubio's latest campaign ad is nothing but blatant pandering to Evangelicals.
Depressing.
Do you have a link? These ads don't necessarily run nationally.
-
We don't watch TV, so I haven't seen political ads for years, except clips online, which are indeed depressing. But so are most of the posts on those sites FastEddie linked. :(
I think people are just getting tired of being deceived and played, and it's depressing us all.
-
I have banned Megan Kelly from our TV's since the debate and frankly have all but stopped watching broadcast media for hard news (even Fox News), we get local news from TV and that is it - I use Drudge as a headline agregator, balance with BBC World News online and make my own decisions/determinations based on the whole picture as I synthesize it from multiple sources. The Fox News website is still a relatively reliable and unbiased source as well - I prefer to read the stories and not get distracted by delivery and personalities (except for occasionally The Five, Red Eye and Greg Gutfeld).
Megan's performance at the debate was awful and I thought petty and unprofessional, far below her - we used to watch her show all the time and I typically enjoyed it but the debate was just poorly executed. If Trump ends up winning I am going to enjoy watching all the people who have tried to 'take him out' eat crow, and he is enough of an ass to make them do it just to gain access.
'Gimp
-
Do you have a link? These ads don't necessarily run nationally.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/07/marco-rubio-ad-faith-cruz/78404008/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/07/marco-rubio-ad-faith-cruz/78404008/)
Anyway, he lost me with that one.
-
Do you have a link? These ads don't necessarily run nationally.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/07/marco-rubio-ad-faith-cruz/78404008/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/07/marco-rubio-ad-faith-cruz/78404008/)
Anyway, he lost me with that one.
Lost me too, however anybody jockeying for the GOP ticket nomination is going to have to do this. It's been proven that you can't get the nod without the God Squad backing you. In other words, if there were a candidate that was pro 2nd Amendment and constitution, fiscally conservative with tax reform and wanting a balanced budget, pro military, small government minded, but was a declared atheist and said he was OK with Planned Parenthood and abortions, he could never win no matter how much charisma and snappy debate he, or she had.
So, they all have to kiss the ring of the Pope so to speak, if they want a chance. IMO it's sad, but true.
-
'Tis a fact of life, faith in God. Lots of good, competent people have it. Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Liars make me uncomfortable, though. Don't think Rubio is lying.
-
'Tis a fact of life, faith in God. Lots of good, competent people have it.
Sadly, lots of nut jobs have it too and the nut jobs can do a lot of harm. It's a bitch that religious texts are designed to be confusion and ambiguous and contain passages of violence and doom. Some find the dark side really attractive.
Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Liars make me uncomfortable, though. Don't think Rubio is lying.
It does make me uncomfortable. I seriously believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that a candidate's religion shouldn't really be a subject brought up during an election at all, but that is a fantasy that the founding fathers and I have had much disappointment. Rubio isn't lying so much as just plain ol' exaggerating for the cameras right on script.
-
'Tis a fact of life, faith in God. Lots of good, competent people have it. Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Liars make me uncomfortable, though. Don't think Rubio is lying.
It's not his faith that bothers me, nor makes me uncomfortable.
It's his putting it forth as a reason to elect him. Making an ad that does not go beyond touting his faith as a reason to elect him.
I recall John F. Kennedy was a Catholic as well. Maybe it's the times that have changed, but I don't remember ads from him about accepting Jesus Christ as his savior.
Just distasteful pandering, if you ask me.
And disappointing.
-
It's a bitch that religious texts are designed to be confusion and ambiguous and contain passages of violence and doom. Some find the dark side really attractive.
If the President is ever called upon to decide whether or not to launch a strike on a N. Korean target, I would like that decision informed by the advice of his advisors, data, logic and reason.
Not what some voice in his or her head said to them while "on their knees". I also don't want them factoring in the ravings of John, via Revelations, on MidEast decisions.
Anyway, I've written off Huckabee, Cruz and now Rubio for inserting religion/theology into the process. I wonder if any Republican candidates will remain viable for me when this whole sordid mess is over. :-\
-
'Tis a fact of life, faith in God. Lots of good, competent people have it. Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Liars make me uncomfortable, though. Don't think Rubio is lying.
It's not his faith that bothers me, nor makes me uncomfortable.
It's his putting it forth as a reason to elect him. Making an ad that does not go beyond touting his faith as a reason to elect him.
I recall John F. Kennedy was a Catholic as well. Maybe it's the times that have changed, but I don't remember ads from him about accepting Jesus Christ as his savior.
Just distasteful pandering, if you ask me.
And disappointing.
iirc, at that time, not a lot of Catholics were being elected President.
-
iirc, at that time, not a lot of Catholics were being elected President.
Not my point.
I'm sure someone will dig out an exception, but this whole "holier than thou" form of campaigning seems relatively new to me.
Maybe a prior candidate - I'm thinking Goldwater - would go heavy on "values" or some such. But it was kind of assumed until recently that all candidates for President were "Christian", so it hardly seemed appropriate to go the "more Christian than thou" route.
A candidate's religion should be a personal matter, and not a factor in an election. If we get to the point where we have a Christian vs. a Jewish candidate, should the election really hinge on who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?
God, I hope not! >:(
-
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI)
-
iirc, at that time, not a lot of Catholics were being elected President.
Not my point.
....
the point being at the time the general population being Catholic was not something viewed as enhancing a candidate's viability. So, he wouldn't have played up his catholic background. IOW - that was a bad example to use.
-
iirc, at that time, not a lot of Catholics were being elected President.
Not my point.
....
the point being at the time the general population being Catholic was not something viewed as enhancing a candidate's viability. So, he wouldn't have played up his catholic background. IOW - that was a bad example to use.
Personally, I found it interesting that in 2012, President Obama was the only mainstream Protestant on a major-party ticket. Romney is LDS, and both Biden and Ryan are Catholic.
Also interesting, the last 3 Speakers of the House (Ryan, Boehner and Pelosi) have been Catholic.
-
Anyway, I've written off Huckabee, Cruz and now Rubio for inserting religion/theology into the process. I wonder if any Republican candidates will remain viable for me when this whole sordid mess is over. :-\
Nope. We're screwed. It's shaping up badly. However, like I said, they all have to either be true Bible thumpers like Huckabee, or they have to pander like Rubio if they want the nomination. Even Trump will have to surround himself with wife and kids and spew on in front of the cameras about Jesus sooner or later if he wants the job. Just the way it is sadly.
-
Personally, I found it interesting that in 2012, President Obama was the only mainstream Protestant on a major-party ticket. Romney is LDS, and both Biden and Ryan are Catholic.
Also interesting, the last 3 Speakers of the House (Ryan, Boehner and Pelosi) have been Catholic.
Are you sure about Obama? Many of us are not so sure. More like a Mohammed in Martin Luther's clothes I think.
-
"No one should vote either for me or against me on account of my religion. It is not relevant." - JFK
-
"No one should vote either for me or against me on account of my religion. It is not relevant." - JFK
Thank you.
Was not then. Is not now.
-
'Tis a fact of life, faith in God. Lots of good, competent people have it.
Sadly, lots of nut jobs have it too and the nut jobs can do a lot of harm. It's a bitch that religious texts are designed to be confusion and ambiguous and contain passages of violence and doom. Some find the dark side really attractive.
Doesn't make me uncomfortable. Liars make me uncomfortable, though. Don't think Rubio is lying.
It does make me uncomfortable. I seriously believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that a candidate's religion shouldn't really be a subject brought up during an election at all, but that is a fantasy that the founding fathers and I have had much disappointment. Rubio isn't lying so much as just plain ol' exaggerating for the cameras right on script.
You and Eddie have got to be kidding me. I finally got around to Rubio's ad - my God, how subversive and dangerous! ::)
Catholicism is a faith of love and peace and respect for life. I would hope my leaders try to emulate these Christ-like characteristics, despite their imperfect nature as human beings.
What concerns me the most is the lack of faith by leaders who think tht they are at the top of the pyramid of power. That is how tyrants are created.
And you should read some books. The founders were nearly all faithful men.
-
And you should read some books. The founders were nearly all faithful men.
Yes they were and they all were pretty much in agreement on the subject of separation of church and state. That's my point entirely. A candidate should be judged purely on their past performance, their ideas for the future and their positions on the issues facing the state. It shouldn't matter if they are religious at all. There shouldn't be this contest to see who is most pious. Particularly in these times we live in where some seem to be calling for holy war against the Muslims.
I really don't need a president bending a knee and deciding we need to go on a holy crusade against the infidel Muslims once and for all as seemingly foretold . That leads to the end of the world. And that in a nutshell is the problem with fucking religion. The belief in something much better in the afterlife, everything is done for some cosmic reason and the idea that you are actually doing some higher power's bidding, can drive people to do really stupid things in the here and now.
-
The modern secular-humanist interpretation of 'separation of church and state', especially as in evidence here tonight is so ill informed as to hardly deserve a serious retort.
Seriously, do some actual research about what is actually contained within the actual founding/governing documents, as well as the actual content of the actual Jefferson-Danbury letter (source of the phrase itself) and THEN try and make a cogent and fact-based argument.
A person expressing their faith, or suggesting it be used as a means to evaluate them for voting is no more different than a conservative identifying as a conservative, or Democrat identifying as a socialist. These words which identify a candidate's personal belief systems should be seen as valuable in any thinking person's evaluation of that candidate.
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
-
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Really? How do you feel about ISIS? They are 100% all about faith, just not the one you subscribe to.
-
And you should read some books. The founders were nearly all faithful men.
Yes they were and they all were pretty much in agreement on the subject of separation of church and state. That's my point entirely. A candidate should be judged purely on their past performance, their ideas for the future and their positions on the issues facing the state. It shouldn't matter if they are religious at all. There shouldn't be this contest to see who is most pious. Particularly in these times we live in where some seem to be calling for holy war against the Muslims.
I really don't need a president bending a knee and deciding we need to go on a holy crusade against the infidel Muslims once and for all as seemingly foretold . That leads to the end of the world. And that in a nutshell is the problem with fucking religion. The belief in something much better in the afterlife, everything is done for some cosmic reason and the idea that you are actually doing some higher power's bidding, can drive people to do really stupid things in the here and now.
Like I said, you should read more books. Try the Library of Congress:
"This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
It's not uncommon. You're taking the current societal take on Jefferson's "separation of church and state" statement and projecting it back to "The Founders" as if they all desired a Freedom FROM Religion. That is inaccurate.
You're just an anti-religious bigot, and projecting "end of world" bullshit on someone who is faithful. There have been more egomaniacal non-religious tyrants murdering millions of human beings in the name of power in themselves. Mao. Pol Pot. Stalin. Yet your big fear is what Rubio said in a one minute commercial.
What bullshit.
-
The modern secular-humanist interpretation of 'separation of church and state', especially as in evidence here tonight is so ill informed as to hardly deserve a serious retort.
Seriously, do some actual research about what is actually contained within the actual founding/governing documents, as well as the actual content of the actual Jefferson-Danbury letter (source of the phrase itself) and THEN try and make a cogent and fact-based argument.
A person expressing their faith, or suggesting it be used as a means to evaluate them for voting is no more different than a conservative identifying as a conservative, or Democrat identifying as a socialist. These words which identify a candidate's personal belief systems should be seen as valuable in any thinking person's evaluation of that candidate.
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Bingo.
-
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Really? How do you feel about ISIS? They are 100% all about faith, just not the one you subscribe to.
I don't have any irrational, mean-spirited or petty reactions to ISIS, they are a de facto threat with an actual stated goal to establish an Islamic Caliphate and dominate the infidel's of the world - they are actually stoning rape victims, actually destroying millenia old historical sites, actually throwing gays off the tops of buildings to their deaths (while raping young boys themselves), actually beheading people, actually burning people alive, actually drowning people, actually trading in sex slaves, and actually seeking to instigate attacks in the US and the rest of the west.
Being concerned about ISIS is rational and fact-based.
Being worried about a Presidential Candidate you would most likely not vote for on the basis of his politics, who says that people of faith should consider his faith when evaluating him as a candidate, is irrational and not fact-based.
Catholics, Baptists, Jews, 7th Day Adventists, etc., are not a threat to you personally - the establishment and free exercise clauses in the 1st Amendment are not there to allow any President to force their beliefs on you, they exist to protect religions from government interference, to prevent the 'establishment' of an official State religion (like the Church of England for example), and to allow every person to practice (or not) their faith in accordance with their personal beliefs. Cruz or Rubio or the Huckster are no more a threat of religious zealotry run-amok than was Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter or John F Kennedy, etc. It is really much ado about nothing - no more surprising or dangerous than Hillary accepted an offer to speak at a church and talk about her faith and how it is important to her (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/11/3700620/hillary-clinton-pulpit/).
The concern about this subject, IMO, stems from the people who are so concerned about the religious belief of others who are projecting their own biases and fears onto people for whom there is no actual record of abuse. Put another way, because they doubt they would be able to separate their own beliefs and biases when making decisions they project that onto others and then find the thought of it frightening.
'Gimp
-
"No one should vote either for me or against me on account of my religion. It is not relevant." - JFK
Thank you.
Was not then. Is not now.
So Sayeth Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
-
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Really? How do you feel about ISIS? They are 100% all about faith, just not the one you subscribe to.
That's funny, everyone on the left claims it's not about Islam.
-
That's funny, everyone on the left claims it's not about Islam.
Yeah, they're in serious denial.
-
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Really? How do you feel about ISIS? They are 100% all about faith, just not the one you subscribe to.
The problem with ISIS isn't the muslim faith they supposedly claim, it's the killing of other people.
-
Yes they were and they all were pretty much in agreement on the subject of separation of church and state. That's my point entirely. A candidate should be judged purely on their past performance, their ideas for the future and their positions on the issues facing the state. It shouldn't matter if they are religious at all. There shouldn't be this contest to see who is most pious. Particularly in these times we live in where some seem to be calling for holy war against the Muslims.
I really don't need a president bending a knee and deciding we need to go on a holy crusade against the infidel Muslims once and for all as seemingly foretold . That leads to the end of the world. And that in a nutshell is the problem with fucking religion. The belief in something much better in the afterlife, everything is done for some cosmic reason and the idea that you are actually doing some higher power's bidding, can drive people to do really stupid things in the here and now.
Which president ever spoke in those terms? Which one has ever suggested we should start a holy crusade? Maybe you should spend a little time with the founding documents, and particularly the first amendment before coming here and making a fool out of yourself by placing your ignorance and unfounded fears on display for all to see. So much for tolerance. Ignorance and bigotry are alive and well.
By the way...who knew there was a "fucking religion"? ??? Is this a California thing? Sounds interesting.
-
The abject fear expressed by some of another's belief system or faith has never made any sense to me - how another's belief system can be seen as so personally threatening as to drive the irrational, mean-spirited and petty reactions on display are just inexplicable.
'Gimp
Really? How do you feel about ISIS? They are 100% all about faith, just not the one you subscribe to.
It has nothing to do with the fact that their faith is one that I do not subscribe to. It has to do with the fact that they are creating a state that sanctions murder, rape, denial of personal freedom, torture and is antithetical to every other basic humanitarian feeling.
As a matter of fact, I do not subscribe to ANY religion. I consider myself agnostic; ie, I don't have any idea of what the truth is in terms of a creator. But I do know that I would prefer to live under a Christian government that allows for basic human rights and the ability to choose if you want to subscribe to a religion, rather than an Islamic government that denies those rights and choices.