Democratic Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
22

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Out of all of the candidates in both parties I find Hillary the most insincere, power hungry and totally clueless.

Ditto.

I am glad Dodd had the sack to call her out on that DL issue.

I really doubt it was balls. Dodd is losing to Stephen Colbert in SC polls.

mike

Bad.

I think I’d do better than chris dodd in a democratic primary.

I know the democratic tag lines better and it doesn’t seem to matter what you actually believe as long as you are seen as a winner.

Here is a sample opening statement: “Hello, I’m JeffR. I believe that everyone deserves a free car and free college. Oh, Bush lied and everyone died. I believe that George Bush is the devil. Oh, Halliburton and Dick Cheney. I feel like I’ve been lied to. I voted for the Iraq War without knowing in advance every potential pitfall. This week I say the definition of wealth is $100,000 dollars. Did I mention that Bush is both an evil genius and dumb? Finally, I would pull out every American soldier tomorrow from Iraq regardless of the conditions on the ground. General “Betrayus.” I believe that there should be laws on the book against verbal bullying in school. Kids don’t need to hear unpleasant speech nor learn how to deal with confrontation. In fact, I’d like you to sign over your child to the state at age 4. I think that hurricanes and the recent California fires were caused by George Bush not signing Kyoto.”

I’m guessing that speech alone would garner at least 25% of the dem vote.

What do you think?

JeffR

You forgot to use the word “corporation” in every sentence.

mike[/quote]

True.

I let my moveon.org membership lapse. I need to keep working.

JeffR

23

I watched some of the replays last night.

Hillary is in a tough spot. She cannot turn her back on the fringe elements of the party yet but she cannot follow their wishes either or she will spoil her chance at winning the general election.

Obama and Edwards are desperate to win the primary so they will say and do anything to cut the leader down, but if by some chance they do win the primary they will lose the general election. America wants a centrist, not a fringe candidate.

Hillary did very poorly in the debate. She cannot think on her feet very well and the political double speak is so ingrained she has a tough time getting her point across.

I could have made her drivers license point much more effectively for her.

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

24

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I watched some of the replays last night.

Hillary is in a tough spot. She cannot turn her back on the fringe elements of the party yet but she cannot follow their wishes either or she will spoil her chance at winning the general election.

Obama and Edwards are desperate to win the primary so they will say and do anything to cut the leader down, but if by some chance they do win the primary they will lose the general election. America wants a centrist, not a fringe candidate.

Hillary did very poorly in the debate. She cannot think on her feet very well and the political double speak is so ingrained she has a tough time getting her point across.

I could have made her drivers license point much more effectively for her.

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

[/quote]

Zap,

Can you imagine pandering to the fringe of the democratic party? What a bunch of freakin’ loons.

I know hillary will do anything to get elected. However, even SHE is having a hard time dealing with the nonsense put out by bradley/lumpy/100meters and their “Bush brought down the twin towers” crew.

Also if I were a democrat, I’d be pissed that my candidate of choice cannot handle tough questions. Further, I’d be pissed that they dodge venues (aka Fox News) where they might be asked uncomfortable questions. If I were a dem, I’d be thinking, “If they can’t handle Fox, how are they going to handle iran’s leader?”

One last thing to consider, the Republicans have been willing to debate under hostile circumstances. I have a feeling Rudy will have ironed out the kinks and will do much better against rodham (OR, other) in the general debates.

JeffR

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
America wants a centrist, not a fringe candidate.
[/quote]
Zap, I understand what you mean by this statement but one cannot make such a simplistic analysis. America is not a tangible entity that can be defined by individualistic qualities. America does not think; America does not act; America is just an idea. Nations are made up of individuals that think and act on their own terms. It is this collection of individuals that make up the idea of America.

Also, to say America wants a “centrist” implies the center can be defined – the center of what? I believe this is just a natural consequence of using the terms “left” and “right” to define political ideology. There is no real right or left. Politically ideology is so difficult to define that linear geometric descriptions hardly suffice. More accurately we would require multiple degrees of freedom that could be discreetly defined. For example:

Statist or non-statist; collectivist or individualist; protectionist or non-interventionist; etc.

How would we define a centrist in these terms?

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
America wants a centrist, not a fringe candidate.

Zap, I understand what you mean by this statement but one cannot make such a simplistic analysis. America is not a tangible entity that can be defined by individualistic qualities. America does not think; America does not act; America is just an idea. Nations are made up of individuals that think and act on their own terms. It is this collection of individuals that make up the idea of America.

Also, to say America wants a “centrist” implies the center can be defined – the center of what? I believe this is just a natural consequence of using the terms “left” and “right” to define political ideology. There is no real right or left. Politically ideology is so difficult to define that linear geometric descriptions hardly suffice. More accurately we would require multiple degrees of freedom that could be discreetly defined. For example:

Statist or non-statist; collectivist or individualist; protectionist or non-interventionist; etc.

How would we define a centrist in these terms?[/quote]

There are no individuals. People are merely biological matter made up of cells. There is no thought or free will, merely chemical reactions.

27

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I watched some of the replays last night.

Hillary is in a tough spot. She cannot turn her back on the fringe elements of the party yet but she cannot follow their wishes either or she will spoil her chance at winning the general election.

Obama and Edwards are desperate to win the primary so they will say and do anything to cut the leader down, but if by some chance they do win the primary they will lose the general election. America wants a centrist, not a fringe candidate.

Hillary did very poorly in the debate. She cannot think on her feet very well and the political double speak is so ingrained she has a tough time getting her point across.

I could have made her drivers license point much more effectively for her.

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

Zap,

Can you imagine pandering to the fringe of the democratic party? What a bunch of freakin’ loons.

I know hillary will do anything to get elected. However, even SHE is having a hard time dealing with the nonsense put out by bradley/lumpy/100meters and their “Bush brought down the twin towers” crew.

Also if I were a democrat, I’d be pissed that my candidate of choice cannot handle tough questions. Further, I’d be pissed that they dodge venues (aka Fox News) where they might be asked uncomfortable questions. If I were a dem, I’d be thinking, “If they can’t handle Fox, how are they going to handle iran’s leader?”

One last thing to consider, the Republicans have been willing to debate under hostile circumstances. I have a feeling Rudy will have ironed out the kinks and will do much better against rodham (OR, other) in the general debates.

JeffR

[/quote]

Tough questions? Russerts questions to Hillary involved mistruths and outright lies, while he lobbed softballs to Obama and Edwards, both of whom were freely allowed to fib and dodge through their answers.

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.

And factually republicans did doge their only 2 “tough venues”
they balked at the first attempt at a youtube debate (questions from real people to hard) and didn’t show up at the Morgan State debate. So again, you’re a liar, because I know you know this.

28

[quote]100meters wrote:

Tough questions? Russerts questions to Hillary involved mistruths and outright lies, while he lobbed softballs to Obama and Edwards, both of whom were freely allowed to fib and dodge through their answers.

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.

And factually republicans did doge their only 2 “tough venues”
they balked at the first attempt at a youtube debate (questions from real people to hard) and didn’t show up at the Morgan State debate. So again, you’re a liar, because I know you know this.

[/quote]

100meters/lumpy/bradley:

I love when you use inflammatory language. It makes me tingle.

I have to say it’s almost sad watching your dreams falling apart.

It reminds me of 2004. Remember “The Contenders” on the cover?

Remember how excited you were when the polling indicated kerry was going to win?

I’m hoping for a re-run. I hope she squeaks out of the nomination wounded and harried. Then I hope you dems get all sorts of polls that keep her within 1-3 points of Rudy into election day.

Since you are so enamored of polls, you’ll spend your money (or mine) on the campaign. You’ll talk trash on this internet forum. You will convince yourself that you’ve got it in the bag. Your emotions will rise to a crescendo.

Only to plummet into the depths.

Then YOU will change your name again.

It’s so predictable that it almost isn’t fun.

Almost.

JeffR

30

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.
[/quote]

Mick,

If people think the dems were tough. Or, that the dems know her weaknesses, wait until Rudy gets a shot at her.

She’ll be begging for mercy.

Take a peek at him at the last debate. He was laughing. He even repeated her line about, “The American people don’t have enough money for all my ideas.”

The best was the laughter and him saying, “I’m serious, she said this.”

Rudy will DESTROY rodham and her fickle, dribbling, prattling, and cackling style.

You saw the look in her eyes. Rattled.

He’ll get her rattled. Her temper will get the best of her.

Bingo, election won.

JeffR

31

[quote]100meters wrote:

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton. [/quote]

Hilarious - if the MSM fawned over the navel-gazing Obama any more than they do now, they’d be on is payroll.

And Hillary barely gets a bad mention - what with impressed reporting over how much money she is bringing in, the novelty of her first-female candidacy, or how they keep noting the inevitability of her success.

You can be a liberal Democrat partisan - just do us a favor and be an honest one.

32

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.
[/quote]

One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.

Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?

JeffR

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.

Hilarious - if the MSM fawned over the navel-gazing Obama any more than they do now, they’d be on is payroll.

And Hillary barely gets a bad mention - what with impressed reporting over how much money she is bringing in, the novelty of her first-female candidacy, or how they keep noting the inevitability of her success.

You can be a liberal Democrat partisan - just do us a favor and be an honest one.

[/quote]

Thunder.

Speaking of novelty, I’ve never seen liberal, democrat, partisan and honest in a sentence before.

Can we appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether you are the very first to suggest such an association?

JeffR

34

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.

One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.

Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?

JeffR
[/quote]

You mean her standing by her man would be compared to Gulianis swapping wifes whenever the next model comes out?

She´d probably do fine…

35

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.

One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.

Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?

JeffR

You mean her standing by her man would be compared to Gulianis swapping wifes whenever the next model comes out?

She´d probably do fine…[/quote]

bota,

You don’t understand women.

Try talking to one (your mom doesn’t count.)

JeffR

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:

bota,

You don’t understand women.

Try talking to one (your mom doesn’t count.)

JeffR

[/quote]

bota,

If you can get yourself drunk enough and the woman is desperate enough to talk to you, ask her this question: Would you stay with a man who repeatedly and publicly cheats on you?

You could (if your brain doesn’t explode from being in close proximity to a non-relative female) ask a follow up question. Something along the lines of: If your husband cheats on you, would you respect him more if he divorced you or tried to hide it?

You’ve made one of your monumental bota mistakes here. You’ve essentially announced to the entire world that you bicycle alone.

One can begin to form a pattern to explain your inane ramblings.

We have guys like you. They usually play Dungeons and Dragons well into their forties.

JeffR

37

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.

True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.

If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.

The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.

One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.

Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?

JeffR
[/quote]
Isn’t his biggest liability uhh… he’s doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Starting with foreign policy? (See nutty advisors). And yes she will hint at it.

38

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:

Tough questions? Russerts questions to Hillary involved mistruths and outright lies, while he lobbed softballs to Obama and Edwards, both of whom were freely allowed to fib and dodge through their answers.

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.

And factually republicans did doge their only 2 “tough venues”
they balked at the first attempt at a youtube debate (questions from real people to hard) and didn’t show up at the Morgan State debate. So again, you’re a liar, because I know you know this.

100meters/lumpy/bradley:

I love when you use inflammatory language. It makes me tingle.

I have to say it’s almost sad watching your dreams falling apart.

It reminds me of 2004. Remember “The Contenders” on the cover?

Remember how excited you were when the polling indicated kerry was going to win?

I’m hoping for a re-run. I hope she squeaks out of the nomination wounded and harried. Then I hope you dems get all sorts of polls that keep her within 1-3 points of Rudy into election day.

Since you are so enamored of polls, you’ll spend your money (or mine) on the campaign. You’ll talk trash on this internet forum. You will convince yourself that you’ve got it in the bag. Your emotions will rise to a crescendo.

Only to plummet into the depths.

Then YOU will change your name again.

It’s so predictable that it almost isn’t fun.

Almost.

JeffR

[/quote]

I haven’t changed my name yet, although perhaps you can’t say the same, and with our hapless media determined to sandbag any democratic nominee I would never bet on a presidential win (as I did not before).

39

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.

Hilarious - if the MSM fawned over the navel-gazing Obama any more than they do now, they’d be on is payroll.

And Hillary barely gets a bad mention - what with impressed reporting over how much money she is bringing in, the novelty of her first-female candidacy, or how they keep noting the inevitability of her success.

You can be a liberal Democrat partisan - just do us a favor and be an honest one.

[/quote]

Barely a bad mention? uh? She will be serially abused by the pundits all the way to election day, while Rudy who lies like other people breathe will surely be treated with kid gloves.

For example:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, �??It�??s a no.�?? I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said �??no.�??

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, �??I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.�?? You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position

She of course, NEVER SAID NO! Russert just added that, why? It fits the narrative the pundits like to think is true.

He then goes on to bust her balls the rest of the night on his made up narrative, lobbing softballs to other canidates to help reinforce the idea

EDWARDS: [S]he said in our last debate that she was against any changes on Social Security�??benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on the Social Security tax. But apparently, it�??s been reported that she said privately something different than that.

And I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country�??s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won�??t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.

RUSSERT: You stand behind the word �??double-talk?�??

EDWARDS: I do.

Russert was happy to let Edwards tell an outright lie, with absolutely no correction.

I mean I can’t remember seeing a debate whose sole purpose seemed to be trashing a single canidate?

40

This has to be killing 100meters. Hysterical!