RE: Republican Debate part 3

RE: Republican Debate part 3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Greta75 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 9:40:38 AM)
I just finished watching the debate! I thought, Excellent job by most of the republicans except Jeb, who made himself look stupid, but there was alot of brilliant answering from them, very well prepared. I felt like Rand Paul, I don't know why is he even running. It's like his just running for the sake of carrying his father's dream to be President or something. He debates like he doesn't even care to be there. Kasich wow! I really liked him in previous debates, but Trump Crush him this time, and made him look bad. Trump really likes to find dirt on people. I still don't care for Rubio as, clearly he has issues managing his personal finance. If he makes more than 100k per annum, and is still in personal debt, claiming that he has 4 kids and he can't imagine how people who make 50k per annum survive, when he is struggling with what he earns, like seriously, his the last person you want to manage the country's budget. Sure he came from a poor background, but his earning decent wage now and still can't manage his personal finance so...., I don't know why his popular. There was one very interesting thing that caught me of it all. All of them agrees social security is going insolvent. I'm actually really intrigue by this. Why are Americans so calm about this? Isn't everyone still contributing to social security? In hopes of some retirement funds? They are saying, the government been happily dipping into their pot, American's retirement fund, for other expenses, when they run out of money, until there is nothing left for people who put their hard earn money into it to save for retirement. Like seriously? No Americans are outrage about this? It's all accepted so calmly. I mean, I form this impression by just Americans around here talking about social security, that, there is nothing left, like just resigned and acceptance. And to have Ted Cruz reconfirm that Americans his age are so resigned about this issue. Just like reaffirms this puzzlement about why aren't people like, I mean, this is the kinda thing huge protests should be happening, demanding a clear solution to get social security and medicaid to healthy levels again. I am just surprise how unimportant this is to Americans.

xBullx -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 10:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I just finished watching the debate! I thought, Excellent job by most of the republicans except Jeb, who made himself look stupid, but there was alot of brilliant answering from them, very well prepared. I felt like Rand Paul, I don't know why is he even running. It's like his just running for the sake of carrying his father's dream to be President or something. He debates like he doesn't even care to be there. Kasich wow! I really liked him in previous debates, but Trump Crush him this time, and made him look bad. Trump really likes to find dirt on people. I still don't care for Rubio as, clearly he has issues managing his personal finance. If he makes more than 100k per annum, and is still in personal debt, claiming that he has 4 kids and he can't imagine how people who make 50k per annum survive, when he is struggling with what he earns, like seriously, his the last person you want to manage the country's budget. Sure he came from a poor background, but his earning decent wage now and still can't manage his personal finance so...., I don't know why his popular. There was one very interesting thing that caught me of it all. All of them agrees social security is going insolvent. I'm actually really intrigue by this. Why are Americans so calm about this? Isn't everyone still contributing to social security? In hopes of some retirement funds? They are saying, the government been happily dipping into their pot, American's retirement fund, for other expenses, when they run out of money, until there is nothing left for people who put their hard earn money into it to save for retirement. Like seriously? No Americans are outrage about this? It's all accepted so calmly. I mean, I form this impression by just Americans around here talking about social security, that, there is nothing left, like just resigned and acceptance. And to have Ted Cruz reconfirm that Americans his age are so resigned about this issue. Just like reaffirms this puzzlement about why aren't people like, I mean, this is the kinda thing huge protests should be happening, demanding a clear solution to get social security and medicaid to healthy levels again. I am just surprise how unimportant this is to Americans. It isn't a calamity, yet! As soon as it is then you'll hear about it. The typical American ignores an issue until it effects them directly and then they tend to march the streets as members of the life isn't fair, poor me, pity party brigade. Proactively managing your life and civil affairs takes energy and effort, commodities that are generally in short supply until the bag of flaming shit lands on your own porch.

bounty44 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 1:53:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I still don't care for Rubio as, clearly he has issues managing his personal finance. If he makes more than 100k per annum, and is still in personal debt, claiming that he has 4 kids and he can't imagine how people who make 50k per annum survive, when he is struggling with what he earns, like seriously, his the last person you want to manage the country's budget. Sure he came from a poor background, but his earning decent wage now and still can't manage his personal finance so...., I don't know why his popular. i think you are mischaracterizing him and would do well to do some reading instead of taking the cnbc moderator's views of things. to my knowledge, he is not in personal debt. although, maybe he is buying a house in Washington d.c. and I don't know about that. Washington is an expensive place to live and he has 4 children he is sending to private school. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 social security is going insolvent.... I'm actually really intrigue by this. Why are Americans so calm about this? Isn't everyone still contributing to social security? In hopes of some retirement funds? They are saying, the government been happily dipping into their pot, American's retirement fund, for other expenses, when they run out of money, until there is nothing left for people who put their hard earn money into it to save for retirement. Like seriously? No Americans are outrage about this? It's all accepted so calmly. I mean, I form this impression by just Americans around here talking about social security, that, there is nothing left, like just resigned and acceptance. And to have Ted Cruz reconfirm that Americans his age are so resigned about this issue. Just like reaffirms this puzzlement about why aren't people like, I mean, this is the kinda thing huge protests should be happening, demanding a clear solution to get social security and medicaid to healthy levels again. I am just surprise how unimportant this is to Americans. I wouldn't say the issue is unimportant but unfortunately, sometimes we do have a pass the buck down the road mentality. that's a human failing, but with that said, anytime a conservative tries to get any traction towards fixing social security (or medicare and Medicaid), the liberals go berserk and accuse them of "declaring war on seniors." note that a fair number of issues where democrats and republicans disagree are reduced by the former to "waging war" (on whatever constituents") by the latter.

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 1:57:07 PM)
Well, social security whats to fix? Congress borrowed it and spent it. It is in the black as a program. Medicares bills came in way under estimates. What needs fixing is spending and revenues. One thing that could be fixed is to lift the cap. Another national single payer. And why are we talking Rubio, he cant be president. Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco Rubio was born.

MrRodgers -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 9:18:24 PM)
Gee, I wonder what happens when there's nothing left for the pentagon ? Oh how silly of me, there will always be say $600 billion or so, for the MIC. 10's of billion$ every year for cost overruns. I am sure everybody agrees that war is good for society as has been theorized. Keeps society at work and 'going forward.' [sic] Billion$ every year in profits for the equity bankers that own [it] and billion$ a year in horrendously royal salaries at the top not to mention their benefits. Then there is our oh so important corporate food stamps and welfare. We do have our priorities in order when is comes to discretionary [sic] spending.

Greta75 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/2/2015 10:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i think you are mischaracterizing him and would do well to do some reading instead of taking the cnbc moderator's views of things. to my knowledge, he is not in personal debt. although, maybe he is buying a house in Washington d.c. and I don't know about that. Washington is an expensive place to live and he has 4 children he is sending to private school. This is not the first time I heard about his personal financial issues. I read a report right from the beginning listing out all the weaknesses of all the republican candidates, and that was mentioned of Rubio for one of his weaknesses. I saw in Fox News his reported salary is 174k per annum. Seriously, sending kids to prestigious school is not an excuse. People should learn to live within their means. I just thought his excuses were simply high cost of living, that his salary is not enough for him. That was practically Rubio's answer. And yea if 174k per annum is too little money! He cannot manage the country's budget, as USA gotta really maintain tight budgeting, get on surpluses and cut ALOT of unnecessary spending. It sounds like he has disciplinary issues on his own personal spending. And I think even Fox News themselves reported that Rubio has missed more votes in the Senate than any other Senator right now. His the MOST. He wanna push it to Liberal media fault, as they didn't take down Obama and Kerry on it, but that seems irresponsible. There is a clip of him 10 years ago telling other Senators to resign if they cannot do their job and show up for votes and now hypocrisy has raised it's head. Evidence don't lie. Something is very wrong with Rubio. I never liked him from the start. I find him very sleazy and untrustworthy.

bounty44 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 4:24:36 AM)
of course senators miss votes. almost all of them do for one reason or another and especially when running for president. all the democrat senators did in the last couple of election cycles and you didn't hear the media or the democratic senators raising a stink about it then. and missing votes doesn't mean the senators aren't still doing their jobs. im not aware of a video clip showing marco Rubio telling other senators to resign if they cannot show up for votes. and even if there was, it does not make him a hypocrite. what it does is, after he has walked a mile in their shoes, it makes him understand their circumstances. so let me change my dog and tail wagging as concerns the cnbc moderator giving you the impression about rubio's finances----he still isn't in personal debt. and "sending his kids to a prestigious school is not an excuse"---for what? (unless you show me otherwise) like I said, he's not in debt. I don't know what school he sends his kids. I didn't mention "prestigious", I just mentioned private, which means tuition. I doubt you mean it this way, so my question is more rhetorical---you want to begrudge a father for doing the very best he can for his kids? what exactly is he doing that's fiscally irresponsible? and perhaps more importantly, exactly how is that the president "manages the budget?" you can dislike the fellow based on a gut feeling or impression of his character, I do the same with people, but the question about Rubio's finances and "managing the country's budget" is more or less a false one designed to destroy him.

Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 4:59:17 AM)
"You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money." Years before Rubio became speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in 2006, he created two political committees to pay for travel and other expenses. A 2010 Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald investigation found he failed to disclose paying $34,000 in expenses, including $7,000 to himself. He paid his wife, Jeanette, who was treasurer of one of the committees, $5,700 for "gas and meals." Rubio also gave relatives another $14,000 and charged $51,000 in travel expenses to his own credit cards. Speaking of credit cards: In 2005, the Republican Party of Florida gave him an American Express card for expenses. Rubio charged thousands of dollars' worth of restaurant meals while his meals in Tallahassee were being covered by taxpayers as part of being in the state House. Rubio routinely used the party's card to pay personal expenses, which he later repaid. Those included a rental car, repairs to his personal vehicle, flights to Tallahassee, a family reunion trip and paver work to his home. The Florida Commission on Ethics in 2012 dismissed a complaint alleging misuse of funds. Rubio wrote in his book that the expenses were the result of simple mix-ups. "For example, I pulled the wrong card from my wallet to pay for pavers," he wrote. Another time, "my travel agent mistakenly used the card to pay for a family reunion in Georgia." "You faced foreclosure on a second home that you bought." In 2005, Rubio bought a house in Tallahassee with then-state Rep. David Rivera for $135,000. The pair used the home while in town on state business. Foreclosure proceedings were started in 2010 when Rivera failed to make mortgage payments for five months. The loan had been structured for interest-only payments on an adjustable rate mortgage until April 2010. Rubio and Rivera stopped paying the loan in February because of a dispute over how much the payments would be after April. In June 2010, Deutsche Bank filed a lawsuit for $136,000, prompting Rivera to make a hasty payment for the missing months. Foreclosure proceedings were stopped. They sold the house in June 2015 for $117,000. "And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That's something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties." Rubio disclosed in May 2015 he had cashed out a tax-advantaged retirement account on Sept. 1, 2014, closing an American Bar Association account for the cash infusion. "It was just one specific account that we wanted to have access to cash in the coming year, both because I'm running for president, but, also, you know, my refrigerator broke down. That was $3,000. I had to replace the air conditioning unit in our home," Rubio told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. Because of the way most traditional IRAs are structured, Rubio was able to put money into the account without paying taxes. When he closed the account, by law he would have likely had to pay both income taxes and a 10 percent penalty, which could have ranged as high as $30,000, It's unclear how much he paid. So all of these events happened and have been well-documented. We rate Rubio's statement False. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/30/marco-rubio/debate-rubio-calls-tally-financial-mishaps-pack-di/ of course there is always a piece from the NY times dated June, way before the debate last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?_r=0

bounty44 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 6:39:06 AM)
my question is not whether those things occurred, its whether or not they make him "fiscally irresponsible." he very well could be, but the only thing I see above that's nettlesome is the "failure to disclose" expenses and that's not about fiscal irresponsibility as much as it is about being law/rule abiding in that particular instance. if that's true, its a pock mark against him. but then, what has he himself said about that charge? as to the other stuff---having to liquidate a retirement account isn't being irresponsible, its using your own money to deal with life's exigencies. it happens to people frequently through little or no fault of their own. quote: "Foreclosure proceedings were started in 2010 when Rivera failed to make mortgage payments for five months. The loan had been structured for interest-only payments on an adjustable rate mortgage until April 2010. Rubio and Rivera stopped paying the loan in February because of a dispute over how much the payments would be after April." somethings missing from that story---why does one stop making payments 3 months before an ARM would take effect? and having to sell a house for a relatively small loss isn't necessarily fiscally irresponsible either. we don't know the whole story behind the reason to sell it, the nature of the local market at the time and getting out from underneath a bad deal, and cutting one's losses, may have been a wise/smart thing to do. neither is "mingling" credit cards bad. these are common occurrences. if I use a business card for a personal expense, or a personal card for a business expense, and each instance is followed up with the necessary transparency and paperwork, there is no "fiscal irresponsibility" there. you'll note the "ethics charge" that was leveled at him was dismissed. it would probably be better for Rubio to not have had those instances in his past and I don't totally feel on solid ground defending him---but with that said, in some cases I don't think they necessarily make him fiscally irresponsible. we're also missing parts of the story, and it seems, his full explanations of them. in other cases, its people making more out of the situation than it warrants. its what the left, less interested in the truth, and more interested in hurting an opponent, does to their "enemies" my last, and most important question is still the case: exactly how is it that the president "manages the budget?"

joether -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 6:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant To Joether: Bad questions debatable? Even other liberal media sites called them on it. Such as SALON: CNBC just set the standard for catastrophic debate performances JACK MIRKINSON Share 812 84WhatsApp 32 It is usually a fool’s errand to make any predictions about something as fluid as a presidential campaign, but I’m comfortable with this particular gaze into the crystal ball: It’ll be a while before CNBC gets to host another Republican debate. There’s no getting around it: The network did a terrible job. From the moment people tuned in at 8 p.m. and saw a bunch of barely articulate anchors jabbering incoherently for an endless 15 minutes right to the second the debate met a merciful end, CNBC presented a textbook example of what not to do. (One quick aside: Can we please do away with the notion that a billionaire-worshiping network that helped launch the Tea Party is any kind of objective arbiter when it comes to the American economy?) Such as MSNBC: Joe Scarborough Rips Sister Network CNBC’s ‘Horrible Debate,’ John Harwood’s ‘Embarrassing’ Question Jordan Chariton October 29, 2015 Joe Scarborough Rips Sister Network CNBC’s ‘Horrible Debate,’ John Harwood’s ‘Embarrassing’ Question Joe Scarborough didn’t mince words on Thursday about sister network CNBC’s “horrible” GOP debate, and named names when it came to moderators who fell short. “The first question was just absolutely embarrassing,” Scarborough said about CNBC’s co-moderator John Harwood asking Donald Trump if he was running a “comic book” campaign. “I’m sure I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but John Harwood opening up by making a clown reference to Donald Trump and then saying you have as much chance as flapping your wings and flying away…” he continued. Think progress.org. Share Tweet POLITICS The CNBC Republican Debate Was A Total Trainwreck BY EMILY ATKIN OCT 28, 2015 10:21PM Reporters from both conservative and liberal-minded news organizations seem to agree: the CNBC Republican presidential debate was kind of a trainwreck. That wasn’t really because of the candidates, though — it was because of the moderators. For the first hour, CNBC moderators Becky Quick, John Harwood, and Carl Quintanilla didn’t let candidates interact with each other, resulting in multiple moments of incomprehensible yelling. This may have been because of stricter time limits — this particular 10-candidate debate was only two hours, while the previous Republican debates have spanned three hours. But constant interruption wasn’t the only problem. Candidates were also highly critical of the CNBC crew, accusing them of being part of the “liberal media.” At one point, Ted Cruz ripped into the moderators for asking what he called unfair and non-substantive questions. And in two instances, audience members actually booed at questions the moderators asked of Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. Now, joether...that's just from 3 liberal sites. They all agree the moderators asked non-interactive, embarrassing, inarticulate, non-substantive questions. Given the total refutation of your first stance...by liberal sources, no less...what's that make the rest of your opinion worth? No candidate really shone last night...but you have to wonder...were they given a chance to? Your post is so scatter of content its not worth reading. If the GOP/TP candidates have trouble with three moderators from CBNC, how will they manage against China and Russia? Since those countries, including Iran and North Korea view all GOP/TP candidates as losers. In other words, they do not take them as a serious threat to their agendas. Notice not one of them states the same towards Hillary Clinton? The upcoming FOX 'debate' will be nothing more than a planned multi person press conference. All the questions will be known to candidates ahead of time, so every response can be rehearsed and tailored to the ignorant public. Yes, the people the GOP/TP will be speaking to at that event will be 'The Low Information Voter'. The only 'in-fighting' upon candidates will be for theater rather than holding an actual view that is different. That is because their host for the event is well known for being untruthful, un-vetting of information, and bias towards one political party. The only thing we'll get out of this upcoming debate is to see how individuals will tow the party line rather than being an individual. Yes, they'll all be against abortion, Climate Change, Evolution, better technology for energy/farming/jobs, good economic ideas, promoting education, and a nation that works together. They may deviate from each of these positions by a few degrees, but largely, what one states, the other agrees 'fully'. To ask real questions, means forcing those candidates to actually use that lump three feet above their ass for something besides a paper weight. But the GOP/TP and FOX 'news' already know they do not have to work the candidates that hard. Since their audience is more ignorant then a rock. Now if we wanted serious answers to serious questions, we would give each of them an 11 hour exam like the GOP/TP gave to Hillary Clinton. Give all those questions meant to 'ruffle their feathers'; see how well they perform on the hot seat against question after question. By Democrats hell bent on destroying them.

Greta75 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 6:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 of course senators miss votes. almost all of them do for one reason or another and especially when running for president. all the democrat senators did in the last couple of election cycles and you didn't hear the media or the democratic senators raising a stink about it then. and missing votes doesn't mean the senators aren't still doing their jobs. That's because his now holding the record of missing the most votes ever of all Senators! Of course people should make a stink! He shouldn't be beating Obama and Kerry in missing even more votes than them! You know, if even Jeb is attacking him for that, you know his missing ALOT of votes, excessively. Jeb was suppose to be his mentor or something. Can't manage his personal finance, can't show up for work. Not a good President. I have a feeling his personal life is in an absolute mess. Struggling with time management and balancing his budgets. Basically, his blaming others for his own ineptitude. I do not like that attitude. Imagine if I blame my colleagues for making such a big deal of me not turning up for work to my bosses. If his gonna be elected President, he works for you guys, and he shouldn't even try to say that why the media is hyping that up, when, it's seriously an irresponsible thing. And he himself know it's irresponsible because he said it himself 10 years ago, to other Senators who were missing votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LplEUY9Nv3Q <-- link to clip Wow, it's not even 10 years ago! I don't know where I got 10 years from!

Greta75 -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 6:59:04 AM)
quote: having to liquidate a retirement account isn't being irresponsible, its using your own money to deal with life's exigencies. it happens to people frequently through little or no fault of their own. From what I read, he claims he needs it for children's University. His kids are toddlers. So his very dodgy.

joether -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 7:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 what exactly is he doing that's fiscally irresponsible? The simple answer is: "He's on the Republican Party Mindset". A better answer would be.... The man supports slashing the federal budget by many hundreds of billions and all at once. At the same time, reducing taxes to the American people. Sounds good, right? The problems with this ideology have been debunked by economists for two decades now. Give you a question: What does the United States Government buy with just $100 Billion in jobs? Because the amount of jobs lose with the reduction of just one $100 billion unit of money is measured in the high hundreds of thousands. The biggest hit is the private sector. Then 'down stream jobs', followed by the public sector. The nation has a pretty decent economy right now. Dropping half the amount the Tea Party demands would sent 9-14 million US Workers into the Unemployment market within six months! The unemployment rate would skyrocket, investors would suddenly become bearish, resulting in ANOTHER round of layoffs in many industrial sectors of a few million more American jobs. The economy goes to shit, placing a huge burden on towns, counties, and states across the nation! Meanwhile the nation ends up 'picking up the tab' for expenses of states. That all gets added on to the national debt. The 'red' states will be the hardest hit, given their economies right now in 2015 are a tad bit above 'sluggish'. The number of people losing their jobs in those states would be astronomical. Whole patches of the nation would simply cease to produce anything of value or good. Staying that way for a number of years (maybe even a decade or two). An while the GOP/TP candidates are reducing the budget and giving us tax breaks, just weeks/months before the first (of many) layoffs take place; how do they effectively tackle the federal debt this nation has? These guys are about as 'fiscal responsible' with the nation's wealth as ISIS would be if we gave them charge to handle funds. They are the ones that created the national debt during the former Bush Administration. They reduced taxes but failed to reduce the budget by the same amount. The process was called 'Starve the Beast'. It didn't work, because of....HOW....they went about the process. For every one dollar taken out of their 'sacred cows', they tried to take eight from the Democrat's 'sacred cows'. The Democrats totally resisted (as they should). So in year 2000, that nice surplus the nation enjoyed was turned into a deficit. Each year of Mr. Bush's administration saw a large deficit grow. All of it being added to the national debt. Where were all the GOP/TP in complaining about the actions of their own party? quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 and perhaps more importantly, exactly how is that the president "manages the budget?" The President of the United States role as it concerns the budget is mentioned in the US Constitution. As the sole representation of the Executive Branch, its his duty to sign off the budget from Congress, unless a super majority exists in both the House and Senate sufficient to by pass the President. So if the Republicans send a budget laced with 'pro-GOP/TP projects' and very little 'pro-America projects', the President is well within his/her right to reject the bill. So it forces the GOP/TP to create a budget that could be passed, rather than allowing their mindless ideologies to dictate financial policy. The only way to deal with the federal budget and problems (i.e. the national debt), is to reduce the budget by one or two units of $100 Billion, while raising taxes. Apply this money from both sources to create a structured program that reduces the federal debt over the next 15-20 years. Kind of like buying a house on a macro economical level. But the GOP/TP can not handle that idea. They lack the maturity to do the position they hold justice for the American people. So before you go and bash the President and Democrats; make sure your holding your own political party to the same level of accountability and responsible with the nation's wealth. If not twice the amount, since you seem to think they are so much better than the Democrats in public office! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 you can dislike the fellow based on a gut feeling or impression of his character, I do the same with people, but the question about Rubio's finances and "managing the country's budget" is more or less a false one designed to destroy him. Let's play the world's smallest violin for bounty, everyone..... Your party has.....savagely.....attacked President Obama for the last seven years. On everything from 'where he was born' to the Affordable Care Act. If you don't like it done to your candidates, why do you do it to other people's? If its 'OK' to attack other people's candidates, then its equally 'OK' for those people to attack yours. Don't like it? Then set the example! That implies going after your own fellow GOP/TP'ers when they attack Democrats too. There is something we do not see in America right now!

mnottertail -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 7:59:14 AM)
quote: my question is not whether those things occurred, its whether or not they make him "fiscally irresponsible." Uh, if you dont know and follow financial laws; then by definition, you are fiscally irresponsible.

Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 8:28:25 AM)
Fiorina finally admits her protestations are wrong, well one of them at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUj44TdJNbE Fiorina Admits She ‘Misspoke’ in Debate Claim About Women Losing Jobs Under Obama Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina acknowledged that she was incorrect during last week’s primary debate when she claimed “92 percent of the jobs lost during [President] Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.” After the debate, fact checkers pointed out Fiorina had recycled the statistic from former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who first made the claim in the 2012 election. It rated “Mostly False” by Politifact four years ago. "I misspoke on that particular fact," Fiorina said on ABC’s “This Week.” Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina acknowledged that she was incorrect during last week’s primary debate when she claimed “92 percent of the jobs lost during [President] Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.” After the debate, fact checkers pointed out Fiorina had recycled the statistic from former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who first made the claim in the 2012 election. It rated “Mostly False” by Politifact four years ago. "I misspoke on that particular fact," Fiorina said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The fact-checkers are correct," she said. “The 92 percent -- it turns out -- was the first three and a half years of [President] Barack Obama’s term and in the final six months of his term things improved,” she said Sunday. Fiorina then criticized the “liberal media” for picking apart the statistic rather than her broader argument, which was that liberal polices are bad for women economically. “It is factually true that the number of women living in extreme poverty is at the highest rate in recorded history,” she said. “It is factually true that 16.1 percent of women live below the poverty line, the highest level in 20 years. It is factually true that 3 million women have fallen into poverty.” Fiorina, whose polls numbers benefitted from strong performances in the first two primary debates, said she was pleased with her performance in Wednesday night’s debate on CNBC. Fiorina said her campaign would not be represented at a meeting of Republican campaigns convening in Washington, D.C., Sunday night to discuss a potential overhaul of the primary debate system following the most recent debate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carly-fiorina-wrong-92-claim/story?id=34889134

Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/3/2015 8:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 of course senators miss votes. almost all of them do for one reason or another and especially when running for president. all the democrat senators did in the last couple of election cycles and you didn't hear the media or the democratic senators raising a stink about it then. and missing votes doesn't mean the senators aren't still doing their jobs. That's because his now holding the record of missing the most votes ever of all Senators! Of course people should make a stink! He shouldn't be beating Obama and Kerry in missing even more votes than them! You know, if even Jeb is attacking him for that, you know his missing ALOT of votes, excessively. Jeb was suppose to be his mentor or something. Can't manage his personal finance, can't show up for work. Not a good President. I have a feeling his personal life is in an absolute mess. Struggling with time management and balancing his budgets. Basically, his blaming others for his own ineptitude. I do not like that attitude. Imagine if I blame my colleagues for making such a big deal of me not turning up for work to my bosses. If his gonna be elected President, he works for you guys, and he shouldn't even try to say that why the media is hyping that up, when, it's seriously an irresponsible thing. And he himself know it's irresponsible because he said it himself 10 years ago, to other Senators who were missing votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LplEUY9Nv3Q <-- link to clip Wow, it's not even 10 years ago! I don't know where I got 10 years from! hey....we agree!! nice find.

thompsonx -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/4/2015 4:26:27 PM)
one candidate/commentator (I forget who) suggested it doesn't make sense for people who wouldn't be voting for a republican in the primary to be the ones asking questions of republicans in a debate. How does one have he balls to post this sort of nonsense? You start out telling us you do not know what or who you are talking about and then tell us that it does not make sense for people to question candidates for public office unless they are going to vote for those candiates. How does one find out if one candidate or another is worthy of their vote?[8\|]

Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/5/2015 4:30:40 AM)
Greta... this is an update on some reporting about rubios problems with money. It was largely overlooked in the post-event hype, but one of the more important moments in last week’s Republican debate focused on an issue that’s flown largely under the radar. CNBC’s Becky Quick reminded Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) of his “bookkeeping” troubles: “You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money. You faced foreclosure on a second home that you bought. And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That’s something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties. In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?” The Florida senator replied, “Well, you just listed a litany of discredited attacks from Democrats and my political opponents, and I’m not gonna waste 60 seconds detailing them all.” The problem, of course, is that the question – literally, every detail – was entirely correct. Not one of these claims has ever been “discredited.” Rubio’s attempt to deflect an uncomfortable inquiry was, by any fair measure, a lie. And now that Rubio has been elevated to the top tier in the GOP race, the issue is starting to become more important. Just yesterday, Donald Trump told reporters, in reference to Rubio, “For years I’ve been hearing that his credit cards are a disaster.” Jeb Bush added that the issue is “fair game.” The Tampa Bay Times has moved the ball forward with this new report. It has become legend in Florida political circles, a missing chapter in Marco Rubio’s convoluted financial story: two years of credit card transactions from his time in the state House, when he and other Republican leaders freely spent party money. Details about the spending, which included repairs for Rubio’s family minivan, emerged in his 2010 U.S. Senate race. But voters got only half the story because the candidate refused to disclose additional records. Some of this is already beyond the realm of “allegations.” Rubio has acknowledged his misuse of a Republican Party credit card to purchase personal items, including using party money to repair his minivan, and charging $10,000 to attend a family reunion. The Floridian conceded several years ago that the story “looks bad,” adding, “I shouldn’t have done it that way.” There was also an incident in which he double-billed the party and taxpayers for airline travel, though he paid back the money. But the Tampa Bay Times’ reporting yesterday tells us the story is incomplete due to details Rubio has not yet disclosed. Charlie Crist, Rubio’s opponent in 2010, tried to make the spending an issue, but Rubio rode a tea party wave to blow past the then Republican governor, the start of national attention that has propelled him into the presidential race. Through it all, Rubio has refused to provide credit card statements from 2005 and 2006. “Those credit card statements are an internal party matter. I’m not going to release them,” he told the editorial board of the Times-Union of Jacksonville in September 2010. Attempts by reporters and Rubio’s rivals to obtain them have fallen flat, leading to speculation about what they might contain. The Orlando Sentinel’s Scott Maxwell added over the weekend: [Rubio] entered the Florida Legislature nearly broke and with $30,000 in credit-card debt – but managed to live high on the hog thanks to a GOP credit card funded largely by special interests that wanted legislative favors. […] Rubio has admitted most of this, repaying improper expenditures and expressing regret for what he called mistakes. But last week facts became “discredited attacks.” […] Rubio’s baggage is his actual track record – much of which runs counter to the virtues he claims to embrace. Dear senator, with great hype comes great responsibility. Ready or not, the scrutiny is coming. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rubios-financial-problems-come-back-haunt-him?cid=sm_fb_maddow now it is a left leaning site, but there are links to both the reporting papers/websites that the article is built around. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/marco-rubio-spent-lavishly-on-a-gop-credit-card-but-some-transactions-are/2252470 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/marco-rubios-house-horrors http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-marco-rubio-president-scott-maxwell-20151031-column.html# Personally, that he and nobody has been able to rebutt any of the claims, or back up their claims of it being untrue says more to me than anything else. much as bounty doesn't want to see, it is a problem for him .

CreativeDominant -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/5/2015 9:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant To Joether: Bad questions debatable? Even other liberal media sites called them on it. Such as SALON: CNBC just set the standard for catastrophic debate performances JACK MIRKINSON Share 812 84WhatsApp 32 It is usually a fool’s errand to make any predictions about something as fluid as a presidential campaign, but I’m comfortable with this particular gaze into the crystal ball: It’ll be a while before CNBC gets to host another Republican debate. There’s no getting around it: The network did a terrible job. From the moment people tuned in at 8 p.m. and saw a bunch of barely articulate anchors jabbering incoherently for an endless 15 minutes right to the second the debate met a merciful end, CNBC presented a textbook example of what not to do. (One quick aside: Can we please do away with the notion that a billionaire-worshiping network that helped launch the Tea Party is any kind of objective arbiter when it comes to the American economy?) Such as MSNBC: Joe Scarborough Rips Sister Network CNBC’s ‘Horrible Debate,’ John Harwood’s ‘Embarrassing’ Question Jordan Chariton October 29, 2015 Joe Scarborough Rips Sister Network CNBC’s ‘Horrible Debate,’ John Harwood’s ‘Embarrassing’ Question Joe Scarborough didn’t mince words on Thursday about sister network CNBC’s “horrible” GOP debate, and named names when it came to moderators who fell short. “The first question was just absolutely embarrassing,” Scarborough said about CNBC’s co-moderator John Harwood asking Donald Trump if he was running a “comic book” campaign. “I’m sure I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but John Harwood opening up by making a clown reference to Donald Trump and then saying you have as much chance as flapping your wings and flying away…” he continued. Think progress.org. Share Tweet POLITICS The CNBC Republican Debate Was A Total Trainwreck BY EMILY ATKIN OCT 28, 2015 10:21PM Reporters from both conservative and liberal-minded news organizations seem to agree: the CNBC Republican presidential debate was kind of a trainwreck. That wasn’t really because of the candidates, though — it was because of the moderators. For the first hour, CNBC moderators Becky Quick, John Harwood, and Carl Quintanilla didn’t let candidates interact with each other, resulting in multiple moments of incomprehensible yelling. This may have been because of stricter time limits — this particular 10-candidate debate was only two hours, while the previous Republican debates have spanned three hours. But constant interruption wasn’t the only problem. Candidates were also highly critical of the CNBC crew, accusing them of being part of the “liberal media.” At one point, Ted Cruz ripped into the moderators for asking what he called unfair and non-substantive questions. And in two instances, audience members actually booed at questions the moderators asked of Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. Now, joether...that's just from 3 liberal sites. They all agree the moderators asked non-interactive, embarrassing, inarticulate, non-substantive questions. Given the total refutation of your first stance...by liberal sources, no less...what's that make the rest of your opinion worth? No candidate really shone last night...but you have to wonder...were they given a chance to? Your post is so scatter of content its not worth reading. If the GOP/TP candidates have trouble with three moderators from CBNC, how will they manage against China and Russia? Since those countries, including Iran and North Korea view all GOP/TP candidates as losers. In other words, they do not take them as a serious threat to their agendas. Notice not one of them states the same towards Hillary Clinton? The upcoming FOX 'debate' will be nothing more than a planned multi person press conference. All the questions will be known to candidates ahead of time, so every response can be rehearsed and tailored to the ignorant public. Yes, the people the GOP/TP will be speaking to at that event will be 'The Low Information Voter'. The only 'in-fighting' upon candidates will be for theater rather than holding an actual view that is different. That is because their host for the event is well known for being untruthful, un-vetting of information, and bias towards one political party. The only thing we'll get out of this upcoming debate is to see how individuals will tow the party line rather than being an individual. Yes, they'll all be against abortion, Climate Change, Evolution, better technology for energy/farming/jobs, good economic ideas, promoting education, and a nation that works together. They may deviate from each of these positions by a few degrees, but largely, what one states, the other agrees 'fully'. To ask real questions, means forcing those candidates to actually use that lump three feet above their ass for something besides a paper weight. But the GOP/TP and FOX 'news' already know they do not have to work the candidates that hard. Since their audience is more ignorant then a rock. Now if we wanted serious answers to serious questions, we would give each of them an 11 hour exam like the GOP/TP gave to Hillary Clinton. Give all those questions meant to 'ruffle their feathers'; see how well they perform on the hot seat against question after question. By Democrats hell bent on destroying them. 2 points , bird brain: 1. Anytime someone comes up with something you can't refute, you dismiss it. I gave you several examples of liberal sites denigrating CNBC for their moderators' performance. I passed the stories directly from the sites. If that's too scattered for you, that is on the sites or on you. I tend to think the latter. 2. Why should any of those candidates be grilled for 11 hours? Did any of them continue to lie in families' ears even though they knew the truth?

BamaD -> RE: Republican Debate part 3 (11/5/2015 2:15:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 of course senators miss votes. almost all of them do for one reason or another and especially when running for president. all the democrat senators did in the last couple of election cycles and you didn't hear the media or the democratic senators raising a stink about it then. and missing votes doesn't mean the senators aren't still doing their jobs. That's because his now holding the record of missing the most votes ever of all Senators! Of course people should make a stink! He shouldn't be beating Obama and Kerry in missing even more votes than them! You know, if even Jeb is attacking him for that, you know his missing ALOT of votes, excessively. Jeb was suppose to be his mentor or something. Can't manage his personal finance, can't show up for work. Not a good President. I have a feeling his personal life is in an absolute mess. Struggling with time management and balancing his budgets. Basically, his blaming others for his own ineptitude. I do not like that attitude. Imagine if I blame my colleagues for making such a big deal of me not turning up for work to my bosses. If his gonna be elected President, he works for you guys, and he shouldn't even try to say that why the media is hyping that up, when, it's seriously an irresponsible thing. And he himself know it's irresponsible because he said it himself 10 years ago, to other Senators who were missing votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LplEUY9Nv3Q <-- link to clip Wow, it's not even 10 years ago! I don't know where I got 10 years from! No both Obama and Kerry missed almost twice as many votes as Rubio, and the same people who are saying he should drop out because of it indorsed both of them. What votes did he miss, that is important. If he wasn't there to vote on Mothers day, who cares? If the vote was going to be 90 to 9 without him, who cares? It was just another gotcha question. The way they were going I expected the infamous have you stopped beating your wife question. I mean really, "are you running your campaign like a comic book story?". They could have gotten better, fairer, and more revealing questions from high school students.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625