Trying, TRYING, to sort out the Republican Candidate Debates....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nwtrucker

My issue with elections is that we get to choose from a list of candidates that were pre-selected. It gives us the illusion of choice.
Give me an outsider, a dark horse over any of them. What they say is meaningless. It's what they DO that counts.

I'm curious, does Trump not fit that description? Carson? Carli?

Carly, I think is there, I think, just so they can't be told they didn't take a woman seriously. She is not exactly an 'outsider' just because she comes from the private sector.

Carson, I think is too outside, he comes from another planet, and not a good one.

Trump has never been outside of anything. He has pushed his way into the spotlight for many years. Not a political outsider as he has given so much money to politicians.

Carly, was my first choice. We will have to disagree on Carson and Trump. Both are very outside the political machine. Just because one buys a steak in a restaurant doesn't make him a 'master chef' in the eyes of those that cooked it for him...

Trump IS an outsider. he has both parties and the media FUBAR'd. If you cannot see that, well....it's you who's on your own little planet...

I said Carson is very outside.

Personal attacks on ATSers are childish.

a reply to: Bennyzilla
No , your right let's not quibble over small things like that. Didn't meanto get personal, just been used to the personal responsibility mantra from conservatives over the years. Seems they always find others to blame instead of looking at their own party's performances in recent presidential elections

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: nwtrucker

Trump is a helluva campaign manager for himself then.
I really think he has a cloistered group doing nothing but lurking social media to find hot botton issues that will make joe six pack cheer and everyone else groan in order to gain the free publicity.

I think Fiorino would be a great cabinet addition or Senator. Running a computer company isn't like running a country. She has great organizational skills and is incredibly intelligent, but I don't think she has a proverbial pulse of the people. You can't lay off a huge portion of the government or populace in order to put the books in the black.

I'd agree with your views until the last one. Survival trumps compassion. Leaning down the federal Gov't while stimulating private sector growth is about the only options left. I believe that's how Reagan balanced California's budget...with a bit of compassion. Hiring freezes were the order of the day. Rather than wholesale lay-offs, he let it thin down via retirement, etc.

Apparently, Being a senator isn't like running a country either.... Many levels to that one...

originally posted by: introvert

And CNN is hardly liberal. MSNBC is liberal. CNN is middle-of-the-road, luke-warm news for airports and waiting rooms.

I hate to use the old cliche, but "That's what they want you to think."

MSNBC "leans" left, FOX "leans" right, so CNN must be objective news for reasonable, apolitical people, right? What CNN actually does is push the common agenda. They support every war or military action that comes down the pike, whether it's instigated by the left or right. They support every attempt by either the left or the right to limit rights or freedoms. They support Israel no matter what they do or want. They support bank bailouts whether the people want them or not. They support Obamacare in spite of the fact that it has been a disaster for most people, but not insurance companies.

I could cite more examples, but I feel that CNN pushes the agendas of the military industrial complex, Wall St., insurance companies, Israel, and large corporations. All under the guise of "This is what a reasonable person should think." And they are not opposed to using outright lies to push these agendas.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nwtrucker

My issue with elections is that we get to choose from a list of candidates that were pre-selected. It gives us the illusion of choice.
Give me an outsider, a dark horse over any of them. What they say is meaningless. It's what they DO that counts.

I'm curious, does Trump not fit that description? Carson? Carli?

Carly, I think is there, I think, just so they can't be told they didn't take a woman seriously. She is not exactly an 'outsider' just because she comes from the private sector.

Carson, I think is too outside, he comes from another planet, and not a good one.

Trump has never been outside of anything. He has pushed his way into the spotlight for many years. Not a political outsider as he has given so much money to politicians.

Carly, was my first choice. We will have to disagree on Carson and Trump. Both are very outside the political machine. Just because one buys a steak in a restaurant doesn't make him a 'master chef' in the eyes of those that cooked it for him...

Trump IS an outsider. he has both parties and the media FUBAR'd. If you cannot see that, well....it's you who's on your own little planet...

I said Carson is very outside.

Personal attacks on ATSers are childish.

Ah, third person attacks are acceptable, however. I stand corrected. To wit Carson...

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: introvert

And CNN is hardly liberal. MSNBC is liberal. CNN is middle-of-the-road, luke-warm news for airports and waiting rooms.

I hate to use the old cliche, but "That's what they want you to think."

MSNBC "leans" left, FOX "leans" right, so CNN must be objective news for reasonable, apolitical people, right? What CNN actually does is push the common agenda. They support every war or military action that comes down the pike, whether it's instigated by the left or right. They support every attempt by either the left or the right to limit rights or freedoms. They support Israel no matter what they do or want. They support bank bailouts whether the people want them or not. They support Obamacare in spite of the fact that it has been a disaster for most people, but not insurance companies.

I could cite more examples, but I feel that CNN pushes the agendas of the military industrial complex, Wall St., insurance companies, Israel, and large corporations. All under the guise of "This is what a reasonable person should think." And they are not opposed to using outright lies to push these agendas.

The common agenda? That commonality is nothing more than the same advertisers. One doesn't piss off those that pay the bills. Rather simple isn't it.

By the way those insurance companies are getting slaughtered by ObamaCare. That was the intent. Wipe out the whole system and implement, gradually, a single payer...gov't system.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Agree with you wholeheartedly. There was no need for a new Department of Homeland Security. Someone just needed to say, Hey CIA play nice with the FBI when something big is going down.
But as population swells, so does the need for government services. Sure we can pare down. I'm fearful of our infrastructure, though. I think this is one of those topics that is being ignored and will eventually end up in epic disasters that could have been prevented. The government can't survive in the face of a failure of roads, rails, and waterways to deliver goods, or of providers to deliver power and water. Yet, it seems that infrastructure is always put on the back burner. I didn't vote for him, but had hope that "shovel ready jobs" was a thing.
Yeah, I know hope in one hand and s#!z in the other...

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: nwtrucker

Agree with you wholeheartedly. There was no need for a new Department of Homeland Security. Someone just needed to say, Hey CIA play nice with the FBI when something big is going down.
But as population swells, so does the need for government services. Sure we can pare down. I'm fearful of our infrastructure, though. I think this is one of those topics that is being ignored and will eventually end up in epic disasters that could have been prevented. The government can't survive in the face of a failure of roads, rails, and waterways to deliver goods, or of providers to deliver power and water. Yet, it seems that infrastructure is always put on the back burner. I didn't vote for him, but had hope that "shovel ready jobs" was a thing.
Yeah, I know hope in one hand and s#!z in the other...

A pretty large infrastructure deal went through Congress, I believe just last week. (I wasn't happy about it personally as the states and the Feds both have plenty of revenue to maintain and expand the infrastructure just with gas and diesel tax revenues. they just burn it up elsewhere for political gain. So we end up further in debt? )

Same old, same old...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The common agenda? That commonality is nothing more than the same advertisers. One doesn't piss off those that pay the bills. Rather simple isn't it.

By the way those insurance companies are getting slaughtered by ObamaCare. That was the intent. Wipe out the whole system and implement, gradually, a single payer...gov't system.

Well, naturally CNN has to be financially supported, and those supporters are going to be those who have their agendas promoted by CNN. But, of course, you'll find the same commercials on FOX and MSNBC. All three have commercials for new drugs to treat conditions you never knew existed. All three have auto insurance commercials featuring Flo, The General, and the Gecko. And all three have regular pundits who are almost exclusively "ex" DoD employees.

I don't buy the health insurance company poor-mouthing. I'm old enough to remember the same arguments when it came to forcing people to buy auto insurance. "Oh no! If people aren't forced to buy auto insurance we will have to go out of business and you will have all these accidents and everyone will go broke." Now, you can't watch 15 minutes of TV without seeing a commercial telling you how much you can save by switching your car insurance company. These formerly "near-bankrupt" companies spend hundreds of millions on advertising. That's money they take in premiums and don't pay out in claims, and that's not even considered profits. "Flo" alone makes about a half million a year.

Give it another decade, and you'll be inundated by health insurance commercials featuring "Nurse Nancy" and a few computer generated animated characters telling you how much you can save on your health insurance by switching to their company. When you do, think of the money they are spending on advertising that could have gone into actual health care.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The common agenda? That commonality is nothing more than the same advertisers. One doesn't piss off those that pay the bills. Rather simple isn't it.

By the way those insurance companies are getting slaughtered by ObamaCare. That was the intent. Wipe out the whole system and implement, gradually, a single payer...gov't system.

Well, naturally CNN has to be financially supported, and those supporters are going to be those who have their agendas promoted by CNN. But, of course, you'll find the same commercials on FOX and MSNBC. All three have commercials for new drugs to treat conditions you never knew existed. All three have auto insurance commercials featuring Flo, The General, and the Gecko. And all three have regular pundits who are almost exclusively "ex" DoD employees.

I don't buy the health insurance company poor-mouthing. I'm old enough to remember the same arguments when it came to forcing people to buy auto insurance. "Oh no! If people aren't forced to buy auto insurance we will have to go out of business and you will have all these accidents and everyone will go broke." Now, you can't watch 15 minutes of TV without seeing a commercial telling you how much you can save by switching your car insurance company. These formerly "near-bankrupt" companies spend hundreds of millions on advertising. That's money they take in premiums and don't pay out in claims, and that's not even considered profits. "Flo" alone makes about a half million a year.

Give it another decade, and you'll be inundated by health insurance commercials featuring "Nurse Nancy" and a few computer generated animated characters telling you how much you can save on your health insurance by switching to their company. When you do, think of the money they are spending on advertising that could have gone into actual health care.

Totally agree re the drug companies. The insurance crowd? Sigh, your point is well taken, but the auto insurance crowd weren't facing a federal take-over like these guys are. No angels agreed, more 'no angel' players these days....