Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

So....any predictions for the GOP debate tonight?

Whoever has the best economic knowledge? One thing that is guaranteed is Trump and Fiorina arguing about who's the better businessperson.

Also, Maniac and other people with economics majors, you ready to be our resident economists for tonights debate? The whole thing is going to be about the economy, though I'm sure they'll try to derail it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/10/donald-trump-cnbc-debate-will-be-unfair-215243
Wut, you don't like the scrutiny that you get from being a frontrunner (or rather, second place as it is now)? That or Trump is afraid of answering economic questions. Although what he said on twitter (in the article, I don't read his twitter, nor do I wish to look at it) sound heavy with sarcasm.

[wierd]

Yup. I expect that trump will derail with a circular explanation that explains nothing, a la:

How will you make america great again?

"I'll make america great again!"

That seems to be his MO on difficult questions like that.

[mainiac]

I fail to see where I called him any names at all.

I'm sorry, it must have been extremely annoying to you that I stated that something happened but the evidence pointed towards something else that was related but not the same.

Hey now, mainiac is rarely rude. He's passive-aggressive. 

Also, Maniac and other people with economics majors, you ready to be our resident economists for tonights debate?

I will be in class so I can not.

[smjjames]

Followed with nobody on the stage (and sometimes the moderators) really catching him on the vague answers and challenging him on it. Followed by even more dodging by Trump.

Also, Maniac and other people with economics majors, you ready to be our resident economists for tonights debate?

I will be in class so I can not.

No prob on that, you can always give your analysis later.

[wierd]

Mainiac, I will not rise to that bait.

I will simply point out that expecting specifics from a topic where specifics are not attainable, as directly asserted by the authorities themselves, is patently dishonest as an arguementative tactic. Your rebuttle is specious, and I expect better of somebody of your intelligence. You have shown nothing to say I am incorrect. Only that you disagree. That does not make me wrong, and certainly does not make you correct.

[RedKing]

Tonight is kinda Fiorina's last gasp, imho. She's seen big surges in poll numbers after the last couple of debates, but then that support seems to rapidly erode as she says various stupid (and/or untrue) shit. She seems to have a pathology for making shit up out of whole cloth.

I'm more interested in the "mainstream" candidates like Bush, Rubio and Kasich. Are they going to play it safe and just let the frontrunners embarrass themselves, or do they go on the attack, try to appeal to the rational Republicans still remaining, and risk further pissing off the activist base?

Also interested to see if some of the bottom-feeding candidates like Santorum, Graham, Jindal and Pataki finally drop out afterwards.



In other news, the House votes today on the Boehner budget bill and man...are there some pissed-off right-wingers.
Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have all vowed to fight the bill (despite the fact that it's very similar to the budget deal Ryan proposed a few years back when he was still a darling of the Tea Party, and Ryan's objections seem to be mostly posturing to improve his street cred with the Pitchfork Caucus that he'll need to win the Speakership, which is also on today's docket).

Erick Erickson (of RedState) is declaring open warfare on any Republican who supports the bill (and is directing readers to funnel money to specific PACs to primary-challenge those who do).

The Federalist calls it a "disaster for the Republican Party", and they're right to an extent -- by setting budget levels for the next two years and raising the debt ceiling till 2017, it means Obama can finish out his term without any more fiscal hostage situations, and the Tea Party will go into the 2016 election season without the capacity to force anything. They've lost the Planned Parenthood defunding fight, they got pre-empted on a government shutdown and on the debt ceiling, they STILL haven't repealed Obamacare, and they couldn't even get a True Believer into the Speaker's chair. And now quite a few in the Freedom Caucus are being threatened with primary challenges for backing Paul Ryan. The crazies could get voted out because they're not crazy ENOUGH.

[Morrigi]

Apparently Trump has talked about technology in an intelligent manner in a brief interview with Milo Yiannopoulos: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/27/exclusive-donald-trump-to-breitbart-tech-artificial-intelligence-creators-users-should-consider-ethical-and-moral-consequences/

He's actually starting to sound like a politician.

[smjjames]

Paul Ryan isn't so much angry at the bill itself than angry at the proccess that created it.

[wierd]

That sounds like a surprisingly reasonable reason to be angry.

however, since we are discussing american politics, statistically I must reject this perfectly sane rationale in preference of a batshit crazy one.

any contenders?

[Mephansteras]

That sounds like a surprisingly reasonable reason to be angry.

however, since we are discussing american politics, statistically I must reject this perfectly sane rationale in preference of a batshit crazy one.

any contenders?

His alien lizard overlords are putting pressure on him?

[Reelya]

The Republicans are just fighting their ancient enemy: government stability.

[RedKing]

Paul Ryan isn't so much angry at the bill itself than angry at the proccess that created it.

Yeah, that's what he's saying at least.

Part of that Federalist article was pointing out that for all his supposed anger, he's not doing much to organize pushback against the bill. Though I'm not exactly sure what the author would have him do -- chain himself to his seat with a rope made out of American flags and subsist only on freedom and bald eagle tears until the bill is defeated?

Let's keep in mind that this is a guy being pushed into a job he doesn't really want, and in which he has to rely on at least some support from a minority of batshit-crazy people in his own party in order to carry out. Part of what he has to do now is to curry favor with that batshit-crazy group in order to be able to do the job.

Part of me actually wonders if this isn't an elaborate political hit job, and when Ryan comes up for the Speakership vote in front of the whole House, the Freedom Caucus is going to reneg on their deal and vote against him. It would be kinda glorious to watch.



EDIT: CNN got Lindsey Graham to play (a PG-rated version) of "Fuck, Marry, Kill" on live TV.

I'm not actually sure who I feel more disgusted at, CNN for turning politics into a drinking game, or Lindsey Graham for his choices (Palin, Fiorina, Clinton in that order).

[smjjames]

Lindsey Graham DID say that Washington should drink more. Also, with Graham having grown up around the bar scene pratically all his life, it seems like he would know better than to fall into that trap which he got ensnared in.

[Sheb]

Which got me wondering, what would be YOUR choice at the same question, RedKing? I think I might switch around Clinton and Fiorina.

[RedKing]

Depends...are we constraining our responses to political figures? Cause I dunno about you, but politicians are generally the last people that come to mind when building a hottie list.