Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

GOP debate


Guest

Recommended Posts

The question was phrased as something like, "doesn't that mean you're not a good leader?" Almost every question ended with an insult. 

Oh no thems po baby's who run their mouths off at their current POTUS as a Socialist, Muslim, Illegal, baby killing commie gots insulted.  Oh me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious at this point that the moderators were a disaster.

 

I used to think that Becky Quick and other CNBC commentators were smart.  They were just exposed as talking heads, especially John Harwood.  What a goofball that guy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what's another $18 trillion in the whole scheme of things? That's the price tag for all the goodies he's promising.

 

Where did you read that? From feelthebern.org

 

What policies has he proposed with regards to college tuition?

Bernie introduced the College for All Act, which would “eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.” To qualify, states would have to foot 33 percent of the bill (the federal government would sponsor the rest) and take various steps to maintain or increase expenditure on improving opportunities for students and faculty.

 

But nothing is “free”!  How are you going to pay for this?

There are various measures that have been proposed to cover these changes. In the College for All Act, which Bernie sponsored, a “Robin Hood” tax on Wall Street would be implemented– a 0.5 percent speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trades, as well as a 0.1 percent fee on bonds and a 0.005 percent fee charged on derivatives. These very small taxes on the financial sector would completely cover the cost of providing free higher education to all students who are willing and able to attend college or university.

Moreover, the cost of not providing higher education must also be factored into consideration. A more educated workforce is likely to lead to higher incomes and a higher GDP for the nation, which will lead to increased prosperity, wealth, and consumer spending in its own right. In addition, families and individuals will spend their income freely instead of saving it for college tuition or using it to pay back student loans. This rise in consumer spending will also likely have a positive effect on the nation’s GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think they're dumb?

 

Or did they just ask a lot of dumb questions?

 

 

I was commenting on your statement, "I used to think that Becky Quick and other CNBC commentators were smart."

 

 

Do I think they're dumb?  No.  Did they ask many questions in a douchey way?  Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what's another $18 trillion in the whole scheme of things? That's the price tag for all the goodies he's promising.

 

By the way, this writer destroys the 18 trillion dollar claim.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have a point re: Democrats and Fox. Though I think saying NBC is to liberals as Fox is to conservatives is inaccurate, especially when you consider the debate was on CNBC which is a spokesperson for Wall St. and big business. But your point is taken.

 

 

But go and read the Fox transcripts...and the CNBC transcipts...there is very little difference. In fact, it certainly seems like Fox tried to create more on stage drama than CNBC.

 

 

 

....Dr. Carson....Your critics say that your inexperience showsYou've suggested that the Baltic States are not a part of NATO, just months ago you were unfamiliar with the major political parties and government in Israel, and domestically, you thought Alan Greenspan had been treasury secretary instead of federal reserve chair. Aren't these basic mistakes, and don't they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?

Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."....Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. 

 

Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues, but he says you do nothing to grow the party. He says you feed red meat to the base, but you don't reach out to minorities. You have a toxic relationship with GOP leaders in Congress. You even called the Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell a liar recently. How can you win in 2016 when you're such a divisive figure?

Under your watch, New Jersey has undergone nine credit rating downgrades. The state's 44th in private sector growth. You face an employee pension crisis and the Garden State has the third highest foreclosure rate in the country. So why should voters believe that your management of the country's finances would be any different?

 

Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?

 

Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?

 

 

Mr. Trump, it has not escaped anybody's notice that you say that the Mexican government, the Mexican government is sending criminals -- rapists, drug dealers, across the border.Governor Bush has called those remarks, quote, "extraordinarily ugly." I'd like you -- you're right next to him -- tell us -- talk to him directly and say how you respond to that and -- and you have repeatedly said that you have evidence that the Mexican government is doing this, but you have evidence you have refused or declined to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't watch the debate.  So I am merely commenting on what others have said.

 

My big problem with how it seems that the moderators considered their position as "adversarial".  I think once anyone in the press does this, they have lost what it means to be the press.

 

I know that Fox does this (at least that is what I hear from the libs who watch it) and now it seems others have as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...