Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Latest GOP Debate

I watched some, but lost interest quickly.  This seemed to be a good summary from what I saw.  Thoughts?  CNN Takeaways

Then we have Eric's biased perspective.

 

12 comments:

Laurie said...

I have had enough of these candidates. I watched for about 10 minutes than went back to the voice. My reason was none of them are going to be president anyway. I read Kevin drum's summary of the debate and that was enough info for me, though I might read a more objective summary later.

John said...

Now that is a positive attitude... Go Hillary!!! :-)

Anonymous said...

No. Go Bernie!!!

Joel

Anonymous said...

I give Fox credit; they raised the issue I have often raised here and elsewhere: If Republicans are so good for the economy, why does the economy do better under Democrats?

Check out Carly Fiorina's answer, she pretty much lays it out.

--Hiram

John said...

Joel, Now that is some real serious positive thinking !!!

Hiram, It seems most politicians are capable of hearing what they want to hear. And she seems more gifted at it than most... Then again she was in management...

Dilbert1
Dilbert 2

Laurie said...

so maybe I should pay a little bit of attention to Rubio, as he will very likely face Hillary in the general and would be the strongest candidate against her. I think I will follow his campaign in the news, as I really can't stand to watch this crew, especially Fiorina.

Laurie said...

here is a debate review that had me laughing and also thinking I should add a bit of right leaning media to my browsing for balance. Read my link only if you tolerate or appreciate over the top critisism of the GOP candidates:

The GOP debate was a blizzard of garbage: Sorting through last night’s mess of lies and crazy
The fourth GOP debate showed a party that exists outside the bounds of space and time


also feel free to recommend right leaning media (not Breitbart or blogs) I am going to try to remember to give a quick peek to NRO from time to time. Also I do like to read conservative columnists sometimes, if anyone has something good to link.

jerrye92002 said...

"why does the economy do better under Democrats?"

Interesting that those who ask this question presume "Democrat" refers only to the President at the time. If we were an absolute monarchy, that would make sense, maybe, but we're not and we should stop trying to "elect the right guy" as if that would solve all our problems. I think it is better to look at who controlled Congress, and on that score Democrats deserve the bulk of the blame, or praise, depending, since they tend to control (nowadays, even in the Republican-held Senate).

But my favorite explanation comes from watching Minnesota government, where I observe that the DFL digs a deep, deep hole through foolish policy, get replaced by Republicans who fill the hole back up, at which point the DFL takes over again and starts digging. Things are better under Democrats, in the same way that your appliance/car breaks down the day after the warranty expires.

Anonymous said...

jerry, you have it completely backwards, unless you think budget surpluses are a 'hole that needs to be filled back in'.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Budget surpluses are simply a sign that taxes are too high. The "hole" I am referring to is the way the DFL commits to spending 7-8-9% more every year, regardless of need, and then babbling about a "revenue shortfall" when the bill comes due.

Anonymous said...

"Budget surpluses are simply a sign that taxes are too high."

Or that the economy is humming along. But I suppose that depends on your worldview.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Or that government became more efficient. Oh, wait, does that EVER happen?

Either way, Minnesota is required to have a balanced budget. If too much comes in as revenue, taxes are too high, by definition. Those surpluses should NOT be spent expanding government, but that's what always happens. And when the revenues do NOT come in, we have a "revenue shortfall" not a "spending excess." Why is that?