The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The argument that I've heard about defunding PPH is for taking away all federal funding. When it is pointed out that no federal funding pays for abortions...crickets...and then the facetious (to me) argument that federal funding pays for the other services at PPH and that frees up private funding for abortion services. No **** Sherlock??? That's how ALL funding (federal/state/local) works. So again, I wonder what is the end game here for the GOP at the national level? PPH defunding seems to me like another albatross that the fringe elements of the party want to handicap their party with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 They don't have to do anything but if you want to insure that PPH continues to get funding from Federal Dollars, then this is probably the best way to do it. Or, you can continue to fight it and take your chances with a Right Leaning Government if the GOP wins the Pres. and controls both houses. Yes, that's true but is that really a good precedent to set? Its basically the government telling a private company what they can and can't do with their private funds (obviously, as long as it is legal) based on voter outrage. I'd think conservatives would be VERY against that sort of thing. The argument that I've heard about defunding PPH is for taking away all federal funding. When it is pointed out that no federal funding pays for abortions...crickets...and then the facetious (to me) argument that federal funding pays for the other services at PPH and that frees up private funding for abortion services. No **** Sherlock??? That's how ALL funding (federal/state/local) works. So again, I wonder what is the end game here for the GOP at the national level? PPH defunding seems to me like another albatross that the fringe elements of the party want to handicap their party with. I'm honestly not sure they actually have a plan or have even though it out much yet. I think they just decided to ride the wave of outrage but if they're not careful they could find themselves stranded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Yes, that's true but is that really a good precedent to set? Its basically the government telling a private company what they can and can't do with their private funds (obviously, as long as it is legal) based on voter outrage. I'd think conservatives would be VERY against that sort of thing. That's an interesting question but I also think it's too late to really look at it as setting a precedents. The Government has done this in the past already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Here's Who Will Be In The First GOP Presidential Debate [uPDATE] UPDATE: 6:10 p.m. -- Fox News on Tuesday announced the 10 candidates who will participate in the first Republican presidential debate this coming Thursday. The candidates are: Donald Trump Jeb Bush Scott Walker Mike Huckabee Ben Carson Ted Cruz Marco Rubio Rand Paul Chris Christie John Kasich More from the link. Not much more. Here is the list. Kasich bumps out Perry who is likely already done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Looking at that graphic about the debate at the top of the page, among the candidates who would be out of the debate: - Perry - Santorum - Jindal - Fiorina are completely unelectable. Pataki, much like Jim Webb, doesn't have any national brand. Hasn't been in offce in 9 years, I don't see him having much of a chance either. They left off Jim Gilmore, but he's in the same boat as Pataki. Graham is the only legitimate candidate getting left out IMO. Graham is a brilliant retail politician and has the mind and mouth to be a strong candidate. He would absolutely make the debates more substantive and interesting. If he gets left off and his candidacy withers on the vine, I think that'd be a shame. I think he would have done well in a much smaller and more serious GoP field. As for the guys that would get in, Carson, Huckabee, and Trump are all turds that won't have a snowballs chance in Hell in the general election. It wouldn't matter who the Democrats nominate. Sanders would destroy them. Cruz and Paul are turds too, but they actually has to be taken seriously because of their fundraising and/or national brand recognition. They are bad choices for the nomination, and I think both would lose to Sanders too. If I was the GoP Czar and in charge of these debates, I would have it be between Christie, Bush, Walker, Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Graham. I would try and moderate the debate to be as serious and legitimate as possible. That's the re-brand the GoP needs for this election. Not a distracting fiasco that makes the party seem as incompetent as they did in '08 and '12. Graham, legitimate? He's just another delusional politician and is a one issue person- national security/foreign policy. Paul is fading, because he's agreeing with so much of what the current GOP is doing. He's not his father and it is showing. Paul is losing support. Paul isn't raising as much money as you think. Christie is a bully and will not go far. After the dust settles and Trump is out of the race later this year- I don't see him being on the ballot for primaries; you will see 3-5 candidates actually have a shot. Cruz will probably pick up the Trump voters, once Trump is gone. Walker, Rubio, Bush will be battle on. It is possible, Kasich could emerge as the establishment fallback; if Bush struggles. Fox announced the lineup for the detate: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/fox-news-announces-candidate-line-up-for-prime-time-debate/ Kasich knocked out Perry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Clinton and Bush are slap fighting on twitter right now...and Walker is trying to get involved, but showing that he doesn't understand hashtags. Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton .@JebBush: You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqu… Sabrina Siddiqui @SabrinaSiddiqui "I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues," Jeb Bush says at Southern Baptist Convention. Jeb Bush @JebBush .@HillaryClinton what’s absolutely, unequivocally wrong is giving taxpayer $ to an org whose practices show no regard for lives of unborn Scott Walker @ScottWalker By saying she stands by Planned Parenthood, @HillaryClinton proves once again that she's #OutofTouch with everyday Americans. – SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 More from the link. Not much more. Here is the list. Kasich bumps out Perry who is likely already done. The other 7, get to participate in an hour forum at 5pm Thursday. Only, the winner of that forum might have a chance to make it to the CNN debate on 9/15. All the other candidates won't be able to raise much money and probably won't be able to go far into the fall. I fully expect the field currently at 17; to shrink some before the next debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The other 7, get to participate in an hour forum at 5pm Thursday. Only, the winner of that forum might have a chance to make it to the CNN debate on 9/15. All the other candidates won't be able to raise much money and probably won't be able to go far into the fall. I fully expect the field currently at 17; to shrink some before the next debate. I've got to think the last thing they want in a 2nd debate is 10 people including one that got bumped up from the kiddy table. You'll have candidates polling in the Top 5 debating a smaller stage format with more time for each of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 I've got to think the last thing they want in a 2nd debate is 10 people including one that got bumped up from the kiddy table. You'll have candidates polling in the Top 5 debating a smaller stage format with more time for each of them. CNN is having 2 debates. One for the big boys and one for the little boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I'm not a big political guy. In fact, politics in general really bore the hell out of me and quite frankly, I find all politicians liars, cheats and assholes who are only in it for themselves and could care less about the country, the issues or the people in general. But with that said, I do try to follow a bit so that when I do go to vote, I at least know what the hell I'm doing. My question is, with Trump leading the pack for the Republicans, is this a bigger indictment on the public that they are putting this clown at the head of the class or that the Republican party has so little to offer that this is what it's come to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Both, I think. Like Larry said, the madness from '08 isn't over yet. It's ratcheting up. Everyone's frustrated over something. I expect this election to be particularly nasty. Even worse than bashing a half-black guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 CNN is having 2 debates. One for the big boys and one for the little boys. What happens after those two are over? No more primary debates between then and the end of spring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 My question is, with Trump leading the pack for the Republicans, is this a bigger indictment on the public that they are putting this clown at the head of the class or that the Republican party has so little to offer that this is what it's come to? the large field enables Trump as it narrows and becomes more focused it will shift as usual. the public is just unhappy, which presents opportunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I love how you can be "out of touch" for supporting the existence of Planned Parenthood. I do not see any way of bridging this divide. The GOP chooses to believe that restricting access to safe abortions will reduce total abortions, and chooses to believe that abstinence-only education will reduce teen pregnancies. The evidence literally shows that the opposite will happen. How is any sane person supposed to work with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 My question is, with Trump leading the pack for the Republicans, is this a bigger indictment on the public that they are putting this clown at the head of the class or that the Republican party has so little to offer that this is what it's come to? Neither. It's a sign that the election's more than a year away, and there's 25 people running for the GOP nomination. Yeah, Trump's success says a little about the GOP. But not really much. (And not all of what it says, is bad.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 GOP Candidates React to Being Excluded From Primetime Debate With the final lineup set for the first Republican presidential debate, the lowest polling candidates are reacting to being left out of the main event. "The idea that they have left out the runner-up for the 2012 nomination, the former four-term governor of Texas, the governor of Louisiana, the first female Fortune 50 CEO, and the 3-term Senator from South Carolina due to polling seven months before a single vote is cast is preposterous," Rick Santorum communications manager Matt Beynon said in a statement Tuesday. Debate host Fox News announced that Santorum, who won 11 states in the 2012 GOP primary, along with Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore and George Pataki, will square off ahead of the prime-time event Thursday in Cleveland, Ohio. The crowded field of 17 candidates prompted Fox to limit the main debate to the top ten highest polling candidates, as judged by five recent national polls. "While Fox is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich made the cut for the later debate. However most of the lower polling candidates had a more positive reaction than Santorum. "I look forward to answering questions on Thursday in Cleveland. I continue to be encouraged by the support of conservative activists and grassroots Republicans across the country," Fiorina said in a statement. More from the link, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 So most everyone agrees that Trump won't be the guy, despite his big early numbers. But can he hold on to a core of supporters late in the game and try to take on the role of kingmaker, throwing his support to one of the other candidates with his endorsement? He could play that out for a long time and glom some spotlight even when he's no longer leading the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Jeb Bush draws fire for suggesting ‘women’s health issues’ are overfunded Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who has been criticized recently by some conservatives for serving on the board of a charity that gave money to Planned Parenthood, called for the organization’s defunding during an interview Tuesday with a Southern Baptist leader. “If you took dollar for dollar, though, I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” said Bush, to the cheers and applause from the audience of 13,000 Southern Baptists during his interview with Russell Moore at the denomination’s missions conference. He suggested other organizations would be better served with the money. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton responded immediately on Twitter to Bush’s comments. “You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong,” Clinton tweeted. The Bush campaign tweeted back: “What’s absolutely, unequivocally wrong is giving taxpayer $ to an org whose practices show no regard for lives of unborn.” Nevertheless, the Bush campaign issued a clarification early Tuesday evening in which Bush said he “misspoke, as there are countless community health centers, rural clinics, and other women’s health organizations that need to be fully funded.” “I was referring to the hard-to-fathom $500 million in federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood – an organization that was callously participating is the unthinkable practice of selling fetal organs,” he said in the statement. Bush has struggled to harness the same evangelical constituency that helped to boost his brother’s presidential career. President George W. Bush drew many evangelical voters with his story of giving up his partying ways after a talk with evangelist Billy Graham. More from the link. Yes he misspoke...and it won't hurt him now in the primary season where most are to the right of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 What happens after those two are over? No more primary debates between then and the end of spring? I think CNN is airing the debates back to back? The undercard first and then the main event? The Repubs have 9 debates schedules and have plans for 3 more. Here's the Republican debate schedule: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/06/2016-primary-debate-schedule/ The Dems will supposedly have one debate each, in the first 4 states. None is scheduled. My guess, the Dems have no debates at all this year. So most everyone agrees that Trump won't be the guy, despite his big early numbers. But can he hold on to a core of supporters late in the game and try to take on the role of kingmaker, throwing his support to one of the other candidates with his endorsement? He could play that out for a long time and glom some spotlight even when he's no longer leading the polls. No. I think Trump won't like the scrutiny. He will be getting more scrutiny and people will be demanding more specifics. His numbers will go down. Who picks it up? My guess, Cruz seems like the natural choice for Trump supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I think CNN is airing the debates back to back? The undercard first and then the main event? The Repubs have 9 debates schedules and have plans for 3 more. Here's the Republican debate schedule: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/06/2016-primary-debate-schedule/ The Dems will supposedly have one debate each, in the first 4 states. None is scheduled. My guess, the Dems have no debates at all this year. No. I think Trump won't like the scrutiny. He will be getting more scrutiny and people will be demanding more specifics. His numbers will go down. Who picks it up? My guess, Cruz seems like the natural choice for Trump supporters. If I were the DNC, I wouldn't want any debates either. I'm sure Bernie and the others want it. But Clinton for sure doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Both, I think. Like Larry said, the madness from '08 isn't over yet. It's ratcheting up. Everyone's frustrated over something. I expect this election to be particularly nasty. Even worse than bashing a half-black guy. What madness of 08? If your talking madness that started in 2000 but can't see how it manifested itself in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 The Chinese could hack into government computers, I am sure Hillary had better protection, and I am sure nobody wanted to try and get her emails. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/clinton-email-server-fbi/ I am sure they were properly stored, classified information on a non government controlled site. (CNN)The FBI is looking into the security used to protect Hillary Clinton's private email system, David Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, said Tuesday. The Washington Post first reported that the FBI was looking into Clinton's private email set up during her time as Secretary of State, particularly the security used to protect information on the server that Clinton housed at her Chappaqua, New York, home. In a statement to CNN, Kendall confirmed that report. "Quite predictably, after the IC (intelligence community) IG (inspector general) made a referral to ensure that materials remain properly stored, the government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials," Kendall said in a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 More from the link. Yes he misspoke...and it won't hurt him now in the primary season where most are to the right of him. Even though everything seems to point to Bush being the eventual nominee; I think he won't be the nominee. The Chinese could hack into government computers, I am sure Hillary had better protection, and I am sure nobody wanted to try and get her emails. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/clinton-email-server-fbi/ I am sure they were properly stored, classified information on a non government controlled site. You sure seem to love Hillary's emails. The best thing for the Republicans would be for her to have a criminal indictment say around January. She will be the nominee if she isn't indicted and the Dems decide there is no credible alternative. Sorry, Socrates, Sanders isn't a credible alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 When this board explodes (again) as Hillary wins the nomination in 11 months and the Presidency in 15 months and 3 days...I am absolutely going to rub it in. Not because I like her..or that I am even a fan of her..mainly because I think she is the only candidate that has a real shot at winning this. And most of you don't want to acknowledge it. So really..you all can obsess over email servers/thumbdrives/$600 haircuts/inheritance tax avoidance/hit lists/hummers or whatever the soon to be First Dude still enjoys...and I'll be here practicing my bwahahahahas. And if I'm wrong. So be it. I'll be stunned. But it won't be the first or last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Even though everything seems to point to Bush being the eventual nominee; I think he won't be the nominee. You sure seem to love Hillary's emails. The best thing for the Republicans would be for her to have a criminal indictment say around January. She will be the nominee if she isn't indicted and the Dems decide there is no credible alternative. Sorry, Socrates, Sanders isn't a credible alternative. Well to be honest the best thing for the Republicans would be if the Criminal Indictment occurred next fall or summer not this winter. But seriously you really think this Justice Department would do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.