tshile Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I thought he wasn't going to call her a bimbo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Oh dear...she has her wedding ring on...family values, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Right, but who cares? You're either playing to win or you're not. I only picked her because she's the only name I recall being thrown around for the nomination that would make sense to me. If he was going to pick gore or Biden then I doubt there would be any boost. I thought Warren is held in pretty high regards for moderates and those on the left. But maybe someone more into that party would have better names. I know those on the right don't like her but Sanders isn't going to get their votes anyways. No Warren is held in pretty high regard by the left never heard that the more moderate dems thought about her that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Naming a VP is pretty big risk. It just allows people to dig up dirt on your choice. Sanders is doing well enough, he should sit on it for now. The big thing is going to be fund raising. He's getting more attention is that going to allow him to raise more funds? If he we can Iowa and NH, he's going to be in pretty good shape. The other issue is that people are going to be hesitant to agree to be your VP candidate while you haven't even wrapped up the nomination. That sort of thing could be a career killer. A Hillary administration is not going to be going out of its way to do an early Sanders VP candidate any favors. That would limit Sanders options currently in naming a VP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Trump went there I think every dude wishes he could go there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Oh snap Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump "@gene70: @FireFlyFury @megynkelly @realDonaldTrump And this is the bimbo that's asking presidential questions? Trump went there Seriously, people keep saying "Trump keeps saying what people are thinking." Well, if Trump is saying what you're thinking then you're an *******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I've never liked Kelly as an interviewer or analyst. She's ridiculous. Trump makes her sympathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Most of you all that hate trump, also hate the RNC/GOP or at least the people funding/running it. This has to make you happy, right? I mean... it's not the way everyone envisioned the way a correction would come for them, but that's what this has to lead to right? Trump has made huge mistakes already in this campaign.. Mistakes which would have ended his run in previous elections.. According to established political norms. Problems is whenever Trump makes these "mistakes", his poll numbers have gone up. This is a risky move by Trump, and I think it has more to do with his vindictive nature than a strategy; but I don't think anybody who is anybody in politics is saying they know for sure it's a mistake. All those same voices have been wrong about trump more half a year. Nobody can believe he's maintained the leadership spot this long. Trump is really rewriting the book with his campaign.. So to answer your question.. I like Trump more than the GOP although my candidate when this campaign started was probable Jeb. I love trump going up against the field in the GOP.. I love they are being forced to think on their feet. I also think by in far they have done an excellent job on doing so. I also love it that none have laid a glove on Trump thus far.. It's not for lack of trying, it's because they really don't know how, their advisors don't know how. I do like to see candidates like Cruz, Rubio and Carly get roughed up a little bit and forced to think on their feet. By in large I think they've handled it well too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Have Trump even laid out a viable plan yet? As far as I'm concerned, he's no more qualified than Sara Palin. Lets "Make America Great Again, Lets America Great Again." Anybody can say that. Like some have already said, he can't handle a moderator, how's he going to handle leader of other nations? I'll say one thing, if he does get the GOP nomination, the Republican National Convention will become must see TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Have Trump even laid out a viable plan yet? Nope. No one has been able to actually take this guy on. Every one who's tried walks away with their tail between their legs. They let him run the conversation. He's very good at it. The fact that majority of the debates have clearly been about ratings and not the betterment of the country has helped him get away with it. The other thing helping him is that the GOP has so many nominees; they even have an 'under card' debate which is just people trying to get a book deal or a radio/tv host job when the cycle is over. Given how much a clown show the GOP nomination is right now it's not really surprising the biggest clown on stage has the most support. I didn't think he'd make it this far with his act, so I'm afraid of how far it will actually take him.... edit: Though, now that I think about it, he did release a tax plan. It had more detail than anything else he's released, I believe, but it was still lacking in some important details that are required to actually understand how he plans on funding his tax plan. Most analysis of it basically said it was a terrible plan, but again he left some holes and they had to fill them with guesses . I've never liked Kelly as an interviewer or analyst. She's ridiculous. Trump makes her sympathetic. She rocked in spot appearances on the O'Reilly factor. I loved her. She's had a makeover appearance wise (surgery I imagine) and personality wise. I hate both. She used to come accross as a smart, attractive woman and wasn't afraid to take O'Reilly to task at times. Now she's this fake, angry, far-right talking head that's show feels like she's just yelling at you nonstop. I can't stand her anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 What is the built in advantage that they have? Not trying to be cute, I honestly don't understand. Don't both parties have certain states they get that help them? Because the electoral college gives each state a vote for each senator and each representative, rather than dividing the electoral college votes entirely on population. This means that rural states with low populations are overrepresented vis-a-vis urban states with large populations. In other words, Montana and New York both get two senators, so a vote cast in Montana is worth proportionally more than a vote in New York. The GOP has a stranglehold on virtually all of the low population rural states. So they have a built in advantage in the electoral college. Oh now Bernie is just too old? You're really reaching. Relax. It was humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I've never liked Kelly as an interviewer or analyst. She's ridiculous. Trump makes her sympathetic. Fox has a chorus line blonds who they run out to read the news and spout objectionable mindnumbing opinions... Never knew Megan Kelly's name, never thought she was remarkable or notable from any of the other blonds who all dress alike, dye their hair, and have the same hairdo at Fox... I will definitely remember Megan Kelly's name. I thought she was excellent in the first debate. She hit each candidate with the hard question they had to answer.. Trump got two. I thought each of the candidates handled those questions well and Kelly was smart and courageous to ask them. I do think Trumps objections to her are wrong.. Trump looked better answering Megan's hard questions than he would have fielding a vapid canned question they serve up on the Democratic Debates. A few of Fox's chorus line. Gretchen Carlson Sandra Smith Ainsley Earhardt Anna Koolman Martha MacCallum Kathrine Timpf Gillian Turner Lis Wiehl Heather Childers Elizabeth Prann third from the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Megyn Kelly is the smartest of the Fox bimbo squad, by far. Compared to someone like Elizabeth Hasslebeck (or Wolf Blitzer) she's a damn Norman Einstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Have Trump even laid out a viable plan yet? As far as I'm concerned, he's no more qualified than Sara Palin. Lets "Make America Great Again, Lets America Great Again." Anybody can say that. Like some have already said, he can't handle a moderator, how's he going to handle leader of other nations? I'll say one thing, if he does get the GOP nomination, the Republican National Convention will become must see TV. Trump knows who won WWII, and he knows that the UK isn't actually run by the queen, and he knows South Africa is a country and not a region of the continent. But no he hasn't laid out any viable plan, none of them really have on the Republican side.. They are still trying to distinguish what they would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Because the electoral college gives each state a vote for each senator and each representative, rather than dividing the electoral college votes entirely on population. This means that rural states with low populations are overrepresented vis-a-vis urban states with large populations. In other words, Montana and New York both get two senators, so a vote cast in Montana is worth proportionally more than a vote in New York. I don't undestand. There are 100 electors, 2 for every state. That's less than 1/5 of the total electors. So they're advantage resides in only 20% of the total electors. For many of these, this represents 2/3 of the stats electors... This seems like a really, really weak attempt at justifying some sort of advantage for the GOP. Maybe I need more time to digest it, but the only alternative is to let the heavily populated states completely run the entire election (something I'm sure democrats would prefer, not because it's actually more fair but because it would hand them every single presidential election) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Megyn Kelly is the smartest of the Fox bimbo squad, by far. Compared to someone like Elizabeth Hasslebeck (or Wolf Blitzer) she's a damn Norman Einstein. All I know is I had seen her several times prior to the debates and she was unremarkable. She knocked it out of the ball park in the first debate and if Trump understood what she had actually done for him he would be her biggest fan. I think she did a great service to the GOP, the candidates, and everybody watching the first debate and her style of asking the hard question has become the standard in the following GOP debates. I would love to see her do the general debate. She's been the best by far moderator on either side of this race.. I would contrast her with the worst moderator, Anderson Cooper on the Democrat side.. He works for the Clinton foundation and it showed in the debate... Anderson Cooper - Bernie, What do you say to those who think you are to far left, to old, and out of touch to be president. Hillary, you look fabulous tonight.. can you look into the camera and tell America what your favorite color is knowing most Americans like the color blue.. Jim Webb, I'm not calling on you.. I'm just saying your name to again inform you that I'm not calling on you... I don't undestand. There are 100 electors, 2 for every state. That's less than 1/5 of the total electors. So they're advantage resides in only 20% of the total electors. For many of these, this represents 2/3 of the stats electors... This seems like a really, really weak attempt at justifying some sort of advantage for the GOP. Maybe I need more time to digest it, but the only alternative is to let the heavily populated states completely run the entire election (something I'm sure democrats would prefer, not because it's actually more fair but because it would hand them every single presidential election) No there are 100 Senators.. there are 538 electors or electorial college votes distributed by population across the states.. I don't think it's true the Republicans own the little states and the Dems Own the big ones. I think California is traditionally Democratic, but just as traditionally Texas the second largest state by EC goes to the GOP... Florida is a toss up and can go either way in any given election; which is why Jeb and Rubio are so attractive candiates for the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Megyn Kelly is the smartest of the Fox bimbo squad, by far. Compared to someone like Elizabeth Hasslebeck (or Wolf Blitzer) she's a damn Norman Einstein. I think Dana Perino, as one of the hosts, is much smarter. I don't know how Kelly would fair if she actually acted like she used to. But compared to how she is now, it's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Wait a minute. The RNC pulled the plug on an NBC News debate over an anti-Trump bias. So why should they not do the same regarding Megyn Kelly? He makes them look so stupid. It's clear that Megyn Kelly - Trump fued should be ended by switching moderators. Because Megyn Kelly isn't Anti Trump, she asked every candidate hard questions in that first debate not just Trump. Tell you what else Trump looked good answering her hard questions too.. He looked honest and smart and that's not something you can always say about the Donald. Kelly did him a great service by allowing him to address the hard issues everybody was thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I think Dana Perino, as one of the hosts, is much smarter. I honestly can't tell them apart. Dana Perino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I don't think comparing big states to small states is an accurate way to examine the electoral college. In fact, we read all the time here about how the Dema have a lock on so many select oral votes before the election web happens. I'd say at this point, changes to the electoral college would favor the GOP and not the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I don't undestand. There are 100 electors, 2 for every state. That's less than 1/5 of the total electors. So they're advantage resides in only 20% of the total electors. For many of these, this represents 2/3 of the stats electors... This seems like a really, really weak attempt at justifying some sort of advantage for the GOP. Maybe I need more time to digest it, but the only alternative is to let the heavily populated states completely run the entire election (something I'm sure democrats would prefer, not because it's actually more fair but because it would hand them every single presidential election) I didn't say it was a huge advantage. Perhaps 10-12 electors, total. But in a sharply divided country like ours, it is a notable advantage. It's like having a couple of extra phantom states the size of Iowa added to the GOP tally in every election. And you are correct, the alternative is to divide things equally by population so that every citizen's vote is equally valuable (or dump the electoral college entirely). Yes, that would be better for the democrats more than the current system. I don't think comparing big states to small states is an accurate way to examine the electoral college. In fact, we read all the time here about how the Dema have a lock on so many select oral votes before the election web happens. I'd say at this point, changes to the electoral college would favor the GOP and not the Dems. Could you clarify? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I didn't say it was a huge advantage. Perhaps 10-12 electors, total. But in a sharply divided country like ours, it is a notable advantage. It's like having a couple of extra phantom states the size of Iowa added to the GOP tally in every election. And you are correct, the alternative is to divide things equally by population so that every citizen's vote is equally valuable (or dump the electoral college entirely). Yes, that would be better for the democrats more than the current system. Could you clarify? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Just that the electoral college system favors the Dems more than the GOP. It places an emphasis on total state population. Whereas a system that gave votes by congressional districts would favor the GOP. So while it's true that a comparison of small vs big states shows a GOP slant, other comparisons would show a DEM slant. I'm just saying its a narrow view to only examine the electoral college in terms of small vs big states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 http://billmoyers.com/story/the-escalating-media-assault-on-bernie-sanders/ The Escalating Media Assault on Bernie Sanders For a long time, as he campaigned for president, a wide spectrum of establishment media insisted that Bernie Sanders couldn’t win. Now they’re sounding the alarm that he might. And, just in case you haven’t gotten the media message yet — Sanders is “angry,” kind of like Donald Trump. Elite media often blur distinctions between right-wing populism and progressive populism — as though there’s not all that much difference between appealing to xenophobia and racism on the one hand and appealing for social justice and humanistic solidarity on the other. Many journalists can’t resist lumping Trump and Sanders together as rabble-rousing outliers. But in the real world, the differences are vast. Donald Trump is to Bernie Sanders as Archie Bunker is to Jon Stewart. Among regular New York Times columnists, aversion to Bernie Sanders has become more pronounced in recent days at both ends of the newspaper’s ideological spectrum, such as it is. Republican Party aficionado David Brooks (whose idea of a good political time is Marco Rubio) has been freaking out in print, most recently with a Tuesday column headlined “Stay Sane America, Please!” Brooks warned that his current nightmare for the nation is in triplicate — President Trump, President Cruz or President Sanders. For Brooks, all three contenders appear to be about equally awful; Trump is “one of the most loathed men in American public life,” while “America has never elected a candidate maximally extreme from the political center, the way Sanders and Cruz are.” That “political center” of power sustains huge income inequality, perpetual war, scant action on climate change and reflexive support for the latest unhinged escalation of the nuclear arms race. In other words, what C. Wright Mills called “crackpot realism.” Meanwhile, liberal Times columnist Paul Krugman (whose idea of a good political time is Hillary Clinton) keeps propounding a stand-on-head formula for social change — a kind of trickle-down theory of political power, in which “happy dreams” must yield to “hard thinking,” a euphemism for crackpot realism. An excellent rejoinder has come from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Krugman doesn’t get it,” Reich wrote. “I’ve been in and around Washington for almost fifty years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I’ve learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized, and determined to make it happen. . . . “When pollsters match Sanders against the four top-polling Republican hopefuls, on average he does better than Clinton does against each of them — even though she, like Bush, is supposed to be ‘best positioned’ to ‘capture the broad, sensible center,’ according to the Tribune. “Actually, the elements of Sanders’ platform that elite media are most likely to associate with ‘socialism’ — things like universal, publicly funded healthcare and eliminating tuition at public colleges — are quite popular with the public, and go a long way to explain his favorable poll numbers. But they are also the sort of proposals that make Sanders unacceptable to the nation’s wealthy elite — and to establishment media outlets.” "Crackpot realism." I'll have to remember that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 If you took the names away from the polls. There would be complete consensus that the GOP fronteunner was almost a sure thing and the Dem "insurgent" was now overtaken the presumptive nominee and was now the favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Just that the electoral college system favors the Dems more than the GOP. It places an emphasis on total state population. Whereas a system that gave votes by congressional districts would favor the GOP. So while it's true that a comparison of small vs big states shows a GOP slant, other comparisons would show a DEM slant. I'm just saying its a narrow view to only examine the electoral college in terms of small vs big states. I think I understand what you are saying now, but it seems wrong. Are you suggesting a vote by congressional district in the sense of not counting the Senators as electors in the electoral college? That would disadvantage the GOP. California only has 2 senators, while Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma between them have 18 Senators despite having less people than California. If you just counted congressional districts, the Democrats would lose two electors but the GOP would lose 18 (in this example). I also don't think I agree that having every citizen's vote count equally should count as an unfair "slant" for any side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.