Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

How Astute Are The Republican Presidential Candidates?

That is a very broad and open question, so perhaps it's best to segment it in response.

For example: are the republican candidates "astute" when it comes to economics and our economy?

Here's one person's views: "The Republican presidential field's embarrassing response to China's financial shock", Web Link

Here's how this one starts out: "It's hard to know how much economic sophistication to expect from the average politician. We're talking about massive impersonal systems of modern economies here, which isn't the ideal fodder for those who go chasing cameras to score cheap political points."

"That's a problem for presidential campaigns, where constantly having something to say for the cameras is more or less a requirement for the job. Yet even by that low bar, the Republican candidates outdid themselves this time."

"A slew of major and minor GOP contenders — including Donald Trump, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee — have all popped up to offer their takes on the turmoil roiling financial markets in China, America, and the rest of the world. And the degree to which they indulged in economically illiterate gibberish is striking, even for the GOP."

I would also offer this data to supplement the above discussion: in 2008, China overtook Japan as the US' largest creditor; "China is now America's largest creditor", Web Link

"America is the largest debtor nation in history. And given the economic weakness in the global economy right now, the debt load is likely to get worse. Recently, China surpassed Japan to become America’s largest creditor." Note the date.

What nobody is talking about now, however, is another switch: "Japan just passed China as the biggest US creditor for the first time since 2008", Web Link

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Japan overtook China in February as the top foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, a position Japan last held in August 2008."

"In its monthly report on bond holdings, the Treasury Department said Wednesday total foreign holdings of Treasury debt dipped 0.9 percent in February to $6.16 trillion, down from a record of $6.22 trillion in January."

It's always fun to bash somebody and there has been no shortage of that regarding China, just like there was no shortage of it regarding Japan before them; but does verbally bashing another country by a Presidential candidate mean they are "astute" economically? Is the bashing now going to switch from China back to Japan?

Isn't the real issue our economy, which is the largest, most complex, resilient and productive on the planet by far? Isn't the real issue the complexities of our economy and the ability to drive it? Isn't the real issue here about how Congress has done nothing - nothing - to create jobs, or expand our middle class (let alone dwindle it), or fund projects that put more Americans to work (think Roosevelt & New Deal) for example?

So, how "astute" are the republican offerings for President? Judge for yourselves, and this might be a good starting point.


Comments

Only 14 paragraphs? You're slipping!


How about something contributory and productive like a comment to topic?


Talkabout Tip #72: If you don't like the way comments are going on your thread, simply create a whole 'nother thread on the same topic. Bury those unfortunate comments in old threads.


TalAbout Tip #1: speak to topic.

Can you do that? Or is the topic too complex for you?

"How astute are the republican Presidential candidates?"

It'a a fair question. There is plenty of fodder to start with just above.


"Unwavering Fealty to a Failed Theory" / "The Republican presidential candidates still cling to trickle-down economics.", Web Link

For those that either want/need more to be able to discuss the question posed, here you go.

From this piece (in part); "The proposals thus far from the many Republicans who have already thrown their hat in the ring show no signs that the party plans to deviate from trickle-down anytime soon. If anything, they are doubling down on its fundamentals, with proposals to cut taxes for the wealthy by far more than President George W. Bush ever did. Rubio, for example, proposes to eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends – which would almost exclusively benefit the wealthy – while George W. Bush merely cut them by a few percentage points. Similarly, Sen. Rand Paul's flat tax proposal goes well beyond a mere reduction of top rates and would instead eliminate progressive income taxation."

"For several decades, academic economists helped provide cover for trickle-down economics and the obvious harm it was doing because the theory fit with their ideas about inequality and incentives. But especially since the Great Recession, economists have been thinking about inequality in a new way. Increasingly, they are realizing that a strong middle class is not merely the result of a strong economy, as was previously thought, but rather a source of America's economic growth. Rebuilding the middle class would provide the stable base of consumer demand necessary to increase business investment and job creation. It would also enable the country to fully develop the potential of its people, increase the social trust that makes it possible for people to do business with one another, and help to balance political power so that we have a government that works for the whole country, not just those at the top. (Campaign finance reform will be a necessary part of that endeavor as well.)"

The question remains; How astute are the republican Presidential candidates?


^^^ There are some TAers that answer their own posts if no one else does. Also, please put a limit on lengthy posts which are so boring. ^^^

and

^^^ Sorry, I forgot another suggestion. There should be a rule about limiting threads a person can start; especially on the same or a very similar topic they just started. ^^^

"Seal's" proposed forum rules from a recent thread started by Bill Murray.

They may have merit as this thread demonstrates.


Once again, may I suggest addressing topic.Personal attacks and hijacking are not the topic here.

*News Flash* There will be a Presidential election in November 2016; a little over one year from now. There are an inordinate amount of candidates looking to fill that slot - most (by far) claim republican status.

Americans will be voting for one of the listed candidates, republican or democrat, and someone will win. It seems to me that those that have been and continue to bitch the most regarding our President and the Presidency itself might have something constructive to offer, particularly on a topic as important as our collective pocketbooks - unless, of course, they have no knowledge on the topic.

There is more than enough to discuss linked to this piece so far; but if anyone has something else to contribute, please do.

Once again: How astute are the republican Presidential candidates?


^^^ Once again: How astute are the republican Presidential candidates? ^^^

Infinitely more astute than the OP. Infinitely.

astute: having or showing an ability to accurately assess situations or people and turn this to one's advantage.


The Republican candidates are astute enough to recognize the fact that in Republican primaries the fastest, furthest to the right wins.

Not one of these candidates dares concede that the Earth is over 7,000 years old

Not one of these candidates dares to discus Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Not one of these candidates dares to discuss their plan that would replace Obamacare

Not one of these candidates dares to support Roe vs Wade

Not one of these candidates dares to admit any belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change

....until they win the primary. Then the race back to the middle.

Of course the Democrats are different!!!! Their race is to the left


Is the topic too difficult for you francis? Do you have difficulty with economic issues?

It's always a good idea to have a dictionary handy. Now, hopefully, everyone knows the definition of astute, which should make contributions to topic easier for those very few that seemed confused at first.

francis, you and less than a handful of others have spent the last 6+ years bitching, complaining and ranting about Obama and democrats. Now that you are presented with a(nother) opportunity to support your bluster, the best you have done so far (to topic) is provide us with a definition of astute. Although comforting that you finally learned something new, that is your sole contribution to topic so far.

Surely all those years of hating and bitching provide you with the ability to "bray", as you frequently accuse others of doing, in support of your republican candidates. Well, here's an opportunity for you. The Only drawback I can see to contributing to topic is one's ignorance on economic issues and the inability to grasp US economy fundamentals.

Once again; How astute are the republican Presidential candidates? (the topic, btw)


^^^ Is the topic too difficult for you francis? ^^

No. I just find the OP repetitious, boring and unnecessarily confrontational as well as unaware, completely biased, irascible and irrational.

That, and this is perhaps the most pointless discussion one could imagine. No serious person cares what some babbling far-Left goon thinks about Republicans.


Unfortunately it appears francis has once again missed the topic. And just when we figured he had 'gotten it'.

The beauty of a clearly defined title of a topic is ... well ... the underlying topic itself. francis appears unaware of that in any response so far; "No. I just find the OP repetitious,...." May I suggest you not think about the "OP", but rather the topic; How astute are the republican Presidential candidates? (the topic, btw)

"That, and this is perhaps the most pointless discussion one could imagine." Now that is interesting. Are we to believe, even for a moment, that francis thinks his wallet is"pointless"? Are we to believe that anyone is that ... clueless?

Over 6 years of daily attacks on Obama, democrats and individuals that in any oppose francis' ideas on anything from economic to foreign affairs and all of a sudden he is at a loss regarding economic issues and the republican candidates ability to grasp them?

Maybe it is as simple as francis can't grasp them, therefore can't constructively participate in an intelligent discussion on our economy, the issues and his preferred candidates abilities to grasp and deal with those issues.

Whatever francis' problems, they are his and have no bearing here on this topic, which remains; How astute are the republican Presidential candidates?


Keep digging, George. Keep digging.


George and Boney,

I'm glad you touched on the obvious. It's why I've recently taken to scoffing at things like GOP (or Trump, whatever he is) initiatives around immigration. It is SO obvious that it's all election smack talk when you look at what these people do once they're in office: Back-stab, sand bag, witch hunt and pose.

In a nutshell: Fake tough talk from cowards who would sell their mothers on a street corner to win an election.


Nope. There are some actual good guys. People who stand up to establishment Republicans and the Democratic whackos. They're just overwhelmed... don't have the votes.


"Democratic whackos."

Like I said, fake tough talk. Rhetoric. Phoney-baloney.

Every party and and subspecies in each party have "whackos". You know that. Or maybe you don't.

It gets scary, however, when the "whackos" are sucking all the air out of the room and preempting intelligent discussion of the issues while the non-whackos make it their life's work to do little, but witch hunt each other.

Huge time waste.


Sorry but the Democratic leadership is trying to take us so far afield that what else can you call them. Do you like "extremists" better?


so far afield

I don't think that's accurate at all. I think both parties have a lot of members who focus on the wrong issues - they're emotionally driven not rational and they're greedy and stupid, too.

Look at a party still trying to rescind a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade) made a half century ago, failing, and still trying while time and culture marches forward. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

That, Uffish, is whacko.


Or this, speaking of whackos:

People on Twitter are reminding Donald Trump that his menswear line is made in Mexico

Web Link

So here's a guy that's talking about Make America Great Again and sending jobs to Mexico while employing undocumented workers in the US.

He's distracting us all from the fact that middle class wages are flat by blaming a group of people he clearly likes to employ.

If that ain't whack, I'm on crack.


"In a nutshell: Fake tough talk from cowards who would sell their mothers on a street corner to win an election." Bravo and +1

What I want to hear about is life, mine and every other Americans; what's right with it, what's wrong with it and what we can do do fix the wrongs and move forward,

From one of the pieces linked above; "Unwavering Fealty to a Failed Theory" / "The Republican presidential candidates still cling to trickle-down economics.", Web Link

How about a little more attention to this from that piece - "For several decades, academic economists helped provide cover for trickle-down economics and the obvious harm it was doing because the theory fit with their ideas about inequality and incentives. But especially since the Great Recession, economists have been thinking about inequality in a new way. Increasingly, they are realizing that a strong middle class is not merely the result of a strong economy, as was previously thought, but rather a source of America's economic growth. Rebuilding the middle class would provide the stable base of consumer demand necessary to increase business investment and job creation. It would also enable the country to fully develop the potential of its people, increase the social trust that makes it possible for people to do business with one another, and help to balance political power so that we have a government that works for the whole country, not just those at the top. (Campaign finance reform will be a necessary part of that endeavor as well.)"

Wanna talk economics? Wanna talk growth, drivers, productivity and our economy? Then maybe our wannabe republican candidates should be talking about our middle class; how we stop the reduction, and turn it around? After all, no consumers, no business ... pretty fundamental.

I would highly recommend identifying each facet of the middle class issue (EX: outsourcing jobs, Tax Code, incentives, education, etc) and specificity of remedies for that facet - then continue with the nest facet. Paint is a picture of economic growth and leadership, widening that door to the "American Dream".

I don't want to hear what an $$ahole Obama or Clinton or Trump or the man in the moon is; I want to see leadership defined by vision, ability to unite, ability to identify issues and problems and address them ... then solve them. Who they surround themselves with (better people or fools) and that interaction now is a peek into how they likely would be in office.

I respect leadership, whatever flavor. I may or may not agree with certain actions, but I respect honesty and leadership and so far the best I've seen the GOP provide as their best for the 2016 US Presidential run are blatantly pandering fools that flip and flop more than a smelt in the net, saying whatever the money tells them to say - with the exception of Trump, which is what makes him so "entertaining" and fresh. But The Donald won't be our next President.

So Thank you to those that have contributed, and to those that have not, yet ... show us what you got. This is a serious issue, most assuredly a Presidential issue.


Rumor is that Jeb Bush has hired Michael D. Brown, the failed FEMA director under his brother The Shrub, as a campaign consultant.

What a great way to commemorate Hurricane Katrina.


^^^ What a great way to commemorate Hurricane Katrina. ^^^

Donna Brazile says Bush got Katrina right:

Web Link

Then again, most rational people don't blame him for hurricanes -- just those suffering from BDS.


"Bush returns to New Orleans for 10th anniversary of Katrina", Web Link

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Former President George W. Bush returned Friday to New Orleans — the scene of one of his presidency's lowest points — to tout the region's recovery from the nation's costliest natural disaster on the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina."

"His record was marred by initially flying over New Orleans in Air Force One without touching down to show his support in the flooded city, to his "Heckuva job, Brownie" praise for his Federal Emergency Management Agency director, Michael Brown."

"The monster storm set off a "confluence of blunders" that Bush's approval ratings never recovered from, said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University and author of "The Great Deluge," a detailed account of the first days after Katrina. "That's when I think his presidency started on a downward trend."

"Bush and his team were so deeply resented and mocked in New Orleans that Carnival paraders displayed him in effigy for years afterward."

"...got Katrina right", huh?

What does someone do when they don't understand economics enough to be able to contribute to an economic discussion? Well, it appears that the solution is to that is pull another rabbit out of their dusty hat and try to change the topic.

The problem there, or one of them anyway, is when one does that, we should expect a cogent, valid and substantial argument of vision, not a warped and mis-stated version of historical tragedy.

There are some that just can't seem to discuss anything intelligently. Thank goodness there aren't too many of them around.

Btw, Walker is set to offer his "foreign policy" views and vision later today. I'm on the edge of my seat. Since Walker is so inclined and foreign policy is such an important issue, I'll likely initiate a thread on how astute the republican candidates are on foreign policy, if nobody else does. Maybe those that nag all day every day about how lousy life is, but can't seem to find their tongue long enough to actually contribute to a discussion on economics to explain the specifics of why and how might find their tongue on foreign policy.


^^^ What does someone do when they don't understand economics enough to be able to contribute to an economic discussion? Well, it appears that the solution is to that is pull another rabbit out of their dusty hat and try to change the topic. ^^^

Yeah, shame on "Coasters" for bringing up Hurricane Katrina!


Typical myopic and again off-topic response - Blame the other guy.

Problem there is ... it doesn't appear that poster has any working knowledge of economics, as he has yet to contribute to the topic (although he has tried to change it numerous times).

Ignorance is bliss ... or so they say.

How about it francis; have you got enough in the tank to discuss your wallet and ours going forward? Your choice in candidates don't seem to be able to. You've been ragging and ranting for over six (^) years now; here's your chance.

Please, show us what you got (hopefully there's more than what you've 'provided' so far).


Yeah, shame on "Coasters" for bringing up Hurricane Katrina!

My point was regarding people doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results, as FrankieD's posts frequently demonstrate.

Why would anyone surround themselves with "Browny", Wolfowitz and the rest of the Henchman of the Apocalypse? What the hell is Jeb thinking?


^^^ How about it francis; have you got enough in the tank to discuss your wallet and ours going forward? ^^^

Sure, just not with a long-winded, biased and miserable creep like you!

And you may want to consider using a headline that matches the topic you now claim you want to discuss. Unless your purpose was to troll, which is likely what most people think you were attempting to do in your long-winded babble-mouth manner.


Maybe smaller, 'bite-sized' pieces might be more palatable and easier to respond to than such a wide open canvas, so: "Most 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates Would Push

"Seniors Into Poverty By Cutting Social Security", Web Link

In the first nationally televised 2016 presidential debate, Americans got a glimpse at what their economic future might hold if one of the Republican candidates becomes president -- and the picture wasn't pretty."

"Social Security is essential for workers and their families who want to retire with dignity and independence and want to be protected in the event of death or a disabling illness or accident. Given the Social Security views of those who took the debate stage Thursday night, Americans should be very worried."

We're all sure that this is a democratic (wash my mouth out and spit) conspiracy. It has to be.

I'm sure there's someone out there that can straighten this slight misunderstanding out for us. It is, after all, part of the economic topic and a major factor going into the election.


Hillary is so scared of Joe Biden getting into the race that she now has planned a dozen campaign fund raisers during the first half of September.


From the piece linked just above (in part): "Governor CHRIS CHRISTIEdoubled down on his destructive proposal to turn Social Security into a means-tested welfare program. On top of that, he proposed raising Social Security's full retirement age to 69, a thirteen percent, across-the-board benefit cut. Like President George W. Bush before him, Governor Christie will, if elected president, seek to destroy Social Security, while claiming to be just "saving" it."

"Christie's views on Social Security are extreme, fringe and totally out of touch with the American people. Polling released last week by Social Security Works shows that Americans across the board-- including majorities of Republicans and Independents-- oppose cuts to Social Security and say they are less likely to vote for candidates who support cuts to the program."

JEB BUSH: Privatize Social Security, Raise the Retirement Age As High as 70,End Medicare

SCOTT WALKER: Raise the Retirement Age

TED CRUZ: Privatize Social Security, Raise the Retirement Age, Cut Benefits

MARCO RUBIO: Raise the Retirement Age, May Cut Benefits, Privatize Medicare

RAND PAUL: Raise the Retirement Age to 70, Means-Test Social Security

JOHN KASICH:Privatize Social Security, Cut benefits

SECOND TIER DEBATE

RICK PERRY: Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme," "Monstrous Lie"

RICK SANTORUM: Raise Retirement Age,Means Test Social Security, May cut cost of living adjustments for current and future beneficiaries

BOBBY JINDAL: Privatize Social Security

CARLY FIORINA: May Raise Retirement Age

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Cut Social Security Benefits for People who are unmarried and have no children.

GEORGE PATAKI: Raise Retirement Age, Shift More Medicare Cost to Seniors and People With Disabilities

I'd say the Complete Moron Award (although it IS a very tough choice here) goes to Rick Perry! Great response, isn't it?

And there we have it, a glimpse into the topic - "how astute are the republican Presidential candidates?"


^^^ Hillary is so scared of Joe Biden getting into the race that she now has planned a dozen campaign fund raisers during the first half of September. ^^^

At least Joe likes America and Americans. I don't think you can say the same about The Inevitable Madam Hillary or her supporters.


I think Joe Biden should get into the race. Joe is trustworthy. Hillary has exhausted the patience of many Democrats. This upcoming presidential race is so interesting.


With all the fodder available to work with, we still seem to see a failure to communicate on (or perhaps simply grasp) the topic.

You don't suppose that the topic is so unfavorable for republican supporters that they are desperate to change the topic ... even if it means appearing to hijack the thread, do you?


^^^ I think Joe Biden should get into the race. Joe is trustworthy. Hillary has exhausted the patience of many Democrats. This upcoming presidential race is so interesting. ^^^

Nothing like an understatement to drive a point home!

Our governing class wanted Hillary v. Jeb. We may get two gaffe-masters instead.

At least they speak their minds and don't focus-group issues to death.


"Here's the best way to tell if someone's lying, according to science", Web Link

Not sure why, but this just seems like such a natural fit here.

From the piece: "Humans are notoriously poor lie detectors. In scientific experiments, our accuracy levels are only slightly greater than chance — and sometimes lower.

The problem is that most of these experiments focus on people's ability to spot untruths on their own. What would happen if people pooled their cognitive resources and worked together to suss out dishonesty?"

"That's the premise of new research led by Nadav Klein, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, and Nicholas Epley, Ph.D., a professor there. The study found that groups are significantly better at detecting white and high-stakes lies than individuals are."

"The researchers conducted a series of experiments designed to test how well people could predict lies working individually and in groups."

Well, what do you know - TA appears to provide us a better look and feel than we'd get on our own!

So, the latest joke on this issue? - how can you tell when a republican Presidential candidate is lying? ... his/her lips are moving!!!

Ka-ching!


George, the corollary to the crowd-sourced truth serum is that most people believe what supports their worldview, not reality.

And half the US is below average intelligence. That's why people vote Republican decade after decade when every single bit of data supports that economics - the number one issue for most Americans - fare much better under Democratic administrations.

That alone should make the GOP a relic. However, we still have people who think birth control is keeping an aspirin between your knees and creationism is science.

Yee-haw!


What makes your comment so funny is the truth behind it - maybe sad would be a better choice of words.

I hadn't thought about it, until you brought it up, but when was the last time we saw real prosperity under a republican President?

Maybe it has something to do with this: Web Link


when was the last time we saw real prosperity under a republican President?

Reagan's second term saw some uptick. Besides that., I got nothin'.


Reagan was responsible for

Web Link

[H]istory confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.

This after the absolutely dismal Carter years with high interest rates AND high inflation.


Reagan was responsible for: Web Link


I'd add here that Coasters is again correct in terms of republican Presidential leadership on our economy.

Once Reagan got the export of our manufacturing started and the jobs that went with it, everything else just sort of "fell into place', huh?

And here we are, some 2+ decades later, reaping the "benefits". Still wanna tak republican Presidential leadership?


"Paul Krugman: “Talking nonsense” is job requirement for GOP presidential nomination", Web Link

Another in a recent series by Krugman of hard hitting data that is not at all flattering to the republican candidates and the GOP itself - because it's all true.

Ouch!


Reagan did much to reduce regulations and excessive taxation, which is why we had a very robust economy under his leadership.

Jobs are now leaving America in large part because of excessive regulations and taxation, particularly capital gains taxes.

I wouldn't expect "four-legs-good, two-legs-bad" thinkers like George to recognize those simple facts.


Now when one asks how astute the republican candidates are, we look for clues to be able to answer that burning question.

So what would a clue look like? Don't know, but this might be one: "Donald Trump defiant after calling Anthony Weiner a 'perv'", Web Link

Here's how this one begins: "I think it's a very fair statement that I made and a lot of people have congratulated me," Trump said after an event in Nashville, Tennessee. "(Abedin) is receiving this very, very important information and giving it to Hillary. Well, who else is she giving it to? Her husband has serious problems, and on top of that, he now works for a public relations firm. So how can she be married to this guy who's got these major problems?"

"Trump added: "Who knows what he's gonna do with it. Forget about her. What she did is a very, very dangerous thing for this country and probably it's a criminal act."

Although good enough to be yet another story affording Trump face time, it seems a bit short on vision, doesn't it?

Sums up the republican candidacies pretty well - lots of flame throwing / no substance and God forbid ... no specifics to any real issue that we face.

Who cares about Weiner, really - with the possible exception of his wife, and that's in serious jeopardy.

We're talking a run for the President of the US, and this is what we get? Really? And there are some that actually support this entertaining reality show? Really?


From the Krugman piece I linked above, “Talking nonsense” is job requirement for GOP presidential nomination", Web Link , we get this; "When it comes to money, Republicans would rather "embrace fantasy" than deal with hard truths"

"Paul Krugman unloaded on the Republican Party’s “deep bench” in his New York Times column Friday, excoriating the presidential hopefuls for their nonsensical views on all matters economic."

“How would the men and women who would be president respond if crisis struck on their watch?” he asked, answering that on the GOP side, the answer is all “bluster and China-bashing.” He singles out Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who said that he if he were president, he’d “solve” the China-problem by telling its leader, Xi Jinping, to cancel his planned visit to the United States. “That would fix things!” he added.

And some actually defend Walker as Presidential? Good Luck with that.


Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't license you to be so mean to each other. The new Talk About I believe will give people a platform to discuss matters like the Palo Alto Almanac without name calling.


How astute are the republican candidates?

Well, here's a good glimpse: "Trump Is Setting the GOP Agenda

Every Republican presidential contender is playing Trump’s game. And losing at it." Web Link

It's a there ring circus and Trump has been and continues to be the ringmaster. He sets the tone / he sets the dialog / he determines the narrative and what's to be thought about today and everyday since he signed up.

So how does that reflect on the rest of the republican candidates? They all lack even a sliver of leadership skills; the very best they all can do is follow Trump's narrative, chasing their tails like the sad lot of losers they are.

A leader wouldn't be concerned with tent tricks. A leader wouldn't waste their precious time chasing a bombastic TV showman. A leader would be too busy sharing his/her message about the issues we face, the issues we are likely to face and the remedy for those issues. It is called vision.

The current republican barn of candidates couldn't spell vision. Heck, Mr Ed could at least count to ten!

I hope the republicans have a leader in the wings that they are going to unveil. We sure could use one.


"How astute are the republican Presidential candidates?" That's the question. This might qualify as one (of many, many) answers: "Rose Bowl skywriters blast Trump", Web Link

In this piece, aside from the dump Trump hullabaloo, Fiorina (a Stanford alum) had this to offer: "Love my alma mater, but rooting for a Hawkeyes win today. #RoseBowl" on Twitter.

Jeez, she can't even get that right - "RB Christian McCaffrey sets several records in 45-16 Rose Bowl win", Web Link

"Stanford opened the game against Iowa with a 75-yard touchdown pass to McCaffrey on the first play from scrimmage as the Cardinal rolled to a 45-16 victory." Stanford just flat licked Iowa's ass, simple as that.

Go back to that nice little closet and back to sleep, Carly. We'll wake you if we need you.

Her own alma mater?! When will she stop embarrassing herself?


"Carly Fiorina pandered to Iowans by rooting against her alma mater, and it backfired hard", Web Link

She should be used to it by now; just about all she touches and says "backfires" on her. I'll bet she can spell backfire in her sleep.

What's the punch line from that old joke that seems appropriate here? Oh, yeah - 'we've already determined that; now we're just bickering price.'

Such obvious pandering. Pathetic.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium