Repug debate on CNN

[boutons_deux]

So Carly Fiorina made up a scene from the PP videos and talked about it in the debate.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...tm_source=SFFB

Presidentesse Fiorina: "I'm sure I saw, or dreamed, it doesn't matter which, Putin pushing his nuclear launch button so I pushed mine"

[tlongII]

You Lie. Russia went totally bankrupt invading Afghanistan which was then followed by the collapse of oil prices in the 80s. Exporting oil and gas was the only source of hard currency (dollars) since the ruble was not tradeable. Russia simply didn't have the oil/gas dollars to support itself, its losing war in Afghanistan, and its empire.

The Repug myth is that St Ronnie's huge buildup caused the collapse, but that's a lie, like everything else the Repugs spew about St Ronnie, their bogus hero.

St Ronnie also corrupted the CIA/NSA to LIE about, vastly overstate Russia's military/industrial strength to scare people into accepting St Ronnie's buildup (aka, wealth transfer from taxpayers to the MIC). CIA/NSA up to that point didn't "fix up" the intelligence to fit policy, only provided raw data for the politicians to make policy. dubya and hed continued the Repug corruption of NSA/CIA to fixup intel about Iraq.

Abstract: "The fall of the [Soviet] empire," former Czech president Vaclav Havel wrote, "is an event on the same scale of historical importance as the fall of the Roman Empire." It is true that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine--that the Soviet Union will use force if necessary to ensure that a socialist state remains socialist--and in so doing undercut the Communist leaders and regimes of Eastern and Central Europe in the critical year of 1989. But why did Gorbachev abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine? One Western leader above all others forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, brought down the Berlin Wall, and ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield: President Ronald Reagan.

[tlongII]

http://www.heritage.org/research/lec...l-of-communism

[boutons_deux]

http://www.heritage.org/research/lec...l-of-communism

heritage is a VRWC stink tank, created to LIE, and spew "academic" propaganda. If you doubt me, ing South Carolina Confederate asshole Jim Demint runs Heritage.

Along with CATO, it was one of the earliest VRWC stink tanks, founded in 1973.

[tlongII]

heritage is a VRWC stink tank, created to LIE, and spew "academic" propaganda. If you doubt me, ing South Carolina Confederate asshole Jim Demint runs Heritage.

Along with CATO, it was one of the earliest VRWC stink tanks, founded in 1973.

It's the absolute truth in this case.

[boutons_deux]

NYT on GOP Debate: ‘A collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre’

The New York Times editorial board published a scathing critique of Wednesday’s main Republican candidate on Friday, saying the 11 candidates sent a scary message while ignoring too many issues.

“It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere,” the editorial stated. “Where basic laws — like physics and the Cons ution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to, just because you say they will.”

The board singled out Ben Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) while ripping the candidates for their willingness to build a fence around the US-Mexico border as part of their immigration policy, noting that Rubio at one point was a co-author of an immigration reform bill.

“Do these people have to be sent to the Rio Grande Valley to see how ludicrous a border fence — over mountains, vast deserts, remote valleys and private property — would be?” the board asked. “And it won’t solve the problem they are railing against, which doesn’t exist anyway. Illegal immigration has fallen essentially to zero.”

The board led its editorial, “Crazy Talk at the Republican debate,” pointing out the candidates’ refusal to discuss the country’s infrastructure, child poverty, and educational issues, among other concerns, while offering “no reassurance that grown-ups were at the table” regarding the attacks on Planned Parenthood, or policy concerning climate change.

“Peel back the boasting and insults, the lies and exaggerations common to any presidential campaign,” the editorial stated. “What remains is a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre, that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/nyt-...e+Raw+Story%29

[Blake]

....they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.”

i knew i wasn't the only one who thought it

[mingus]

There's no passion with any of the candidates. They're all boring and look like the political robots pre-programmed to say scripted that they are--of course other than Donald Trump. But Donald Trump isn't electable for other (good) reasons.

And I'm a conservative.

i think that the non evengalical part of the party needs to just break away and create its own party. I think they'd win more independents and maybe even liberals. I'm so god damn tired of the the evangelical pandering. It's ruined conservatism.

[baseline bum]

If Reagan was president when the Berlin Wall was falling he would have egged the commies on and they would have overthrown Gorbachev and installed a hardliner like another Stalin or Lenin and a shooting war would have taken place in Germany. Thankfully GHW Bush knew when to shut the up and let Gorbachev tiptoe the line between the Communists and the west and East Germany fell peacefully before the coup on him could take place. I'm happy we had an intelligence official at the helm instead of a ing B-movie actor.

[boutons_deux]

There were at least 11 distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies in this week’s GOP debate

1. Insisting That Hispanics Used to Love Republicans: Lindsey Graham scolded the other three candidates in his debate, telling them that Hispanics voted for “us” under previous Republican president George W. Bush. Although it’s true that frontrunner Donald Trump has depleted much of what was left of Hispanic support for the GOP, even under Bush that wasn’t a vote they won. At the high point in 2004, Bush won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, and Romney only 27 percent.

2. Ridiculously Claiming That Iran Threatens the Western World: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wanted the audience to know that Iran threatens the “essence of Western civilization.” The truth is, Iran’s defense budget is around $10 billion, a fractionof our own $600-billion-plus defense budget. Huckabee did not expain how a country with no weapons of mass destruction and a tiny defense budget can be a threat to the United States, let alone our NATO allies. Probably because it makes no sense.

3. Implying the U.S. Government Funds Abortion: Over and over, the assertion was made that the United States federal government finances abortions, such as by giving subsidies to Planned Parenthood. While one can make a convoluted argument that money is indirectly spread around, the fact is the federal government has had a blanket ban on abortion funding except in cases of rape, incest or when it threatens the health of the mother.

4. Claiming Obama Is Trying to Cir vent the Process to Let In Syrian Refugees: Bobby Jindal said that Obama was trying to “short-circuit the vetting process” to let in Syrian refugees, a dangerous dog whistle to imply that the president was going to let in terrorists. As CNN’s own fact-check pointed out, the 10,000 refugees — truly a paltry number— that are slated to come in will follow the exact same process as any other refugees.

5. Saying U.S. Is Almost the Only Country With Birthright Citizenship: Trump said almost no one else, including Mexico, has birthright citizenship, and moderator Jake Tapper agreed with him. That’s true, if you think the entire rest of the world consists of Europe. Almost everywhere in the Americas has birthright citizenship — and thatincludes Mexico.

6. Rubio’s Fantastic But False Story About His Grandfather: Senator Rubio gave an emotional address about his grandfather supposedly fleeing Castro to come to the United States. There’s just one problem: the story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As has been reported in the past, Rubio’s family came to the United States long before Castro ever came to power.

7. Stating That North Korea Can Hit Us With a Nuclear Weapon: Rubio also claimed that North Korea could hit us with a nuclear weapon. Unless it plans to send a team on a boat carrying a nuke, that’s not going to happen. There is very little evidence that North Korea has a functional intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.

8. Saying, With A Straight Face, That Bush Kept Us Safe: “My brother kept us safe,” Jeb Bush said. This is a pretty ironic thing to say five days after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which his brother obviously did not keep us safe from.

9. Going Back to the Tired “Sanctuary” Argument About Terrorists: Rubio made the argument that we needed to stay in Iraq, invade Afghanistan and have our military all over the world to prevent terrorists from having “sanctuary.” As the Boston bombing, Charleston, and many other attacks prove, terrorists don’t need to have a physical space to plot attacks, and a giant military presence in a foreign country doesn’t necessarily prevent them so much as give them recruits.

10. Telling People Marijuana Is More Harmful Than Beer: Carly Fiorina, disrupting Rand Paul’s more libertarian view on drugs, said that smoking marijuana isn’t like having a beer. Actually marijuana is much safer than alcohol; marijuana has killed next to no one while the Centers for Disease Control says that, “one in 10 deaths among working-age adults can be attributed to excessive alcohol use.”

11. Lying About Vaccines: Trump boosted theories that vaccinations are linked to autism. Despite Ben Carson’s intervention that this wasn’t true, Rand Paul still went on to tout the “voluntary” nature of smallpox vaccinations. Actually they were not voluntary, they were mandated and financed by a global government effort through the World Health Organization.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ther...e+Raw+Story%29

[admiralsnackbar]

It's the absolute truth in this case.

Considering that's what all of us were taught growing up, I won't give you for asserting the point, but 20+ years down the road there is plenty of persuasive and well-do ented evidence to the contrary. This is the short-hand version: http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/...nion-is-wrong/ but the full story is better articulated in books. I recommend "Russia and the Idea of the West," by Robert English, as one that convinced me the position you've taken (as I once had) was incomplete. The US did beat the Soviets, but it had little to do with Reagan.

[boutons_deux]

"US did beat the Soviets"

still a Repug LIE that St Ronnie and/or USA beat USSR.

The USSR beat itself into collapse by invading Afghanistan and losing $Bs and 1000s of troops which really upset the Russian people,

totally mismanaging its economy and industrial base for decades,

being totally dependent on hard currency US$ from exports of oil and gas ('80s oil price collpased),

wasting lots of limited resources maintaining it defunct, unproductive, moribund empire (Cuba, countries behind the Iron Curtain, etc).

[boutons_deux]

[admiralsnackbar]

[COLOR=#000000]"US did beat the Soviets" still a Repug LIE that St Ronnie and/or USA beat USSR.

Jesus, dude... read the article I posted or the book I recommended -- are you really so reflexively ideological that you can't recognize when people are supporting your position?

[Will Hunting]

Ann Coulter melting down

I think Ann Coulter is a generally insufferable cunt, but I applaud her for these tweets. She's clearly pointing out how this campaign is being influenced by Jewish money from AIPAC/Sheldon Adelson which is commendable.

I imagine there's a bunch of muh antisemitism backlash against her because of this, but her point is perfectly legitimate.

[Winehole23]

Jesus, dude... read the article I posted or the book I recommended -- are you really so reflexively ideological that you can't recognize when people are supporting your position?

yep. sure is.

[Splits]

I think Ann Coulter is a generally insufferable cunt, but I applaud her for these tweets. She's clearly pointing out how this campaign is being influenced by Jewish money from AIPAC/Sheldon Adelson which is commendable.

I imagine there's a bunch of muh antisemitism backlash against her because of this, but her point is perfectly legitimate.

It's partially the donor base, but I don't think you can disregard the evangelical vote: http://wonkette.com/594022/of-course...-this-one-time

[Will Hunting]

It's partially the donor base, but I don't think you can disregard the evangelical vote: http://wonkette.com/594022/of-course...-this-one-time

The evangelical vote is largely brainwashed by the donor base. A lot of the major televangelicals, particularly John Hagee, receive money from AIPAC every year in exchange for preaching pro-Israel bull .

[Will Hunting]

I also disagree with calling Coulter "Jew hating" when she's historically been pro-Israel. It's more of the same bull false premise that anyone who doesn't constantly slob Israel's knob is an anti-Semite.

[tlongII]

Considering that's what all of us were taught growing up, I won't give you for asserting the point, but 20+ years down the road there is plenty of persuasive and well-do ented evidence to the contrary. This is the short-hand version: http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/...nion-is-wrong/ but the full story is better articulated in books. I recommend "Russia and the Idea of the West," by Robert English, as one that convinced me the position you've taken (as I once had) was incomplete. The US did beat the Soviets, but it had little to do with Reagan.

foreignpolicy.com. That mag is a joke.

[hater]

It's a fact evangelical leaders and Zionist extremists have joined forces. That pact happened long ago.

The funny thing is evangelicals are waiting for the coming of the lord which will be triggered by the wipeout of all Israel. So they are both coperating with each other but for different goals. Zionists want to destroy their enemies. Evangelicals want a war so Israel can get wiped out and the Lord can come

Sick puppies out there

[boutons_deux]

The evangelical vote is largely brainwashed by the donor base. A lot of the major televangelicals, particularly John Hagee, receive money from AIPAC every year in exchange for preaching pro-Israel bull .

the evangelical base is brainwashed by the evangelical leaders, who may or may not see $$$ from the VRWC, whose intention is to dupe that base, on social issues, into voting Repug, the party of morality and Christ , so the VRWC can continue to rape the 99%, including the evangelical base.

[Nbadan]

...........................baha...ha....

[ElNono]

I just don't know that the tale of "we're wayyyyyyy worse than 7 years ago" really resonates. Maybe it does among the GOP base, which they're targeting now, but I don't think they can win the general election with that.

It's not that right now it's all roses, but 7 years ago, coming out of the bailouts, the economy was really ed up. Recession, unemployment was higher, gas prices were higher. We still had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Large companies (ie: auto industry) were bankrupting. We're now much more energy independent than we were then (and back then, with $4/gallon, that was a big concern. A fart in Saudi Arabia showed up immediately at the pump). Even Wall Street made a killing with this guy.

We can certainly be a lot better, but worse than 7 years ago? I don't know about that.

The rest of the message is some variation of 'military weak, need more money', 'christians are under attack', 'supreme court justices are not above god', or the wedge topic of the moment (ie: 'evil planned parenthood', 'hillary emails', etc).

I'd like to hear a more positive message from the candidates, something beyond the rehashed 'trickle down', about how they plan to shape the future. The 'wouldn't it be nice to be back to the 80's?' narrative is a cliché at this point (and I loved the '80s).

I want to hear what's their plan for replacing Barrycare. Everybody (except Trump) seems to want to have a 'flat tax', ok, what do the numbers look like with it? Does it add up? If it doesn't, what are you going to gut, besides the IRS?, etc

Maybe it's too early to get into policy and specifics, but without them, it's just a popularity contest.

[boutons_deux]

"hear a more positive message from the candidates"

It's the Party of Stupid,both politicians and the tail-wagging base.

They hate govt (to the benefit of 1%/BigCort rigged status quo), so they want to MISgovern completely (eg, Do Nothings in Congress while blocking everything from the Dems) to convince their base that only (intentional, self-fulfilliing) bad can come from govt.

The Repugs and their base are the biggest threat to America, not Muslims.

America is ed and un able.

Repugs have floated (some turds) about how they will replace repealed Obamacare (failed 50+ times). But serious analysis proves they all stink, screw people and enrich BigHealthCare.

flat tax is a huge advantage to the 1%, screws the poor, which is why their paid sock puppets have been pushing it for decades.

Nothing gets changed or fixed unless politicians get paid, and lots of people get richer, and the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp pay very well.

I'm surprised at the naivete of your post, actually expecting serious govt, serious discussion from the Repugs. The last 35 years, esp the last 15, should have proven to you to expect nothing good from the Repugs.