A subsidiary in dubai selling ink and printers is pretty weak.


1.) if it violated sanction laws and she had direct knowledge and input you would have heard about it.


2.) in no way did this enrich the regime itself or aid them in the ability to sponsor terror.


3.) at that point they eere doing 87 billion in annual sales were talking about less than 1%

---

Can we all just agree that the power of the federal government needs to be reduced regardless of who is wielding it?

Fixed that for you, buddy.

---

Dont u do that. Dont go getting all sensible on me. It breaks my rythm!

---

Dont u do that. Dont go getting all sensible on me. It breaks my rythm!

Even Scalia takes the "liberal" position 25% of the time

---

What bothers me about much of these "debates" is how all the candidates make no reference to Congress. I'm not surprised about Trump, as I'm not sure he knows we have a Congress, but the rest of these people act as if they would be working in a vacuum - and their supporters tend to buy into it.

 

TJ - you support R. Paul, which is fine, because he'll dismantle the security state. Really? How did he propose to do that, when his party in Congress is the prime builder of that system? 

 

How is Fiorina a war hawk if she can't get Congress to go along with her plan? Don't you think as a woman she has to come across as tough and strong, and is playing to the base?

 

Rubio seems to be one of the few somewhat grounded in political reality - and would make whomever the Dems nominate look old and weak.

 

And how many Ambiens does Ben Carson take before going on stage?

 

And Paul and Carson blew a real chance to make Trump look like an idiot  - they could/should have called him out re vaccines and autism. Were they so intimidated - or did they believe most Republicans buy into the vaccine/autism hoax?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Ranking

 

1. Donald Trump is still the front runner. He doesn't talk like he has been studying talking points and interacts like a normal person. He handled the heat well despite 80% of the questions being setup questions against him.

2. Carson looks good as well. He is slow an deliberate in his speaking, but comes across very intelligent and real. Him and Trump are a good pairing.

3. Rand Paul handled his discussions well and looked a lot better than the last debate. He went up in my books.

4. Cruz looked average if not below average. His rhetoric at times feels so fake. Plus he should have destroyed Bush on the Iraq war and Supreme Court discussions.

 

I wouldn't vote for any of the rest, but,

 

5. Rubio came out average. I don't agree with all of his stances.

6, Christie looked average, and I don't agree with any of his stances.

7. Walker, Kasich, Huckabee are irrelevant.

8. Jeb is like a giant baby up there. I don't understand his appeal at all. He looks completely spineless. He does not have America's interest at heart.

9. Fiorina is the most frightening contender. She is willing to start start WW3 with Russia. She is a failed CEO, one of the worst of all time. She is considered an outsider though in reality she is totally establishment. She will straight up lie to garner sympathy. She uses the female card as a shield against criticism. She is also hypocritical on Iran. Worst candidate of them all, slightly beating out Jeb.

---

Rubio is playing it up for a VP position

Fiorina wants how many more war ships? I'm cool with military might, but when you spend more than the next 6 military powers in the world...combined..I think the status quo is just fine.

Hey...maybe put her face under the wings of fighter jets and just fly over...watch em scram. Ok..I said it..Trump is getting to me.

Cruz...missed his mark as a faith healer

Paul...I like some of his ideas, but reminds me of the kid who kept pulling the girls pony tails who sat in front of him

Kasich..I dont mind, but no chance

Bush...really..stands on tip toes in photoshoot to look even taller than counterparts? Stumbled too much in answers. Seemed unsure

Christie and Walker..just pull a Rick Perry

Carson..likeable enough. Maybe too sedate? Inexperience?

Trump...just the faces he makes..lol. 

---

Blakes Life Matters

After watching two debates, who the hell is getting the nomination? Trump leads every poll and nobody thinks he will win. Guys like Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker were considered the future and they barely register a blip on the radar. Carson seems to be popular but looks to  me like this stage is too big for him and he has no real credentials. Fiorina runs on a business background that is not good.

---

;

;

What bothers me about much of these "debates" is how all the candidates make no reference to Congress. I'm not surprised about Trump, as I'm not sure he knows we have a Congress, but the rest of these people act as if they would be working in a vacuum - and their supporters tend to buy into it.

 

TJ - you support R. Paul, which is fine, because he'll dismantle the security state. Really? How did he propose to do that, when his party in Congress is the prime builder of that system? 

 

How is Fiorina a war hawk if she can't get Congress to go along with her plan? Don't you think as a woman she has to come across as tough and strong, and is playing to the base?

 

Rubio seems to be one of the few somewhat grounded in political reality - and would make whomever the Dems nominate look old and weak.

 

And how many Ambiens does Ben Carson take before going on stage?

 

And Paul and Carson blew a real chance to make Trump look like an idiot  - they could/should have called him out re vaccines and autism. Were they so intimidated - or did they believe most Republicans buy into the vaccine/autism hoax?

1. Clearly, you have never heard Rand Paul talk. He's been anti-DHS for years. He was even kicked out of an airport in Kentucky because he refused to allow a TSA drone to touch him. He lines up with the Republican Party in many ways, but diverges strongly from them in some key areas. If Paul wins, Congresspeople on both sides who have expressed reservations about the NSA in particular will line up behind him, and others will go with the flow, as it would undoubtedly be a popular stance and reason for Paul's victory. Go research a candidate before making a patently incorrect and uninformed statement like that.

 

2. One does not have to gain Congressional approval before starting a war. I'd expect an educated, articulate person like yourself to have learned that in your lessons on Vietnam from middle school history. The President has the authority to send in troops and order attacks without Congressional approval. Congress only has to approve engagements of longer than a certain amount of time, and can de-fund military efforts. Good luck getting Congress to defund Fiorina's WW3 if she's elected on a platform of "nuke teh worldz!".

 

3. Rubio is grounded in reality on some topics, but I'd have expected you to lay into his stances on gay rights and abortion.

 

4. He seemed much more awake after cleaning up in the first debate and getting a little more attention this time around.

 

5. Probably a little of both. Engaging Trump has proven to be a risky proposition, as he has the numbers and stats to own you. It's also still widely expected that he'll implode at some point. It's also pretty well-documented that of the anti-vax crowd, the vast majority consider themselves to be conservative. For fringe candidates like Paul and guys who need all the support they can get like Carson, alienating a decent chunk of the Republican base by coming out strongly pro-vax is a riskier move than it's worth at this point.

 

After watching two debates, who the hell is getting the nomination? Trump leads every poll and nobody thinks he will win. Guys like Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker were considered the future and they barely register a blip on the radar. Carson seems to be popular but looks to  me like this stage is too big for him and he has no real credentials. Fiorina runs on a business background that is not good.

Who knows? Christie, Cruz, Huckabee, Paul and Walker are probably done. Rubio is a likely VP candidate, but his Presidential campaign is waning. Kasich is also facing long odds at this point, but his moderate roots could earn him some votes from centrist-leaning Republicans and be a draw for centrist Democrats in the general election--particularly if the Democrats run an extremist like Sanders. That leaves, by my count, Trump, Carson, Fiorina and Bush as the likely frontrunners going into primary season. Of those, I expect to see Fiorina fade out once the primaries start, with Trump, Bush and Carson all likely going to the convention as possible nominees. Who of those three wins? My best guess remains that Bush is the strongest draw from the supporters of other candidates who drop out, but I wouldn't rule out Carson if the "outsider" theme continues on. Wouldn't even rule out Trump, for that matter, but I think he has a long way to go to prove himself a viable candidate and not just a sideshow attraction.

---

 

9. Fiorina is the most frightening contender. She is willing to start start WW3 with Russia. She is a failed CEO, one of the worst of all time. She is considered an outsider though in reality she is totally establishment. She will straight up lie to garner sympathy. She uses the female card as a shield against criticism. She is also hypocritical on Iran. Worst candidate of them all, slightly beating out Jeb.

 

I disagree. I don't think that the idea of peace through strength is the same as advocating ww3.  Fiorina didn't state a territorial ambition, Putin has, the iatola has, Isis has.  Those are the bullies on the global stage and i think that it is incumbent on the chief executive to ensure that we have a military capable of responding to any threat anywhere in the world and that ultimately that state of readiness is the only true foundation of a meaningful diplomatic strategy!

 

As for her being the WORST CEO of all time.  I think that when you talk about someone who ONLY increased sales by 9 billion dollars over a six year recession that's not as bad as people are making it out to be.  the CEO's in the financial sector that helped bank roll Barrack Obama's campaign devised the most mind numbing financial instruments in the history of market economics and created a crisis that theoretically could have ended the financial system as we know it.  Emmelt took one of the largest most profitable most stable corporations in this countries long history and engaged in such gambling to the point that his company would have been insolvent without direct government intervention, and he was made head of a jobs council.  

---

On the other hand,  I'm buying another month's worth of Cruz train tickets.  :yes:

I would expect no less

---

I disagree. I don't think that the idea of peace through strength is the same as advocating ww3.  Fiorina didn't state a territorial ambition, Putin has, the iatola has, Isis has.  Those are the bullies on the global stage and i think that it is incumbent on the chief executive to ensure that we have a military capable of responding to any threat anywhere in the world and that ultimately that state of readiness is the only true foundation of a meaningful diplomatic strategy!

 

As for her being the WORST CEO of all time.  I think that when you talk about someone who ONLY increased sales by 9 billion dollars over a six year recession that's not as bad as people are making it out to be.  the CEO's in the financial sector that helped bank roll Barrack Obama's campaign devised the most mind numbing financial instruments in the history of market economics and created a crisis that theoretically could have ended the financial system as we know it.  Emmelt took one of the largest most profitable most stable corporations in this countries long history and engaged in such gambling to the point that his company would have been insolvent without direct government intervention, and he was made head of a jobs council.  

 

We have peace through strength. We militarily outspend all of our competitors by an enormous amount. No truly threatening nation will dare declare war on us or our allies. So why build it up more? Why not use the existing military strength and intelligent negotiations with first world nations? We don't need a more threatening military, it is already threatening enough. We need diplomatic resolutions. If you wanna flex on the Middle East or North Korea, whatever. Flexing on Russia is just silly though. Putin knows we outmatch them technologically and militarily. He also knows we don't have a leader that will utilize that strength correctly. Fiorina will misuse and abuse it, creating unnecessary tension and potentially another cold war. Russia could, and should, be an ally.

---

We have peace through strength. We militarily outspend all of our competitors by an enormous amount. No truly threatening nation will dare declare war on us or our allies. So why build it up more? Why not use the existing military strength and intelligent negotiations with first world nations? We don't need a more threatening military, it is already threatening enough. We need diplomatic resolutions. If you wanna flex on the Middle East or North Korea, whatever. Flexing on Russia is just silly though. Putin knows we outmatch them technologically and militarily. He also knows we don't have a leader that will utilize that strength correctly. Fiorina will misuse and abuse it, creating unnecessary tension and potentially another cold war. Russia could, and should, be an ally.

What the...we agree?! Crap.

 

---

What the...we agree?! Crap.

 

 

---

We have peace through strength. We militarily outspend all of our competitors by an enormous amount. No truly threatening nation will dare declare war on us or our allies. So why build it up more? Why not use the existing military strength and intelligent negotiations with first world nations? We don't need a more threatening military, it is already threatening enough. We need diplomatic resolutions. If you wanna flex on the Middle East or North Korea, whatever. Flexing on Russia is just silly though. Putin knows we outmatch them technologically and militarily. He also knows we don't have a leader that will utilize that strength correctly. Fiorina will misuse and abuse it, creating unnecessary tension and potentially another cold war. Russia could, and should, be an ally.

Nice

---

Best meme usage of the week goes to you.

---

We have peace through strength. We militarily outspend all of our competitors by an enormous amount. No truly threatening nation will dare declare war on us or our allies. So why build it up more? Why not use the existing military strength and intelligent negotiations with first world nations? We don't need a more threatening military, it is already threatening enough. We need diplomatic resolutions. If you wanna flex on the Middle East or North Korea, whatever. Flexing on Russia is just silly though. Putin knows we outmatch them technologically and militarily. He also knows we don't have a leader that will utilize that strength correctly. Fiorina will misuse and abuse it, creating unnecessary tension and potentially another cold war. Russia could, and should, be an ally.

 

As someone that works directly with the military, I can tell you that you are flat out wrong.  Our military is not only decreasing in numbers, but it's also declining in culture.  That could be a whole other thread, but if you think that today's military is "feared" throughout the world you are wrong.  What is more important, if you think that our military right now is "up to the task" should a conflict start, you would probably be shocked to see how bad it is.

 

Ponder this for a bit, and maybe do some research.  Why are the Russians putting aircraft into Syria?  Why is Russia invading Ukraine and why have we not done anything to stop it?

 

Do you think that Vladimir Putin is really afraid of the U.S. military right now?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

As someone that works directly with the military, I can tell you that you are flat out wrong.  Our military is not only decreasing in numbers, but it's also declining in culture.  That could be a whole other thread, but if you think that today's military is "feared" throughout the world you are wrong.  What is more important, if you think that our military right now is "up to the task" should a conflict start, you would probably be shocked to see how bad it is.

 

Ponder this for a bit, and maybe do some research.  Why are the Russians putting aircraft into Syria?  Why is Russia invading Ukraine and why have we not done anything to stop it?

 

Do you think that Vladimir Putin is really afraid of the U.S. military right now?

To play devil's advocate here, who stops us from putting boots, aircraft or any other type of military asset anywhere we want?

 

To clarify, what I mean is, without starting a massive war what can we do to stop Russia?

---

As someone that works directly with the military, I can tell you that you are flat out wrong.  Our military is not only decreasing in numbers, but it's also declining in culture.  That could be a whole other thread, but if you think that today's military is "feared" throughout the world you are wrong.  What is more important, if you think that our military right now is "up to the task" should a conflict start, you would probably be shocked to see how bad it is.

 

Ponder this for a bit, and maybe do some research.  Why are the Russians putting aircraft into Syria?  Why is Russia invading Ukraine and why have we not done anything to stop it?

 

Do you think that Vladimir Putin is really afraid of the U.S. military right now?

 

The numbers are decreasing yet the budget remains static. That tells me extremely poor management. How will pumping more money or firepower into the military restore culture? That isn't a budgetary problem or a size problem. That is a leadership problem. The current leadership is terrible and management of the military is horrible. This is coming from someone who was in the US Air Force, Active and Guard, for 8 years. I have been overseas and worked with multinational coalitions. They absolutely recognize that the US is by and large the most powerful military entity on this planet.

 

Now, as to why the Russians are putting aircraft in Syria? Because Russia supports Assad. Personally, I think the US should support Assad as well rather than the radical Islamic terrorists he is fighting. Russia is protecting their national interests as well as broadcasting their geopolitical presence in the Middle East. Why are they doing that? Because the United States is not. Why are they invading the Ukraine? First, the Crimean populace voted for it. Second, because the US has not told Russia to stop. No one has actually negotiated with Putin to even try and stop him. Failed leadership 100%. Vladimir Putin is not afraid of the US because, like I said, the leadership. You put a strong negotiator like Trump in their and I absolutely believe he could make Putin back down. He could do it without shutting down communications and starting a cold war with Russia.

---

The numbers are decreasing yet the budget remains static. That tells me extremely poor management. How will pumping more money or firepower into the military restore culture?

---