login
Democratic debate (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2015-10-15 2:38 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion  7821     Brooklyn, NY |  Subject: RE: Democratic debateOriginally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 To me, the strongest indictment of Fiorina's competence as a CEO is that, once she left HP, she wasn't hired again by anyone else. (Which was brought up but, I think it was Trump or Paul in the GOP debate, lest you think I'm making it up.). At at time when Fortune 500 companies-- particularly tech companies, are DESPERATE to show the world they're not run entirely by men, I think if she'd been someone another company thought was remotely trustworthy, she would have gotten hired by someone else. Originally posted by dmiller5 I think Fiorina gets a bit too much criticism from those that couldn't run a lemonade stand. I am not saying that her execution as CEO was perfect but she was the type of CEO that HP needed at the time to survive. She was a "change" type CEO. And people who are comfortable in their positions don't like change. At least she was bold and not afraid to act on her vision. I am just wondering how many of HP's competitors in the 90's are still around and have anywhere close to HP's market cap today? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm not thrilled, but I'm not unhappy. It's the Hillary and Bernie show if and until Biden figures out what he's doing. I think Hillary is far from "severely damaged". Sanders has crept up, but he's still trailing by double digits in most of the polls I've seen. People are excited because her lead has shrunk by half, but it's still 40-something to 20-something in a lot of polls. On the contrary, I think Hillary has shaken off some of the email stuff and is starting to find her footing again. I sort of think Biden was waiting to see how she did in the debate and if it seemed like she was stumbling, he'd make the decision to come in. Most of what I've seen seems to think she did pretty well, so I'd be surprised if Joe jumps in, but who knows. I still don't think Trump will win the nomination and the worst thing that could happen to the GOP is trump running as an independent. And it's wishful thinking to compare the Democratic field to the GOP field that lost the last two elections. That's like comparing, I dunno, a donkey to an elephant. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn That debate was no fun at all. Just experienced public servants talking like grownups about real issues in a civilized way. I like it much better when you have failed executives calling out reality-tv stars about comments one made about the others' face. That's how you choose a president. But you have to admit it is more fun. haha The funny part is that people like to relegate Tump to the name caller and reality-tv star, but that has nothing to do with his appeal. If anything they're huge negatives that he's having to overcome. People are just so sick and tired of "experienced public servants" taking advantage of the people that his negatives just don't matter. The Democratic party is going to see this first hand when they have to face Trump in this general election and it's not going to be pretty come election day. There's nothing but stale talking points and "more of the same" coming from a bunch of old white politicians on the Democratic side. They're doing exactly what the Republican party did the past 8 years with terrible results. You can't tell me you're happy with the candidates that were on the stage last night. Hillary is severely damaged, Berney is a socialist, O'Malley made a huge mess of Maryland. The other two obviously didn't even deserve to be on the stage. ¯\_(?)_/¯ I agree that Biden won't get in. He just doesn't have any infrastructure at all, so it would be a huge task to get something going this late. As for Hillary being severely damaged I'll clarify my thoughts on that. Most Presidential candidates come in flying high on some sort of success. Trump (business/TV success), Bush (Successful Florida Governor), Carson (Successful Surgeon), Fiornia (Successful business woman). On the other hand Hillary is coming off of a very bad experience as Secretary of state that had the unfortunate Benghazi incident and it's pretty obvious that she committed a Felony offense with the email scandal that is likely to bite her during the campaign. When asked what was her greatest accomplishment as secretary of state she can't even answer the question. This is not a good sign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGXHiKX2CtU In the eyes of the American people her numbers are at or near the lowest points ever: (not where you want to be going into a presidential race) Favorability rating dropped from 66% to 41% the last few years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/185324/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-one-worst.aspx) "Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever" (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274) I know that many Democrats like her because of her last name, but she's coming into the election damaged and is not playing well outside of the Democratic party. This is not a good sign for the Democratic ticket IMHO.
HAHAHA Fiorina successful businesswoman/. HAHAHA she drove the company directly into the toilet.
and carson often says things that make me question whether or not he finished high school Thanks for your valuable and well thought out reply. lol I actually agree with you on Fiorina, but that is the qualification she's running on (good or bad). Similarly Hillary is running on her background as a Senator and Secretary of State. At least with Fiorina she can articulates her accomplishments as CEO and tries to defend her failures, but for whatever reason Hillary just changes the subject every time anyone asks her about her SoS accomplishments. That's not going to play well in the general Ok...so if you agree with me on Fiorina, why do you present your argument as though she has this grand accomplishment and the dem candidates do not. sounds like a lot of bluster from the candidates and from yourself. +1, I was just telling this to a friend of mine a couple days ago. Hey-- we agree again!! I thought we decided that we weren't going to make a habit of this? |
| 2015-10-15 3:10 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Hey-- we agree again!! I thought we decided that we weren't going to make a habit of this? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 To me, the strongest indictment of Fiorina's competence as a CEO is that, once she left HP, she wasn't hired again by anyone else. (Which was brought up but, I think it was Trump or Paul in the GOP debate, lest you think I'm making it up.). At at time when Fortune 500 companies-- particularly tech companies, are DESPERATE to show the world they're not run entirely by men, I think if she'd been someone another company thought was remotely trustworthy, she would have gotten hired by someone else. Originally posted by dmiller5 I think Fiorina gets a bit too much criticism from those that couldn't run a lemonade stand. I am not saying that her execution as CEO was perfect but she was the type of CEO that HP needed at the time to survive. She was a "change" type CEO. And people who are comfortable in their positions don't like change. At least she was bold and not afraid to act on her vision. I am just wondering how many of HP's competitors in the 90's are still around and have anywhere close to HP's market cap today? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm not thrilled, but I'm not unhappy. It's the Hillary and Bernie show if and until Biden figures out what he's doing. I think Hillary is far from "severely damaged". Sanders has crept up, but he's still trailing by double digits in most of the polls I've seen. People are excited because her lead has shrunk by half, but it's still 40-something to 20-something in a lot of polls. On the contrary, I think Hillary has shaken off some of the email stuff and is starting to find her footing again. I sort of think Biden was waiting to see how she did in the debate and if it seemed like she was stumbling, he'd make the decision to come in. Most of what I've seen seems to think she did pretty well, so I'd be surprised if Joe jumps in, but who knows. I still don't think Trump will win the nomination and the worst thing that could happen to the GOP is trump running as an independent. And it's wishful thinking to compare the Democratic field to the GOP field that lost the last two elections. That's like comparing, I dunno, a donkey to an elephant. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn That debate was no fun at all. Just experienced public servants talking like grownups about real issues in a civilized way. I like it much better when you have failed executives calling out reality-tv stars about comments one made about the others' face. That's how you choose a president. But you have to admit it is more fun. haha The funny part is that people like to relegate Tump to the name caller and reality-tv star, but that has nothing to do with his appeal. If anything they're huge negatives that he's having to overcome. People are just so sick and tired of "experienced public servants" taking advantage of the people that his negatives just don't matter. The Democratic party is going to see this first hand when they have to face Trump in this general election and it's not going to be pretty come election day. There's nothing but stale talking points and "more of the same" coming from a bunch of old white politicians on the Democratic side. They're doing exactly what the Republican party did the past 8 years with terrible results. You can't tell me you're happy with the candidates that were on the stage last night. Hillary is severely damaged, Berney is a socialist, O'Malley made a huge mess of Maryland. The other two obviously didn't even deserve to be on the stage. ¯\_(?)_/¯ I agree that Biden won't get in. He just doesn't have any infrastructure at all, so it would be a huge task to get something going this late. As for Hillary being severely damaged I'll clarify my thoughts on that. Most Presidential candidates come in flying high on some sort of success. Trump (business/TV success), Bush (Successful Florida Governor), Carson (Successful Surgeon), Fiornia (Successful business woman). On the other hand Hillary is coming off of a very bad experience as Secretary of state that had the unfortunate Benghazi incident and it's pretty obvious that she committed a Felony offense with the email scandal that is likely to bite her during the campaign. When asked what was her greatest accomplishment as secretary of state she can't even answer the question. This is not a good sign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGXHiKX2CtU In the eyes of the American people her numbers are at or near the lowest points ever: (not where you want to be going into a presidential race) Favorability rating dropped from 66% to 41% the last few years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/185324/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-one-worst.aspx) "Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever" (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274) I know that many Democrats like her because of her last name, but she's coming into the election damaged and is not playing well outside of the Democratic party. This is not a good sign for the Democratic ticket IMHO.
HAHAHA Fiorina successful businesswoman/. HAHAHA she drove the company directly into the toilet.
and carson often says things that make me question whether or not he finished high school Thanks for your valuable and well thought out reply. lol I actually agree with you on Fiorina, but that is the qualification she's running on (good or bad). Similarly Hillary is running on her background as a Senator and Secretary of State. At least with Fiorina she can articulates her accomplishments as CEO and tries to defend her failures, but for whatever reason Hillary just changes the subject every time anyone asks her about her SoS accomplishments. That's not going to play well in the general Ok...so if you agree with me on Fiorina, why do you present your argument as though she has this grand accomplishment and the dem candidates do not. sounds like a lot of bluster from the candidates and from yourself. +1, I was just telling this to a friend of mine a couple days ago. crap sorry...
|
| 2015-10-15 3:33 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn To me, the strongest indictment of Fiorina's competence as a CEO is that, once she left HP, she wasn't hired again by anyone else. (Which was brought up but, I think it was Trump or Paul in the GOP debate, lest you think I'm making it up.). At at time when Fortune 500 companies-- particularly tech companies, are DESPERATE to show the world they're not run entirely by men, I think if she'd been someone another company thought was remotely trustworthy, she would have gotten hired by someone else. I have no idea if she brushed up her resume and looked for another CEO after she left HP. Those golden parachutes are there for a reason, Not many CEOs have CEO of two fortune 100 companies on the resume. Heck, I don't think Steve Jobs had too many offers either after his ousting at Apple. I think CEO jobs in the tech industry were pretty tough to come by in 2005 anyway. So because she didn't immediately get picked up by someone isn't an automatic indictment of her competence. The fact that she rose from the management trainee ranks at AT&T to the CEO of HP and one of Time's 100 most influential people in the world is a better indication of her competence then not scoring another CEO job during a bad tech economy. Again, I didn't say that she was a great CEO by any stretch of the imagination but she wasn't the worst either and definitely not the full cause of HP's problems during her tenure. |
| 2015-10-15 3:47 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn To me, the strongest indictment of Fiorina's competence as a CEO is that, once she left HP, she wasn't hired again by anyone else. (Which was brought up but, I think it was Trump or Paul in the GOP debate, lest you think I'm making it up.). At at time when Fortune 500 companies-- particularly tech companies, are DESPERATE to show the world they're not run entirely by men, I think if she'd been someone another company thought was remotely trustworthy, she would have gotten hired by someone else. I have no idea if she brushed up her resume and looked for another CEO after she left HP. Those golden parachutes are there for a reason, Not many CEOs have CEO of two fortune 100 companies on the resume. Heck, I don't think Steve Jobs had too many offers either after his ousting at Apple. I think CEO jobs in the tech industry were pretty tough to come by in 2005 anyway. So because she didn't immediately get picked up by someone isn't an automatic indictment of her competence. The fact that she rose from the management trainee ranks at AT&T to the CEO of HP and one of Time's 100 most influential people in the world is a better indication of her competence then not scoring another CEO job during a bad tech economy. Again, I didn't say that she was a great CEO by any stretch of the imagination but she wasn't the worst either and definitely not the full cause of HP's problems during her tenure. No, it's not an automatic indictment, but if the last time Carson performed surgery, things went horribly wrong and he never practiced medicine again, you'd have your doubts about his competence as a surgeon wouldn't you? Fiorina's main selling point is that she was a CEO of a Fortune 100 company, but it's something that she did only for a short time, and not very well, so I'd question how much of a strength it really is. It's kind of like Trump's unkind comment about John McCain, "I like the guys who weren't shot down and captured." If we have to get a CEO as president, how about one who actually did a good job at it? |
| 2015-10-15 3:57 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Democratic debate She did say she had received "plenty of offers": Carly Fiorina said on Sunday she had plenty of job offers after being fired as the CEO of Hewlett Packard, including posts in the George W. Bush administration, but she decided against them. "I didn’t want to go back to work as a CEO," the Republican presidential contender said on NBC's "Meet the Press," rejecting suggestions her lack of private-sector employment after leaving HP is an indictment of her leadership. "Yes, I was offered many jobs – as a CEO, in the Bush administration. I wanted a break, and then I wanted to give back." I would love to see some proof of that or if its another lie like her claim about the PP video in the second debate (which she won't back down from) or her claim she rose from secretary to CEO. What a crock.. |
| 2015-10-15 3:58 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 No, it's not an automatic indictment, but if the last time Carson performed surgery, things went horribly wrong and he never practiced medicine again, you'd have your doubts about his competence as a surgeon wouldn't you? Fiorina's main selling point is that she was a CEO of a Fortune 100 company, but it's something that she did only for a short time, and not very well, so I'd question how much of a strength it really is. It's kind of like Trump's unkind comment about John McCain, "I like the guys who weren't shot down and captured." If we have to get a CEO as president, how about one who actually did a good job at it? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn To me, the strongest indictment of Fiorina's competence as a CEO is that, once she left HP, she wasn't hired again by anyone else. (Which was brought up but, I think it was Trump or Paul in the GOP debate, lest you think I'm making it up.). At at time when Fortune 500 companies-- particularly tech companies, are DESPERATE to show the world they're not run entirely by men, I think if she'd been someone another company thought was remotely trustworthy, she would have gotten hired by someone else. I have no idea if she brushed up her resume and looked for another CEO after she left HP. Those golden parachutes are there for a reason, Not many CEOs have CEO of two fortune 100 companies on the resume. Heck, I don't think Steve Jobs had too many offers either after his ousting at Apple. I think CEO jobs in the tech industry were pretty tough to come by in 2005 anyway. So because she didn't immediately get picked up by someone isn't an automatic indictment of her competence. The fact that she rose from the management trainee ranks at AT&T to the CEO of HP and one of Time's 100 most influential people in the world is a better indication of her competence then not scoring another CEO job during a bad tech economy. Again, I didn't say that she was a great CEO by any stretch of the imagination but she wasn't the worst either and definitely not the full cause of HP's problems during her tenure. Careful with the bolded, dmiller is going to come down on you. :-D |
| 2015-10-15 4:04 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by ejshowers She did say she had received "plenty of offers": Carly Fiorina said on Sunday she had plenty of job offers after being fired as the CEO of Hewlett Packard, including posts in the George W. Bush administration, but she decided against them. "I didn’t want to go back to work as a CEO," the Republican presidential contender said on NBC's "Meet the Press," rejecting suggestions her lack of private-sector employment after leaving HP is an indictment of her leadership. "Yes, I was offered many jobs – as a CEO, in the Bush administration. I wanted a break, and then I wanted to give back." I would love to see some proof of that or if its another lie like her claim about the PP video in the second debate (which she won't back down from) or her claim she rose from secretary to CEO. What a crock.. I don't get the PP video statement either. The videos themselves (as they are) are more than enough to justify an argument to stop the funding but when she pushed it "just a little further" it completely discredited her position.
|
| 2015-10-18 8:25 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Democratic debate RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| 2015-10-21 11:28 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Biden's out. Guess that means no indictment for Hillary. lol On a side note tangent, I strongly dislike the idea of our attorney general being a political appointment by the existing administration. I'm not saying Hillary did or didn't do anything wrong, but under our current system if she blatantly did multiple things illegally it's up to the President and the AG to decide if she gets prosecuted. This is just wrong at so many levels because our laws need to be above politics. I've always felt the AG office needs to be collectively lead by the states to keep our Fed's in check no matter who is in office. |
| 2015-10-21 11:50 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Biden's out. Guess that means no indictment for Hillary. lol On a side note tangent, I strongly dislike the idea of our attorney general being a political appointment by the existing administration. I'm not saying Hillary did or didn't do anything wrong, but under our current system if she blatantly did multiple things illegally it's up to the President and the AG to decide if she gets prosecuted. This is just wrong at so many levels because our laws need to be above politics. I've always felt the AG office needs to be collectively lead by the states to keep our Fed's in check no matter who is in office. I'm not sure what "collectively led by the states" would look like. Someone (an individual or a very small group of individuals) has to be the AG's boss. You think it would be any less political if the AG answered, say, to some congressional committee vs the President? |
| 2015-10-21 12:06 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sigh* |
| 2015-10-21 1:36 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm not sure what "collectively led by the states" would look like. Someone (an individual or a very small group of individuals) has to be the AG's boss. You think it would be any less political if the AG answered, say, to some congressional committee vs the President? Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Biden's out. Guess that means no indictment for Hillary. lol On a side note tangent, I strongly dislike the idea of our attorney general being a political appointment by the existing administration. I'm not saying Hillary did or didn't do anything wrong, but under our current system if she blatantly did multiple things illegally it's up to the President and the AG to decide if she gets prosecuted. This is just wrong at so many levels because our laws need to be above politics. I've always felt the AG office needs to be collectively lead by the states to keep our Fed's in check no matter who is in office. I get what you're saying and I've tried thinking it through myself. My initial thought was have the 50 AG's be on some sort of panel, but they obviously have jobs to do back in their states so that's not practical. My main thought is that I don't like a single AG who is politically appointed by the administration in power as being the determiner of who does and does not break the law. It seems as though there's something fundamentally wrong with that. <puts tinfoil hat on> |
| 2015-10-21 2:03 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm not sure what "collectively led by the states" would look like. Someone (an individual or a very small group of individuals) has to be the AG's boss. You think it would be any less political if the AG answered, say, to some congressional committee vs the President? Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Biden's out. Guess that means no indictment for Hillary. lol On a side note tangent, I strongly dislike the idea of our attorney general being a political appointment by the existing administration. I'm not saying Hillary did or didn't do anything wrong, but under our current system if she blatantly did multiple things illegally it's up to the President and the AG to decide if she gets prosecuted. This is just wrong at so many levels because our laws need to be above politics. I've always felt the AG office needs to be collectively lead by the states to keep our Fed's in check no matter who is in office. I get what you're saying and I've tried thinking it through myself. My initial thought was have the 50 AG's be on some sort of panel, but they obviously have jobs to do back in their states so that's not practical. My main thought is that I don't like a single AG who is politically appointed by the administration in power as being the determiner of who does and does not break the law. It seems as though there's something fundamentally wrong with that.
The AG can be impeached and removed from office by Congress, which is a pretty weak slap on the wrist for breaking the law. But if the crime was so egregious that it warrants impeachment (and it's not just a partisan witch hunt), I'd be willing to bet any president would throw their AG under the bus in a heartbeat to try and distance himself from the scandal. Better to cut ties and say you screwed up in appointing the wrong man/woman then to be brought down in the wake. |
| 2015-10-21 2:55 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm not sure what "collectively led by the states" would look like. Someone (an individual or a very small group of individuals) has to be the AG's boss. You think it would be any less political if the AG answered, say, to some congressional committee vs the President? Originally posted by mdg2003 RUN JOE RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Biden's out. Guess that means no indictment for Hillary. lol On a side note tangent, I strongly dislike the idea of our attorney general being a political appointment by the existing administration. I'm not saying Hillary did or didn't do anything wrong, but under our current system if she blatantly did multiple things illegally it's up to the President and the AG to decide if she gets prosecuted. This is just wrong at so many levels because our laws need to be above politics. I've always felt the AG office needs to be collectively lead by the states to keep our Fed's in check no matter who is in office. I get what you're saying and I've tried thinking it through myself. My initial thought was have the 50 AG's be on some sort of panel, but they obviously have jobs to do back in their states so that's not practical. My main thought is that I don't like a single AG who is politically appointed by the administration in power as being the determiner of who does and does not break the law. It seems as though there's something fundamentally wrong with that.
I honestly don't think there's a way to get entirely away from partisan politics, unfortunately. Even if you had all 50 state AG's on a panel, they'd still be beholden to their individual party lines. Maybe the answer (and I realize this isn't 100% fair either) is to have the AG appointed for life, like a SCOTUS judge. In theory, while they might have a certain amount of loyalty to or ideology in common with whatever adminsitration appointed them, at least they wouldn't have to worry about job security and could, therefore, act more impartially. |
| 2015-10-29 3:46 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate |
| 2015-11-01 4:25 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Thought you guys would find this entertaining. I know the conservatives always complain about media bias, but it's interesting to see it appear to be in play on the DNC side as well. (some NSFW language)
|
| 2015-11-18 9:02 AM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. Edited by NXS 2015-11-18 9:04 AM |
| 2015-11-18 10:31 AM in reply to: NXS |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by NXS Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. well, a large part of the destabilization of that region is related to drought and crop failure, so while you twisting the quote to make it sound funny isn't exactly accurate, the gist of it is. Have you ever studied the reasons that the roman empire fell? |
| 2015-11-18 11:36 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by NXS Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. well, a large part of the destabilization of that region is related to drought and crop failure, so while you twisting the quote to make it sound funny isn't exactly accurate, the gist of it is. Have you ever studied the reasons that the roman empire fell? Didn't the Roman empire fall because of management inbreeding? Kidding aside. He used terrorism and international conflict interchangeably in his statement. While most terrorism could definitely be considered to be international conflict, all international conflict is not terrorism. He is 100% correct in stating that water and access to arable land will lead to international conflict, but i have yet to hear a single terrorist mention crop failure as a reason for going jihadi on innocent citizens. He's trying to link a violent religious ideology to his belief that global warming is going to eradicate mankind. Sorry, he's wrong in trying make that connection. * Tosses the BS flag* |
| 2015-11-18 11:45 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Didn't the Roman empire fall because of management inbreeding? Kidding aside. He used terrorism and international conflict interchangeably in his statement. While most terrorism could definitely be considered to be international conflict, all international conflict is not terrorism. He is 100% correct in stating that water and access to arable land will lead to international conflict, but i have yet to hear a single terrorist mention crop failure as a reason for going jihadi on innocent citizens. He's trying to link a violent religious ideology to his belief that global warming is going to eradicate mankind. Sorry, he's wrong in trying make that connection. * Tosses the BS flag* Originally posted by NXS Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. well, a large part of the destabilization of that region is related to drought and crop failure, so while you twisting the quote to make it sound funny isn't exactly accurate, the gist of it is. Have you ever studied the reasons that the roman empire fell? destabilization of sovereign states, unrest in the populace, etc. can definitely be linked to water shortages, and farming issues. but I mostly think ISIS happened because we went into Iraq, fired the military, and then left a mess. |
| 2015-11-18 12:29 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Didn't the Roman empire fall because of management inbreeding? Kidding aside. He used terrorism and international conflict interchangeably in his statement. While most terrorism could definitely be considered to be international conflict, all international conflict is not terrorism. He is 100% correct in stating that water and access to arable land will lead to international conflict, but i have yet to hear a single terrorist mention crop failure as a reason for going jihadi on innocent citizens. He's trying to link a violent religious ideology to his belief that global warming is going to eradicate mankind. Sorry, he's wrong in trying make that connection. * Tosses the BS flag* Originally posted by NXS Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. well, a large part of the destabilization of that region is related to drought and crop failure, so while you twisting the quote to make it sound funny isn't exactly accurate, the gist of it is. Have you ever studied the reasons that the roman empire fell? destabilization of sovereign states, unrest in the populace, etc. can definitely be linked to water shortages, and farming issues. but I mostly think ISIS happened because we went into Iraq, fired the military, and then left a mess. Oh shiite! So you agree with me?  |
| 2015-11-18 12:30 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Or should I say that we both agree that Mr. Sanders is a tad off base in his assessment? |
| 2015-11-18 1:34 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by tuwood Thought you guys would find this entertaining. I know the conservatives always complain about media bias, but it's interesting to see it appear to be in play on the DNC side as well. (some NSFW language)
I think it's funny that both my liberal and conservative friends complain all the time on social media about "The mainstream media" and accusing it of openly supporting whatever the other side happens to be. Then they post stories (which are invariably titled, "Why isn't the mainstream media reporting THIS!??") which come from these crazy radical liberal or far-right conservative shill sites that have no journalistic integrity at all and which don't even make a pretense of balanced reporting. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-11-18 2:00 PM |
| 2015-11-18 1:51 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I think it's funny that both my liberal and conservative friends complain all the time on social media about "The mainstream media" and accusing it of opensly supporting whatever the other side happens to be. Then they post stories (which are invariably titled, "Why isn't the mainstream media reporting THIS!??") which come from these crazy radical liberal or far-right conservative shill sites that have no journalistic integrity at all and which don't even make a pretense of balanced reporting. Thought you guys would find this entertaining. I know the conservatives always complain about media bias, but it's interesting to see it appear to be in play on the DNC side as well. (some NSFW language)
One thing I can say I've improved on a ton over the years is looking at the sources of information. I used to read so many stories on conservative blogs years ago and believe them hook line and sinker, but there are many I don't even visit anymore due to their blatant dishonesty and spin. Obviously both sides have these types of "news" organizations supporting them so it takes a little practice to weed them all out. |
| 2015-11-18 3:28 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Democratic debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by NXS Well its been a few days now since the last one w/o any comments. Best answer of the night IMHO was when Mr. Sanders said that the Paris attacks were a result of global warming. well, a large part of the destabilization of that region is related to drought and crop failure, so while you twisting the quote to make it sound funny isn't exactly accurate, the gist of it is. Have you ever studied the reasons that the roman empire fell? That area of the world has always been as they say, a tad arid. And trust me those terrorists didn't shout "save the planet", "we're thirsty" as they killed the innocent. The last thing they are concerned about is the climate or crop production for that matter. Yes, having a masters in agronomy has kept me informed in current and historical agriculture. That said, Sanders' statement in the context of mid east terrorism was sheer lunacy. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK