The Third GOP Debate: Candidates Eat the Media
I explain that the big losers of the third GOP debate were the CNBC questioners and the pretentious faux-journalists in general who were eaten alive by the candidates. Oh yes, and a few terrible ideas were crushed as well
off the way he did?!
mainstream media being the Democrats' biggest Super-Pac. Priceless!
Huckabee: I agree gov't shouldn't attack specific diseases and that private investors should invest in slowing/curing aging.
Paul and the Fed: This is one point on which I disagree with him. I'm welcome alternatives to the USD like bitcoin. I do not agree believe monetary policy was responsible for the financial crisis. If it were, we would have seen general inflation, not a speculative mania concentrated in one sector.
Crony Capitalism: I've seen it at work. It's a huge problem. It's really disgusting when you run into it.
Fiorina and the Constitution: I agree with her on gov't-sponsored 401(k)s. My reading of the 4th and 3rd Amendements says drug prohibition is against the spirit of the Constituion. My general impression is Republicans are fine with a massive gov't that harasses its citizens and foreigners, as long as it does not give the appearance of trying to be helpful.
It should be in a book or script somewhere...
Jan
I paid attention to what wasn’t ask of the candidates.
Not one question was asked of the candidates to give a ‘nod’ to the youth vote who made up the majority of that debate audience. Student loans? Jobs? I saw that as more suspicious of intent than the moderators negative tones.
If the Republicans are smart they will get out in front of this before the next Dem debate, because a play for the youth vote is coming and it would be a bad strategy for Republicans to be seen dragged into the conversation screaming and kicking unaware.
You made the agreement, no one forced you.
Unless you feel you have the right to make others pay for your education! You feel others should work for your benefit, not their own ?
You 'defined it' as 2% but you didn't explain why 2% is any kind of 'best "fair" rate' or why 1%, 5% or 15% isn't 'better in the real world.'
Now, for Eco 101... When ANY product or commodity (including home and student loans) are subsidized or forced to be marketed at Below-Market Rates, the inevitable result is Excessive Demand and marketplace distortions that create really bad Unintended Consequences in the Future.
And even worse is the unicorn-imaginary 'benefit' called "free," as in tuition, Bernie Sanders! In the long run, 'free stuff' loses virtually all of its intrinsic value.
If he could convince enough voters, Bernie might try to 'create lots of jobs' by forcing subsidies or loans to New Car Buyers at 0.5% interest rates up to 90% of the purchase price!
First, automakers couldn't hire enough people or build factories fast enough to build cars as they spiraled towards bankruptcy, and Gee, Bernie, don't all those tired, hungry Middle Americans NEED inexpensive, reliable Transportation in order to SURVIVE?
And people actually buy into that shit.
haven't been smart for a looooooong time! It's
becoming embarrassing to be a Republican.
Ask Tom Tancredo who just stopped being one!
You want the power ? Or perhaps the government should limit it ti the first 5 who declare.
Or maybe only the ones who have financial means to run viable campaign.
I don't know about you, but as inconvenient as it is, I can't think of a more equal way to run the process.
I for one am willing to take the time and listen and read to make my choice.
If Bernie thinks there are too many brands of deodorant on his supermarket's shelves, he doesn't deserve the oxygen he consumes.