Debate Notes
Once again, welcome to a post-debate column. As always, these are my own snap reactions, uninfluenced by what others are thinking or saying. Also as always, any of the quotes below were hastily jotted down, and may not be word-for-word accurate. That's enough of an introduction, at this point, so let's just dive right in.
There was a "kids' table" debate, with four candidates. That's about all you can say about that. Lindsey Graham got even more unhinged than normal, when talking about all the people he'd love to bomb and all the troops he'd send overseas. He had a mixed message on women, though, at one point imitating terrorists saying "bring on the virgins," although he was better when addressing the question of women in combat roles in the armed forces, addressing those women: "If you want to kill terrorists, I'm your guy!" But other than Graham being more shouty than normal, not much of anything else exciting happened.
The main debate was between the top three candidates, with six others also on the stage who don't actually stand much of a chance. Here are my impressions of their performances:
Rand Paul
Rand Paul only squeaked onto the main stage because CNN helpfully bent their own rules just to include him. In all likelihood, he won't be at the next debate at all. He attacked Marco Rubio on immigration, Donald Trump as a not-serious candidate, and Chris Christie for being eager to shoot down Russian planes which would lead to (as Paul put it) "World War III." Oh, and he also got in a cheap shot towards Christie on Bridgegate, too. Paul defended his isolationist position, as usual, and he obviously was the best at packing the crowd with supporters, who cheered him on all night long (also as usual). He punted on a question about what he'd do about the 2,000 Syrian refugees already in America, toward the end. All in all, a pretty run-of-the-mill performance.
Carly Fiorina
Carly made an enormous tactical error, by spending most of her energy complaining that she wasn't getting enough time. This tactic never works, but Carly was carping about it all night long, and several times tried to hijack the conversation (mostly unsuccessfully, as Wolf Blitzer began just shouting her down). Carly did her usual angry thing, directing the most vitriol of any candidate towards Hillary Clinton, who Carly blames for just about everything going wrong with the world. Carly gave Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan shout-outs, which is also pretty much par for the course with her. She gave an absolutely incoherent answer about North Korea, where she said she'd stomp all over China, and then politely ask for their help -- because everyone knows that's a diplomatic tactic that works wonders. At the end, Carly bizarrely admitted she thought Hewlett-Packard was next on Al Qaeda's target list after 9/11. All around, Carly sounded the most desperate of any candidate on the stage, which is appropriate because she likely won't be around for the next debate, either.
John Kasich
John Kasich also briefly tried the "argue with the moderators about not getting enough time," but he soon realized it just made him sound weak (unlike Carly, who kept returning to it for the entire debate). Kasich made a stand for "not shouting at each other" twice, first in his opening statement and then again when Donald Trump and Jeb Bush got into it with each other. Kasich put in the most forgettable performance of all the candidates, and was most memorable for waving his arms around a lot when he talked. In the debate about shooting down Russian planes, he said he'd "Punch the Russians in the nose," but other than that uttered no lines worth even writing down. Kasich, if we're all lucky, will also not be back for the next debate. His entire closing statement was essentially to beg all the other candidates to pick him for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, because he can win his home state of Ohio.
Chris Christie
Chris Christie tried to out-do Fiorina in badmouthing Hillary Clinton, but Carly's the true master of doing so. Christie trotted out all his go-to lines, about how he's an executive with more experience than senators ever get, and mentioning 9/11 as often as possible. Let's see, what else? Obama loves Iran. America should be waging cyberwar against China. Oh, and that memorable: "Yes I would shoot down a Russian plane," too. You have to feel almost sorry for Christie, because he was going to be the brash, tough-talking New York City guy who was going to win with insults and shouting people down. Once Trump got in the race, Christie never had a chance. He seems to be almost resigned to this fate now. Christie's actually doing better in New Hampshire than he is nationally, so he'll likely be back for the next debate, though.
Jeb Bush
Speaking of feeling sorry for a Republican candidate....
OK, that was too snarky. Let me start over. Jeb Bush knows he is almost toast. He knows that tonight was really his last, best chance to turn his campaign around. He memorized a few zingers to use against Trump (such as: "You can't insult your way to the White House," which he actually used twice), and tried to get into dustups with Trump with all his might. Bush's best line was some insider snark about Trump saying a while back that he learned about foreign policy from watching the Sunday morning political chat shows -- Bush hit him with learning about things from "the shows -- not sure whether that's Saturday or Sunday morning," implying Trump is, at heart, nothing more than cartoonish. But Trump just brushed him off like so much lint on his suit, and Bush never really was convincingly angry -- the whole thing felt stilted and fake. Bush brought up his war plan for Iraq (without ever getting very specific about it) over and over again, which someone must have told him was a good idea or something (what else they told him: "use the word leadership as often as possible"). Bush stumbled his way through his lines (he even muffed part of his closing statement), and was cringe-worthy all around. Trump smacked him down several times, with sweeping statements like: "With Jeb's attitude, America is never going to be great again," and calling Bush weak repeatedly (at one point, even calling him "very sad"). Bush tried with every fiber of his being to be aggressive and angry (especially at Trump), and it all fell pretty flat. No wonder his poll numbers have sunk like a stone.
Ben Carson
Ben Carson was the only candidate in the top four who largely avoided any attacks being flung at him. This is mostly because his campaign is utterly collapsing all around him, and no other Republican really felt the need to aid in that collapse. He did have one of the only new idea in the entire debate, which was to urge Congress to actually declare war against the Islamic State (which President Obama has also been urging, all year long, it bears mentioning). Carson joined Fiorina and Kasich at the start, arguing that he wasn't getting any time, but he wisely dropped the tactic fast. Carson did have one memorable answer, mostly because of the question. Hugh Hewitt asked an extraordinarily loaded question about "killing thousands of innocent children" and "being ruthless" by bombing Syria, and the crowd actually booed him for it. Carson's answer was to reject the "ruthless" label entirely, and was about as good an answer to a slanted question as could be imagined. Trump did take one swipe at Carson, over the strategy of "going after the Islamic State's oil," which Trump claimed as his own personal property later on. Carson got increasingly loopy as the night wound on, as usual. At the very end, he promised not to leave the Republican Party and mount a third-party bid, as long as the Republicans don't do anything sneaky to him. But his entire appearance had the flavor of being last month's favorite, sinking fast.
Marco Rubio
Now we get to the three main candidates, after wading through all the has-beens and never-going-to-bes. Marco Rubio likely had a pretty good night with Republican audiences, as he never really got knocked off his game much, as he used his fast talk to make his points. Rubio's main job tonight was to take down Ted Cruz, as the two are locked in a battle for second place right now. Rubio tried to do this every way he could think of, but Cruz fought back against Rubio pretty well, too. Rubio and Rand Paul was actually the first dustup of the night, over Rubio's immigration bill. Rubio shows a tendency during these confrontations to get very tense, but maybe that's just how he seems to me. Rubio's grand scheme for the Middle East is to just announce that America is taking the Sunnis' side in their struggle against the Shi'ites, which seems like a recipe for blowback in many ways, but at least he's got an original strategy, I suppose. Rubio's biggest weakness, though, is still on immigration, and he was hit by many candidates for his "Gang of Eight" bill (which everyone else called "amnesty," of course). When pressed, Rubio would not say he was still for a path to citizenship, but he did admit he was still for a (very long) path to a green card.
It's hard for me to predict how the Republican electorate will respond to Rubio's performance. To me, he seemed like he gave as good as he got in the exchanges with other candidates, but he still seemed to be lacking something as a possible presidential nominee. Rubio's numbers went up after the last few debates, but they've begun creeping back down again. Perhaps he will entice a few voters back with his performance tonight, who knows?
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz was really the man of the hour tonight, mostly because so many other candidates were so bent on taking him on directly. Cruz reserved his strongest thrusts for Rubio, and spent the entire evening calling Rubio a liar in one way or another. He even charged Rubio with using "Alinsky-like attacks," which, among Republicans, are fightin' words. Cruz's weakest moment was when he attempted to justify his call to "carpet-bomb" the Islamic State, where he proved that he simply does not know what the term "carpet-bomb" means. Carpet-bombing is not precision bombing, but Cruz seemed unaware of the difference. Maybe he needs to watch some World War II movies or something? Cruz had one funny moment towards the end, when he vowed: "I'll build a wall, and make Donald Trump pay for it!" When goaded to attack Donald Trump, Cruz instead waffled on about how his kids were in the audience and how much he loved Ronald Reagan. Cruz is still waiting in the wings for Trump to fall, and he certainly isn't going to say anything to anger Trump voters now.
Cruz has been rising in the polls of late, and is now solidly in second place. He's picked up the lion's share of the voters who have deserted Ben Carson, and he's actually leading Trump in Iowa. He knows this is his moment, and he never really got knocked off his game tonight, even though he fielded a number of attacks from various candidates. Like Rubio, it's impossible for me to predict how Republican voters will see Cruz's performance tonight, but he certainly didn't seem to hurt himself at all tonight.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump now holds a commanding lead in the Republican race. The last two national polls put him at 38 and 41 percent. Cruz was his closest competitor, at 14 and 15 percent. Ever-modest, Trump pointed out in his opening statement that he's been dominating the polling for six months now. Trump countered all the attacks launched at him tonight, most of them from candidates polling below five percent. He called his attackers weak, sad, not tough, and failures, which is pretty much par for his own golf course. In all of these exchanges, Trump emerged the stronger voice, really. Nobody laid a glove on him, if truth be told. Trump did get booed by the Paulites in the audience at one point, and he apparently got heckled at another point, but even that didn't throw him off stride. The one time he refused to take the bait was when asked about calling Ted Cruz a "maniac," where Trump literally patted Cruz on the shoulder while saying Cruz was "a good guy."
Trump knows he's winning this race. He knows that running as a third-party candidate probably won't be necessary at all, which is why he was so freely able to promise not to do that at the very end of the debate. He was overly simplistic tonight, but then he always is. But I don't really think that anyone damaged Trump at all tonight with the voters supporting him. He's likely going to remain the frontrunner for the next few weeks, at the very least. His poll numbers defy political gravity, and have always gone up when everyone predicts he's gone too far in his rhetoric.
Conclusion
Nobody really stood out in tonight's debate, for better or worse. Nobody really had any sort of breakout moment, good or bad. They all put in similar performances to previous debates, as a matter of fact. So it is my considered opinion that tonight's debate isn't going to move the needle much for any of these candidates. Those who are rising will likely continue to rise, and those that are falling (or polling in the basement) are going to continue to struggle. Anyone looking for a "game-changer" tonight would have been disappointed. That's my opinion, and now I'm going to go see what others are saying to see if anyone agrees with this assessment or not.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
So....
Howz the Democrat Party Coronation coming along?? :D
Say what ya want about the GOP race...
But the Democrat Party Coronation is a snooze fest...
Hillary is going to get slaughtered in the Primary.. No prep whatsoever... :D
Michale
431
Marco Rubio trash talked the B-52 last night. The B-52 stays in the active inventory because it does it's job very well. That job is to efficiently haul heavy payloads long distances. If those payloads have guidance packages you get flying artillery that's better than a battleship. You can't use it everywhere, in every situation, but where can, nothing is better, and certainly nothing is going to cost less or be operational quickly.
I'm a bit biased; my father designed some of it, not the glamorous bits, but bits that are still probably flying.
Rubio, and most of the other Republicans don't talk like they understand modern air power. Modern airplanes are the rough equivalent of capital ships in the first half of the last century. You can't build them fast, and each one is very expensive. They don't roll off assembly lines, like P-51s or B-17s. They are incredibly pricey, and pretty much hand built by craftsmen.
Where are you going to find the money? Raise taxes? How long 'till they are operational? A long time. The F-35 gets the go ahead in 1993 and won't be in full production until 2018. A full quarter century! Building battleships was actually a lot faster.
Ahhhh The venerable BUFF... I humped MANY a BUFF in my day... :D
Snuggled up to a light-all unit to keep warm.. Ended the midshift looking like a chimney sweep... :D
Michale
446
It's really difficult to understand why someone as diabolical as Hillary hasn't infiltrated the internets with her personal email server to protect The Children against dick joke bomb hoaxes. She seems like she isn't even trying to penetrate the internet terrists as if she thinks she's not a government employee or something. If only she'd been fired for running an innovative corporation like HP into the ground, she'd have the appropriate experience. She'd realize the urgent need to go full vagina and chant RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRISTS to stop the death cult of copycat email spammers from using AmeriKKKa's internet to start WWIII.
TS,
Have you seen this article?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/presidential-election-2016-gambler-predicts-213430
Whooaaa..
SOMEONE really tied one on!! :D
Michale
456
JFC-
Good link, thanks. Note how a pro spreads the risk around with multiple positions. Betting everything on your gut favorite is good way to go broke in the long run.
I believe Betfair and Ladbrokes have merged.
I enjoyed your take on Hillary. Some Weigantians lack parody recepters, it' s probably genetic.. Some day we'll find a cure.
Roughly 24 hrs after the debate, the Betfair markets see Cruz as a winner, Rubio as a loser, and don't know what to make of Trump. The magnitude of the win and loss is pretty small, a few percent. Rubio is still ranked most likely to win the nomination.
CW -
It occurred to me reading an article today in the Guardian about Mr. Trump's UK wind farm loss that there might be an interesting question if he were elected POTUS.
Would he have to relinquish all control (at least operational) of his business holdings? Can you imagine the diplomatic pressure that might exist if that wind farm case pending while he was President?
I always thought that Presidents (and VPs) had to put all assets into blind trusts, but I have a hard time imagining Mr. Trump would actually be willing to do that.
Maybe we've been here before in modern times, but it seems that Trump's wealth isn't the only matter, but rather his heavy involvement in his business operations. I've got to imagine either its not the concern I'm making it out to be or that he has a plan for his holdings if he's elected.
I always thought that Presidents (and VPs) had to put all assets into blind trusts, but I have a hard time imagining Mr. Trump would actually be willing to do that.
That shouldn't be a problem. :)
I enjoyed your take on Hillary. Some Weigantians lack parody recepters, it' s probably genetic..
Not at all..
It's just that I don't speak beatnik-ese... :D
I have always commented that JFC should come with a translation manual and I am not the only one who has said this.. :D
Michale
458
And, in other news..
We’re All Being Pretty Quiet About Obama’s Failures, Aren’t We?
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/were-all-being-pretty-quiet-about-obamas-failures-arent-we/
No matter HOW you slice it, when it comes to foreign policy and keeping American's safe...
Obama is a failure.. A complete and utter failure...
Michale
460
And in still other news..
Yale fail: Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment/
"How do ya'all like your Democrat Party now??"
-Sung To The Tune Of Toby Keith's HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW
:D
Michale
463
@Michale [#13]
And the article said the students signing were Democrats where?
Why can't we assume they were Young Republicans?
You know, since we're just making wild assertions...
And the article said the students signing were Democrats where?
Yale...
Why can't we assume they were Young Republicans?
Well, of course ya'all CAN....
But, of the two groups which Party has been 100% represented by those wanting to shut down Free Speech???
The Journalist Professor who needed "muscle" to remove a student journalist... etc etc etc...
Anecdotal & direct evidence clearly shows that, in the here ands now, shutting down Constitutional protections is nearly universally the purview of the Democrat Party...
Michale
464
A particular incident really crystallized for me what is wrong with our youth in particular and the Democrat Party in general..
It was one of the schools that were having trouble with the snowflakes.. MO or Yale, don't recall which..
A faculty member was trying to explain to a hysterical girl where they were coming from and how they were addressing the girl's complaints..
And the girl said generally this..
" I don't WANT your fucking suggestions on how to address the problem!!! I want you to feel my pain!!!"
or words to that effect...
And I thought to myself, that is the Democrat Party philosophy in a nutshell..
THAT is a perfect, a PERFECT description of the Democrat Party in the here and now...
The Left Wingery is not interested in ideas to solve problems..
They just want everyone to "feel their pain"...
I mean, frak helping your fellow man or ease suffering in the world..
The Left Wingery just wants to make sure that everyone is as miserable as they are...
Here's the brush... I am done with it...
For now... :D
Michale
466
But seriously..
If there is no Left Wingery condemnation of this garbage, how can anyone assume that the Left Wingery is not fully supportive of these disgusting actions of limiting the free speech of those that say disagreeable things..
Add to that, the actions of Obama officials..
In the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist attack (which I called WHILE the attack was in progress.. Took Obama 3 days to call it what it was...) AG Lynch put her 2 cents worth..
Did she stand up and commit herself fully to protecting the American people?? Did she stand and proclaim that terrorists will be opposed with every means at her department's disposal??
No... She stated clearly and for the record that her department would prosecute ANYONE who said mean or hurtful things about muslims...
Again, this is YA'ALL's Democrat Party...
I am not making any of this up...
Michale
467
Hey CW
I have to question your use of the term "isolationist" for Paul's policies rather than non-interventionist.
You are following in the footsteps of the Establishment with that inaccurate depiction.
But, since it's almost the only thing I like about Paul, and he isn't even a strict non-interventionist, I'm not so much defending Paul as the concept.
Speaking of which, the bipartisan neolibcon Establishment has seemingly not trotted out the isolationist term for Trump despite this-
"We have spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, ... if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems, our airports and all of the other problems we have, we would have been a lot better off -- I can tell you that right now," Trump said. "We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -- we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess."
When the leading Repub candidate smacks down military interventionists who have flushed trillions down the toilet, killed millions, and among other problems created ISIS and the refugee crisis, it should be headline news in every media outlet (and make it into the notes of political analysts covering the debate, particularly when they, well, mock (too strong?) another candidate for their non-interventionism).
Of course, however truthful and accurate his quote was, Trumps proposals suggest he would not only continue our disastrous military interventionism, but would make it much worse, so I find little joy in it, beyond having such an obvious reality and Left Wing/libertarian position admitted openly.
It seems in particular, that the neolibcon Democrats who defend Obama's interventionism need to open their eyes and recognize that they have been coopted to advance policies that contradict the ideas and ideals they claim to represent... not to mention making spending on positive and necessary investments all but impossible, and sticking their fingers in the eyes of so many of the voters that make up the base of the party.
A
Pt 2
I should have included a direct mention of Hillary Clinton in that last paragraph.
Those ignoring/supporting/defending her military interventionist policies would do well to read Trump's quote a few times.
Bernie Sanders hasn't fully embraced the non-interventionist approach, but he is considerably less gung-ho and hawkish, and that would be a MAJOR step forward for America.
In anticipation of the counter-argument, I would add that the "disservice to humanity" has been FAR, FAR greater than what non-interventionism would have "allowed" to occur... AND that the $4 trillion figure Trump used does not include the costs of either the infrastructure damage from our wars or the costs other nations have borne/incurred in their participation and/or dealing with the consequences (i.e. settling refugees).
If someone needed yet other reasons, the environmental damage and opportunity costs associated with the misallocation of funds are likewise massive figures.
A
Chris wrote,
Nobody really stood out in tonight's debate, for better or worse. Nobody really had any sort of breakout moment, good or bad.
Really? I guess you missed the part where Trump's knowledge, or lack thereof, of the US nuclear triad was on display for all to see. But, you're not alone as he went completely unchallenged on his very dangerous level of ignorance.
And, Rubio's attempt to school him was equally lacking in coherence or in anything resembling a modicum of knowledge about what the nuclear triad is and why it is so large, or how much money is destined to be spent on modernizing it and whether it is even needed in its current form.
I keep hearing that Americans are fearful and angry. Well, the fact that I know more about the US nuclear triad and the best options for moving forward on it than ANY of the Republican candidates for president should make all Americans very much afraid for their future.
He was overly simplistic tonight, but then he always is.
Overly simplistic is not the phrase I would use for most of what spews out through Trumps lips.
What IS overly simplistic is how the big feet in the media continue to deal with his dangerous utterances.
Really? I guess you missed the part where Trump's knowledge, or lack thereof, of the US nuclear triad was on display for all to see. But, you're not alone as he went completely unchallenged on his very dangerous level of ignorance.
Oh come now... How much did Obama know about the US Nuclear Triad when HE was elected POTUS???
Trump has actually SUCCEEDED in the real world..
Obama didn't have dick for a resume when he was elected...
Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that you don't have to have ANY experience in ANYTHING to be elected POTUS...
Michale
472
Michale,
I have a serious question for you that is very simply an attempt to highlight how important it is that America is united and strong as opposed to divided and weak in the fight against violent Islamist extremism, in particular, and in executing a smart foreign policy, generally speaking.
What do you make of Putin's recent remarks regarding Trump?
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referred to Donald Trump's rhetoric as being ignorant and irresponsible.
That, by the way, is not political correctness. It is the truth of the matter.
What do you make of Putin's recent remarks regarding Trump?
I'll answer your question with a question of my own..
What do you make of the remarks of dictators and psychopaths like Kim Jung Un and Iran's Leader's and Cuba's leaders professing their respect and admiration for Obama??
Putin has shown great leadership in the Obama years.. It's actually quite a contrast to Obama's leadership...
Now, granted, his leadership has been detrimental to US interests..
As a military man, it's easy for me to despise an enemy, yet respect the enemies accomplishments and abilities..
I disagree with everything Putin stands for..
But it is simply undeniable that Putin's leadership can ONLY be described as effective and efficient...
Whereas Obama's leadership can ONLY be described as feckless, wallowing and incompetent..
Michale
481
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referred to Donald Trump's rhetoric as being ignorant and irresponsible.
That, by the way, is not political correctness. It is the truth of the matter.
Your truth...
Other people's truth may be different..
And the funny thing is, their truth is just as valid as anyone else's truth..
That's why I rarely deal in "truth"... It's always FACTS for me.. : D
Michale
483
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referred to Donald Trump's rhetoric as being ignorant and irresponsible.
One doesn't become richer than god by being "ignorant" and "irresponsible"....
Michale
484
Apparently, Michale, they can ...
That's one possible explanation..
Another possible explanation is that you are wrong about Trump...
Employing Occam's Razor clearly indicates the correct answer. :D
Michale
486
Hillary Clinton’s dream debate is one nobody watches
It's funny because it's true.. :D
I mean, seriously...
Scheduling a Democrat Debate on a SATURDAY NIGHT, on the OPENING WEEKEND of THE most anticipated movie of the century..
Does a ton of bricks need ta fall on ya'all??
The DNC is trying to HIDE Hillary and Bernie from the general public..
Which is probably a REAL smart move on their part..
Michale
489
In the cold light of a a Friday dawn I have to conclude that the debates had no discernible impact on the Betfair prediction markets. Rubio is trending down, Cruz is trending up, and Trump is porpoising somewhat below his all time high. This has been the case for many weeks. Maybe the next batch of polls will tell a different story, but the polls tend to lag the markets.
The web site:
http://predictwise.com/
makes a hybrid forecast of the 2016 elections using polls, prediction markets and bookies. It incorporates Betfair and tracks Betfair quite closely.
One weak spot of PW has been they didn't plot data thru time. That may be changing, they posted a nice graph of how the candidates have been doing over the last 30 days.
Again, you can see that any affect from the debates is minor compared to broader trends over the last month. Bush and Christie aren't completely insignificant with probabilities of 10% and 7%, respectively.
These graphs are a big improvement to the site, even if the implementation is a bit clunky!
M-28
Definition of Occam's razor:
a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities
Observation: Trump is rich
Theories explaining Trump's wealth:
1) Trump is not ignorant and/or irresponsible
2) Trump was born rich
3) Trump is Presbyterian
4) Trump hosted a popular TV show
All these theories are equally simple. There is strong public record evidence for 2 thru 4. Fact checking suggests Trump is ignorant, but he may actually know a lot more than he lets on. Responsibility is a value judgment. Supporting evidence is murky regarding theory 1, but the situation could be cleared up substantially if he chose to release his grades, SAT and/or IQ scores.
Occam's razor cuts theory one on the basis of "explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities," the handle of the razor that tends to get ignored in popular discussions.
TS
Right... :D
Michale
496
but the situation could be cleared up substantially if he chose to release his grades, SAT and/or IQ scores.
One can have the highest SAT or IQ scores on the planet and STILL be ignorant...
Yea, Trump inherited a lot of money... But if he was as ignorant and irresponsible as ya'all claim, then he would have LOST all that money..
The fact that he is a LOT richer now than he inherited gives fairly decent evidence that he is NOT ignorant and is certainly not "irresponsible"..
But you are correct.. Responsibility is a judgement call..
But those who claim that Trump is irresponsible, their judgement is impaired by political ideology...
Trump wasn't irresponsible when he was helping to elect Democrats.....
Democrats like Senator Clinton....
THAT'S my point..
Michale
497
And only because I have this song stuck in my head...
Stand tall for the beast of America.
Lay down like a naked dead body,
keep it real for the people workin' overtime,
they can't stay living off the government dime.
Stand tall for the people of America.
Stand tall for the man next door, cuz
we are free in the land of America,
we aren't goin' down like this. Come on Now!
The best way to get a song out of your head is to put it in someone else's head.. :D
Michale
498
Michale,
I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about Trump. And, neither is the Canadian prime minister. :)
I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about Trump.
Oh I know...
Time will tell if you are or not.. :D
Michale
501
It usually does.
PRESIDENT TRUMP....
Com'on.. Say it with me..
PRESIDENT TRUMP
:D
heh
Michale
522