My impression of the 5 based on their performances...

[RichardPeterJohnson]

O'Malley-trying too hard but competent and smart

Chafee-disheveled, befuddled, weak

Webb-mean, stubborn. Reminded me of McCain. And terrible comment about the grenade.

Sanders-smart,compassionate, energetic. But a little goofy

Clinton-smart, in control, Presidential

In general, the debate was quite a contrast with the GOP debates of name-calling, insults, meanness, and hyperbole

 

[Mntneer]

O'Malley-trying too hard but competent and smart

Chafee-disheveled, befuddled, weak

Webb-mean, stubborn. Reminded me of McCain. And terrible comment about the grenade.

Sanders-smart,compassionate, energetic. But a little goofy

Clinton-smart, in control, Presidential

In general, the debate was quite a contrast with the GOP debates of name-calling, insults, meanness, and hyperbole

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[bamaEER]

O'Malley-trying too hard but competent and smart

Chafee-disheveled, befuddled, weak

Webb-mean, stubborn. Reminded me of McCain. And terrible comment about the grenade.

Sanders-smart,compassionate, energetic. But a little goofy

Clinton-smart, in control, Presidential

In general, the debate was quite a contrast with the GOP debates of name-calling, insults, meanness, and hyperbole

When looking for 'Presidential' qualities in the GOP group, I think only Fiorina or Carson fit.

 

[WVUBRU]

I didn't like the tone of Hillary last night. She was trying to be authoritative but she was yelling her discussion points instead of presenting. She will turn people off with that tone. Bernie can do that because that is who he is and how he talks. But coming from her, sounded very poor. And if listeners can't get through the tone, they are not going to listen to the message.

Overall, I found Bernie, O'Malley and Clinton to be ok and they presented very predictable points. The base will like it and that is important for a primary debate. But independents probably turned the channel. Whoever wins the Dem nomination, they will have to present themselves better. But then again, the GOP nominee whoever it might be will also have many warts. So, I have no clue how the next 14 months are going to go.

 

[WVPATX]

My impressions:

Hillary, white and old
Sanders, white and old
Webb, white and old
Chafee, white and old
O'Malley, white and stupid

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Bernie is by far, the most intelligent candidate in both parties. No one else even comes close.

 

[WVPATX]

Bernie is by far, the most intelligent candidate in both parties. No one else even comes close.

You are smoking some good ****. A great Democrat, Alan Dershowitz said:

Cruz “was an outstanding student in my class,” Dershowitz said. “Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.”

And Carson is a Pediatric Neurosurgeon, lol. Fiorina is off the charts intelligent. Even Trump, whom I don't like, is a Wharton Business School grad.

 

[EERs 3:16]

Bernie is by far, the most intelligent candidate in both parties. No one else even comes close.

how racist!

Dr Ben Carson seems like a pretty bright guy and yet you give him (based on the color of his skin) zero credit.

 

[Airport]

Bernie is by far, the most intelligent candidate in both parties. No one else even comes close.

Spoken like a true comrade. Socialism is not smart, it is destructive.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Spoken like a true comrade. Socialism is not smart, it is destructive.

You continue to use "socialism" in too broad of a context. 1) I've already demonstrated how we are already a lot more socialist than most think, and 2) Sanders isn't looking to change our entire economic structure and make us a purely socialist country.

I don't know why people insist on clinging to that idea "oh no, he's a socialist" the way they do.

If you didn't know who was saying what, I don't see very much of anything Sanders says that the majority of people would disagree with. If somebody agrees with every stance of any particular politician I would venture to guess that the person doesn't engage in very much of their own thinking.

 

[rog1187]

O'Malley-trying too hard but competent and smart

Chafee-disheveled, befuddled, weak

Webb-mean, stubborn. Reminded me of McCain. And terrible comment about the grenade.

Sanders-smart,compassionate, energetic. But a little goofy

Clinton-smart, in control, Presidential

In general, the debate was quite a contrast with the GOP debates of name-calling, insults, meanness, and hyperbole

I'll say one thing about Sanders - it appears that he sticks to his thoughts and doesn't appear to waffle to make anyone happy.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I'll say one thing about Sanders - it appears that he sticks to his thoughts and doesn't appear to waffle to make anyone happy.

I really like Sanders. The reason you gave is one, but he also doesn't get involved in mudslinging and he wants to clean up the government and get rid of the super PACs ... among others.

Having said that, I think the "socialist" label will doom him. If not now, then he will get no cooperation from congress because any cooperation will be seen as caving in to the socialist.

I'm looking for somebody that can begin to garner cooperation in congress. I don't think Sanders is going to be able to do that, but I do like a lot of what he stands for. (not all, but a lot)

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

how racist!

Dr Ben Carson seems like a pretty bright guy and yet you give him (based on the color of his skin) zero credit.

Anyone who is a religious nut can't be too smart. As to Cruz, he wasn't born in this country, so, per wingnut doctrine, he is ineligible to be president.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I really like Sanders. The reason you gave is one, but he also doesn't get involved in mudslinging and he wants to clean up the government and get rid of the super PACs ... among others.

Having said that, I think the "socialist" label will doom him. If not now, then he will get no cooperation from congress because any cooperation will be seen as caving in to the socialist.

I'm looking for somebody that can begin to garner cooperation in congress. I don't think Sanders is going to be able to do that, but I do like a lot of what he stands for. (not all, but a lot)

Apparently, you want Shangri la. The problem with governance (or the lack thereof) lies with the current state of the GOP and a faction's unwillingness to compromise and holding the whole govt hostage. They did it with Obama for 6 years and now are doing it in their own party. It aint hard.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Apparently, you want Shangri la

I want a functioning government that isn't beholden to large corporations and billionaires. In other words, I want an actual democracy. It isn't hard to identify where problems lie, but is much harder to find the solutions to those problems. We can't immediately change who is in congress, so we need somebody that can work with what's there ... if that's possible.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I want a functioning government that isn't beholden to large corporations and billionaires. In other words, I want an actual democracy. It isn't hard to identify where problems lie, but is much harder to find the solutions to those problems. We can't immediately change who is in congress, so we need somebody that can work with what's there ... if that's possible.

It's not possible until people quit electing those who don't want to govern-but want to tear everything down if they don't get their way. You actually think there is someone out there capable of uniting democrats, moderate repubs and the kooks? I got new for you. There isn't.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It's not possible until people quit electing those who don't want to govern-but want to tear everything down if they don't get their way. You actually think there is someone out there capable of uniting democrats, moderate repubs and the kooks? I got new for you. There isn't.

I agree with you.
I also agree that I'm not seeing a candidate capable to uniting the sides. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there ... they just aren't in this election. Maybe 4 years from now.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I agree with you.
I also agree that I'm not seeing a candidate capable to uniting the sides. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there ... they just aren't in this election. Maybe 4 years from now.

They threw Boehner out because they thought he was too willing to deal with Obama. And because he didn't want to shut the govt down. Who could possibly pacify these kooks? Answer: Another kook.

 

[Airport]

Apparently, you want Shangri la. The problem with governance (or the lack thereof) lies with the current state of the GOP and a faction's unwillingness to compromise and holding the whole govt hostage. They did it with Obama for 6 years and now are doing it in their own party. It aint hard.

They were elected to stop our President not compromise. He is the one who doesn't want to compromise. Therefore, you have grid lock. Really, aren't you smart enough to realize that there are others who don't like his policies and have spoken. Like Pres Obama said, "elections have consequences." Elections have consequences when they go against you. If people wanted compromise, they would have elected one chamber of congress democratic.

 

[Airport]

If governing, you mean what Obama believes? I'm against it and so are enough people to put the Congress in the hands of other party.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

They were elected to stop our President not compromise. He is the one who doesn't want to compromise. Therefore, you have grid lock. Really, aren't you smart enough to realize that there are others who don't like his policies and have spoken. Like Pres Obama said, "elections have consequences." Elections have consequences when they go against you. If people wanted compromise, they would have elected one chamber of congress democratic.

There you have it. The kooks don't want to govern. They want to obstruct. And that's pretty sad given our country's history of laying aside personal preferences and working for the common good. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. Gingrich worked with Clinton. Yet, the kooks now ***** if a Republican is in the same photograph with obama. Sad indeed how effed up your party is these days. They are babies.

 

[Airport]

You don't get it, I'm no kook, and I do take offense to that. I have been responsible my whole life, paid my taxes, supported my family but don't want to have my tax money given to illegals, welfare queens and kickbacks to people for giving them my money. You are being disengenuous when you said Reagan worked with Tip. He gave them what they wanted on immigration in exchange for securing the border. Just like most liberals, they lied and weren't good to their word. If I told you I would do something, I will. Clinton worked with gingrich not the other way around. Clinton was reading the writing on the wall, he didn't have control of either house and it led to a great economy and then Clinton signed the Glass Steagall repeal and the rest is history.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

They were elected to stop our President not compromise. He is the one who doesn't want to compromise

Do you not see the irony/contradiction in those statements?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

then Clinton signed the Glass Steagall repeal and the rest is history.

Revisionist history ... there were 3-4 acts that repealed portions of Glass Steagall that were signed between 80-92

Also, the GLB act that was signed by Clinton was authored by 3 Republicans.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Do you not see the irony/contradiction in those statements?

Exactly. You always hear the wingnuts talk about it being Obama who won't compromise. yet they freely admit that these wingnuts were elected to obstruct. And it's more than even the wingnuts. McConnell, who is rational by comparison, vowed when Obama was elected-not to get things done-but to make Obama a one-termer. Babies.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I have been responsible my whole life, paid my taxes, supported my family but don't want to have my tax money given to illegals, welfare queens and kickbacks to people for giving them my money.

These comments crack me up. People act as if none of this kind of thing is sustained with Republicans in control. Yeah, there was no welfare or unemployment when Republicans were president, they go away during those terms and then come back when Democrats are in the White House.

 

[Airport]

These comments crack me up. People act as if none of this kind of thing is sustained with Republicans in control. Yeah, there was no welfare or unemployment when Republicans were president, they go away during those terms and then come back when Democrats are in the White House.

Democrats make it a job description. Hey, what do you do for a living? I live off the teats of govt. My children and grandchildren will too. Or, my grandparents did, my parents did and I do and my kids will too. It's a vicious cycle, just like having children out of wedlock has become common place and a life choice. It happens because dumbasses like the public thinks it makes them feel better but don't see what destructive behavior it promotes. Once the govt started this destructive programs, voluntary at first, under Roosevelt, it has become bigger and bigger and harder to sustain.

 

[Airport]

The growth of govt has to stop, it's just not sustainable.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Democrats make it a job description. Hey, what do you do for a living? I live off the teats of govt. My children and grandchildren will too. Or, my grandparents did, my parents did and I do and my kids will too

I'll bet the majority of those people, particularly in WV, vote Republican. In fact, I know several people that took advantage of these services when they were younger that are stout Republicans.

Name one democrat candidate that has made it a job description as you describe.

It is the wingnut mentality that everybody that has no desire to get off those programs are democrats. Truth is that they probably don't vote at all, so there would be no way for you to know. But sweeping generalizations and judgement are easier than objective thoughts.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Democrats make it a job description. Hey, what do you do for a living? I live off the teats of govt. My children and grandchildren will too. Or, my grandparents did, my parents did and I do and my kids will too. It's a vicious cycle, just like having children out of wedlock has become common place and a life choice. It happens because dumbasses like the public thinks it makes them feel better but don't see what destructive behavior it promotes. Once the govt started this destructive programs, voluntary at first, under Roosevelt, it has become bigger and bigger and harder to sustain.

I think you just helped make his point. These social programs are essentially the same as they were 8 years ago. No much has changed. Except the faux outrage fueled by the Fox news crew and limbaugh.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The growth of govt has to stop, it's just not sustainable.

From the guy supporting a party that supports drug testing for welfare recipients. How is that not growth of government? Somebody has to monitor and evaluate those programs and it would take more people than are currently running them.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I'll bet the majority of those people, particularly in WV, vote Republican. In fact, I know several people that took advantage of these services when they were younger that are stout Republicans.

Name one democrat candidate that has made it a job description as you describe.

It is the wingnut mentality that everybody that has no desire to get off those programs are democrats. Truth is that they probably don't vote at all, so there would be no way for you to know. But sweeping generalizations and judgement are easier than objective thoughts.

It's funny that the wingnuts get all worked up over the welfare queen who drives the cadillac (as if she ever existed in the first place) yet corporate welfare, corps who shelter their money from taxes off shore, and needless defense programs costing hundreds of billions don;t seem to bother them at all. Yet, a poor person (Black?) receiving govt assistance insults them. Wonder why that is?

 

[Airport]

From the guy supporting a party that supports drug testing for welfare recipients. How is that not growth of government? Somebody has to monitor and evaluate those programs and it would take more people than are currently running them.

Let me ask you this, do you think people should be given money for life to live off of without any standards? Should they get it if they are able to work but don't want to? Should they go to jail if they sell their foodstamps to but drugs?Liquor? Some of you guys think that money grows on trees. Why should we pay them extra for having children and never name the father? I'm not sure how drug testing would work but I think that if you sell your benefits, you should never receive them again.

 

[Airport]

It's funny that the wingnuts get all worked up over the welfare queen who drives the cadillac (as if she ever existed in the first place) yet corporate welfare, corps who shelter their money from taxes off shore, and needless defense programs costing hundreds of billions don;t seem to bother them at all. Yet, a poor person (Black?) receiving govt assistance insults them. Wonder why that is?

I'm against all forms of govt assistance. Proper tax policy where you get to keep a reasonable profit, would negate corp welfare. Corp shelter their money because govt wants to take too much. Money made overseas, has been taxed there and should be encouraged to bring it here. NO TAXES on it. Corp like that have pensions that are invested in them and pensioners would benefit greatly from that as would local govt from increased spending and stock holders. You have that *** backwards. WV had a great majority of welfare recipiants being white. I worked in Mercer from 80-83 and I saw a lot of white people lined up to get there checks.I can't really remember any blacks lined up. I don't care if you are black, white brown purple, govt welfare encourages non industrious activities and I'm against unlimited govt plans. Studies have shown that when unemployment payments ran out, after 36 weeks, the recipients went out and found work. Pres Obama Sec of the treasury wrote his masters thesis on this. Funny, nobody wanted to discuss that. I know that in some ways I look at things thru a jaundiced eye, a helping hand is fine but to constantly hold that person up you will never encourage them to walk on their own.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I'm against all forms of govt assistance. Proper tax policy where you get to keep a reasonable profit, would negate corp welfare. Corp shelter their money because govt wants to take too much. Money made overseas, has been taxed there and should be encouraged to bring it here. NO TAXES on it. Corp like that have pensions that are invested in them and pensioners would benefit greatly from that as would local govt from increased spending and stock holders. You have that *** backwards. WV had a great majority of welfare recipiants being white. I worked in Mercer from 80-83 and I saw a lot of white people lined up to get there checks.I can't really remember any blacks lined up. I don't care if you are black, white brown purple, govt welfare encourages non industrious activities and I'm against unlimited govt plans. Studies have shown that when unemployment payments ran out, after 36 weeks, the recipients went out and found work. Pres Obama Sec of the treasury wrote his masters thesis on this. Funny, nobody wanted to discuss that. I know that in some ways I look at things thru a jaundiced eye, a helping hand is fine but to constantly hold that person up you will never encourage them to walk on their own.

The point is, where was your outrage before Obama? These are not new programs that Obama started. All of the sudden, the kooks think we have a spending problem-and on social programs specifically. It is disingenuous, faux outrage by people looking to blame Obama. Plain and simple.

 

[Airport]

Jesus, Obamacare is the worse law ever written in the history of mankind. 2,000 pages of stupidity. My insurance contacts tell me, wait till it goes into law after Obama leaves office. You have to pass it to find out what's in it? Surely, you, being a good golfer , aren't that crazy.

 

[Airport]

If my congressman voted for something like that, I would be outraged and hae contacted both on my Senators to express my outrage. Unfortunately, Warner and Kaine voted for it.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Jesus, Obamacare is the worse law ever written in the history of mankind. 2,000 pages of stupidity. My insurance contacts tell me, wait till it goes into law after Obama leaves office. You have to pass it to find out what's in it? Surely, you, being a good golfer , aren't that crazy.

So making people responsible for having health insurance is a bad idea? You know, when you look at the individual features of "Obamacare" without the name, most repubs agree with them. But label it Obamacare and they get their back up. Odd how that works. Especially since many of those features have been touted by repubs and conservative think tanks for years. Speaking of Repub programs and spending, how about that Medicare Part D? Where's your outrage over that? It added about $400 billion to the national debt.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Let me ask you this, do you think people should be given money for life to live off of without any standards? Should they get it if they are able to work but don't want to? Should they go to jail if they sell their foodstamps to but drugs?Liquor? Some of you guys think that money grows on trees. Why should we pay them extra for having children and never name the father? I'm not sure how drug testing would work but I think that if you sell your benefits, you should never receive them again.

I don't think there's anybody that thinks that any of those things are OK. But that doesn't mean that the programs themselves aren't worth merit. The vast majority of people don't do those things. The vast majority of people in these programs want nothing more than to get out of them as quickly as possible.

This is honestly where I think Republicans and Democrats disagree the most. Democrats understand that anything can happen to anybody at anytime and that most people in these programs would love nothing more than to NOT be in those programs. Republicans see anybody in the programs as blood sucking leeches with no ambition or life goals and as people that plan to stay in them for generations. Democrats or Republicans would agree with what you said above. However, Democrats know that the implementation and enforcement of measures to counter those things would EXPAND the role of government and cost MORE money to implement than it will save. This is shown multiple times in places that have done drug testing and catch 1% of people on welfare on drugs.

Democrats don't care as much about the fetuses, but care a lot about the people. Republicans care a lot about the fetuses and couldn't care less about the people.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Studies have shown that when unemployment payments ran out, after 36 weeks, the recipients went out and found work.

Of course they did, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying to find work while on unemployment. I was unemployed for several months one time. I mostly lived off of savings but took some unemployment too. I never stopped looking for a job, but it just took awhile to find one.

I'd be dollars to donuts that this is what happens .... a person gets laid off and starts getting unemployment. They look and look and look for something that will maintain their previous standard of living. After awhile the benefits run out and they haven't found anything that will maintain their standard of living so they take whatever they can find. I can guarantee you that they weren't just sitting around doing nothing and sucking off the government tit all that time and being lazy until they could no longer do so .... like the republicans think everybody does.