Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Debates category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category

This LTE made me laugh hysterically. The heart of the LTE says “There is a relatively new organization, the National Institute for Civil Discourse, that might welcome the debate/discussion that will take place on Nov. 6 at the St. Cloud City Council meeting, when Johnson plans to introduce his proposed ban. Rather than calling names, let us have the free speech discussion on an issue that divides many of us. “Civil discourse, wherein we actually listen and hear one another, is key to a democratic republic, which our Founding Fathers gave us!”

If you watch the video of that portion of the Oct. 23 City Council meeting, you’d see that those that voted for the Goerger resolution shut down debate the minute Councilman Johnson started speaking. Councilman Masters made the motion to stop discussion after only a few minutes of hearing from the opposition. While it’s wrong to call that censorship, it isn’t wrong to accuse the City Council 5 afraid of having a full-throated discussion of the issues.

Mayor Kleis has been flippant, too, frequently stating that a) it’s a federal matter and b) no money comes out of the city budget. Frankly, that’s insulting. I’ll stipulate that there isn’t a line item in St. Cloud’s operating budget titled ‘Law Enforcement- refugees’ or ‘City health inspections of Somali restaurants’, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a cost.

Further, St. Cloud taxpayers in Benton, Sherburne and Stearns counties live in ISD742. Everyone of those home owners pay property taxes that pay for the school levy that helps refugee students get up to speed on reading English. St. Cloud taxpayers pay taxes to the state, too, which funds many of the health insurance programs or other human services like housing assistance. Whether it’s technically part of St. Cloud’s operating budget or not, it’s still a tax paid by St. Cloud taxpayers.

Playing coy word games isn’t leadership. It’s insulting. Mayor Kleis, if you aren’t willing to be a leader, find a different job. St. Cloud has gone downhill the last 5+ years. Downtown businesses are doing poorly. The University that you provided political cover for is in a financial and enrollment tailspin. That’s hurting St. Cloud’s economy.

While it would be nice to see some civility and professionalism at next week’s City Council meeting, I don’t have high expectations for that.

Especially when it comes to health care, Democrats can’t help but wildly distort the truth. First, the basics: the CBO scoring of the House bill says that approximately 22,000,000-24,000,000 fewer people will have health care if the American Health Care Act is signed into law.

Simply put, that’s BS.

According to the Democrats, the people most affected by the AHCA will be people with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. Again, that’s an outright lie. The elderly won’t lose coverage if the AHCA is signed into law because Medicare is still the law of the land. People with pre-existing conditions won’t lose coverage because of high risk pools.

Minnesota had a high risk pool prior to the ACA. In 2007, the Kaiser Health Foundation reported that 92.8% of Minnesotans were insured. With nearly everyone insured, it isn’t a stretch to think that the majority of seniors and the majority of people with pre-existing conditions were insured. In fact, it’s a pretty safe assumption that high percentages of those demographics were covered.

In short, whenever people hear Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton complain that millions of people will get thrown off of their health insurance, let’s remember that these are the same people that said that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

Those of us who are old enough will remember this everlasting moment:

Whichever memory you choose, the results are the same. The Democrats’ primary tactic is to fabricate answers in the hopes of frightening people. It’s always been that way.

Technorati: , , , , ,, , , ,

By now, tons of ink has been spilled talking about the riot that happened prior to Milo Yiannopoulos’s performance at UC-Berkeley. Hopefully, this post will talk about something that hasn’t been talked about. I hope this takes a bit more of an historic perspective than those other articles. I hope this article exposes the wimpiness of the anarchist/Soros/progressive movement.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, UC-Berkeley gained notoriety for celebrating some of the greatest debates imaginable. The exchanges were testament to the intellectual heft of the students and personalities that participated in those debates. Today’s reporters, by contrast, talk about the students’ First Amendment rights to protest. Shame on them for that wimpy, obvious drivel. Nobody’s disputing the fact that students have the right to protest. That ‘reporting’ is missing the point, though.

The anarchists that inflict bodily harm on other students are the point that the MSM is missing. The point is that these anarchists aren’t interested in putting together a coherent argument, much less win a substantive debate. These rioters’ first instinct is to injure defenseless people. This is a perfect example of that:

People that pepper spray a student like that should be arrested, convicted and thrown in prison for lots of years. Period. That rioter’s intent was to harm and/or terrorize that young lady. There’s no justification for that.

BONUS QUESTIONS: Q1: Why do the anarchists show up wherever the Soros-funded protesters protest? Q2: Is Soros funding both operations?

Keeping the protesters and the rioters separate is important because the protesters, aka snowflakes, are intellectual wimps. They’re also fascists without knowing it. The snowflakes and anarchists don’t vote for Republicans. That word sets them off. If the Democratic Party wants to rebuild itself, they need to utterly repudiate these fascists’ actions. Otherwise, Democrats will become known as the party that won’t stand up to fascist or stand for the rule of law.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve always enjoyed watching conservatives debate progressives. I especially appreciate it when the progressive hasn’t thought things through. Fortunately, that happens relatively frequently. A great case-in-point was when Tucker Carlson debated Alex Uematsu, a student protest organizer attending Rutgers University, about immigration policy. Thanks to this mismatch, the progressives’ immigration policies were exposed as intellectually flimsy.

Another thing that was highlighted was the fact that Tucker Carlson’s new show will be a major winner and that Carlson is destined to be FNC’s newest star. The intellectual mismatch started when Carlson asked Uematsu “who has the right to come to the United States? You apparently assume that these people have the right to be on your campus, taking a state-subsidized education. Who has a right to come to the United States”?

Predictably, Uematsu replied “I believe that everyone should be able to come to the United States. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants and so I believe that there is no line we can’t let in as many people as we choose in terms of policy and there are artificial limits set on who can come in and who can’t…”

Rather than transcribe the entire interview, just watch this video:

The frightening part, though, was watching Mr. Uematsu sit virtually motionless when Carlson said that illegal immigrants are a net drain to taxpayers. It was apparent that Uematsu wasn’t taking in Carlson’s information because it was different than the propaganda he’s been fed by his professors.

Thus far, Carlson hasn’t suffered the liberals he’s interviewed. His aggressive debating style, combined with his unwillingness to let the left’s false premises stand without contesting them, have helped him shine. He’s 3 shows into his primetime career but it isn’t overstatement that he’s a gifted host and interviewer.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Stewart Mills’ supporters in the Eighth District should be cautiously optimistic after KSTP announced the results of their latest poll of the district. According to the poll, “Stewart Mills leads Democratic incumbent Rick Nolan by four points in Minnesota’s 8th District, 45 percent to 41 percent, in our exclusive KSTP/SurveyUSA poll. However, a significant number of voters remain undecided, 14 percent, and could swing this election either way.” Stewart Mills’ supporters should be cautiously optimistic because Mills led Nolan by 8 points at this point in 2014 and wound up losing by 3,000+ votes.

This year, the dynamics have changed significantly, though. First, Hillary Clinton is dragging Nolan down. According to KSTP’s poll, “the top of the Democratic ticket, Hillary Clinton, appears to be very unpopular in the 8th District. Our poll shows Republican Donald Trump with a 12-point lead over Clinton, 47 percent to 35 percent.” Stewart Mills is hammering Nolan on that fact in his stump speeches and in his advertising. This ad highlights Mills’ argument beautifully:

Here’s the transcript of the ad:

MILLS: I’m Stewart Mills and I approve this message.
NARRATOR: Hillary Clinton promises to kill mining jobs all across America.
HILLARY CLINTON: We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.
NARRATOR: Here in Minnesota, Rick Nolan is doing the same. Nolan supports Hillary’s war on coal. He voted for anti-mining regulations that are destroying Minnesota jobs and sticking middle class families with higher energy bills. Rick Nolan and Hillary Clinton are job killers.

This is interesting, too:

Nolan might also be facing resistance from voters over his support of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and his desire to go even further and implement “universal,” or government-run health care. Our KSTP/SurveyUSA poll indicates 45 percent of those surveyed in the 8th District favor repeal of the ACA, 30 percent say there need to be changes to the program and 13 percent say they favor universal health care.

Gov. Dayton isn’t doing Nolan any favors by switching his position on the ACA seemingly on a daily basis. Each day, Gov. Dayton either talks about the need for a special session or says something provocative or he flip-flops. The point is that Gov. Dayton has kept this story alive for over a week. Here’s what the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found were the Eighth District’s priorities:

When asked which issue is most important to them when deciding their vote, health care came in as the top choice at 26 percent. Another 25 percent cited terrorism and national security while 13 percent said taxes. Mining came in at six percent, education at 5 percent and foreign trade at four percent.

Last night, Mills and Nolan squared off in a debate. Mills did an effective job of prosecuting his case against Nolan on energy and mining. Approximately 4 minutes into this video, Mills rattles off a series of points against Nolan’s green agenda:

It’s apparent that Mills learned some important lessons from his 2014 campaign. Let’s hope that the results are better this time.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This summer, the Democratic Party faced a moment of truth right before their convention when they fired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as their chair of the DNC. The woman picked to be the DNC’s interim chair, Donna Brazile, is apparently just as unprincipled as Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.

This article highlights the fact that the upper echelon of the DNC was on a mission to elect Hillary regardless of what they had to do. What’s telling is the paragraph that says “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

Thanks to the Daily Caller’s article on the latest Wikileaks dump, we now know that Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the DNC, is corrupt, too:

Donna Brazile, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, appears to have tipped the Clinton campaign off to a question about the death penalty that was going to be asked during a CNN town hall in March, newly released emails show. “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Brazile wrote in an email to Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri on March 12.

Clinton Syndrome is already setting in. The chief symptom of Clinton Syndrome is the feeling for the need to take a long, hot shower after listening to the Clintons or their Clintonistas speak. Donna Brazile is definitely a Clintonista because she’s been part of a cabal to do whatever it takes to get Mrs. Clinton elected. Further, I feel the need for a long, hot shower after reading what Ms. Brazile has done to get Mrs. Clinton elected.

First, Ms. Brazile, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rigged the Democratic primaries and Democratic presidential debates so Bernie Sanders couldn’t win. They scheduled the debates on Saturday nights so Bernie Sanders couldn’t gain name recognition. Next, they limited the number of debates, which protected Hillary from gaffes. (A political gaffe is, by definition, when you “accidentally tell the truth.”)

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right. The system is rigged. What they didn’t get right, though, is that it’s the Democrats that rigged their presidential primaries so they didn’t have a chance. That’s thank directly to the actions Ms. Brazile and the DNC took.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is my first post since getting out of the hospital today but it isn’t the first chance I’ve had to talk about the Pence-Kaine. It’s indisputable that Hillary is leading in most of the polls. What’s disputable, though, is whether Mrs. Clinton’s lead is that solid.

I’m betting Mrs. Clinton’s lead is shakier than they’ll publicly admit. I’m betting that because Tim Kaine’s performance was the most pathetic debate performance I’ve ever watched. I’m betting that because Sen. Kaine came across as mean-spirited and phony. Sen. Kaine came across as a puppet with bad lines. Politically speaking, Sen. Kaine didn’t have the benefit of touting a positive case. 70% of the nation thinks that we’re heading in the wrong direction. Sen. Kaine’s job was to take that information, then tell people that life was positive and getting better. Check this exchange out:

PENCE: Well, first, let me say, I appreciated the “you’re hired,” “you’re fired” thing, Senator. You use that a whole lot. And I think your running mate used a lot of pre-done lines.
Look, what — what you all just heard out there is more taxes, $2 trillion in more spending, more deficits, more debt, more government. And if you think that’s all working, then you look at the other side of the table. I mean, the truth of the matter is, the policies of this administration, which Hillary Clinton and Senator Kaine want to continue, have run this economy into a ditch. We’re in the…
KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?
PENCE: … slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression.
KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?
QUIJANO: Governor… (CROSSTALK)
PENCE: There are millions more people living in poverty today than the day that Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton at his side…
KAINE: And the poverty level and the median income…
PENCE: … stepped into the Oval Office.
KAINE: … improved dramatically between 2014 and 2015.
PENCE: You — honestly, Senator, you can roll out the numbers and the sunny side, but I got to tell you, people in Scranton know different. People in Fort Wayne, Indiana, know different. I mean, this economy is struggling. The answer to this economy is not more taxes.

That’s the problem that the Clinton-Kaine ticket can’t escape. Their spin can’t eliminate the truth that the Obama economy stinks. It stinks because it’s trying to bankrupt entire industries like coal-mining and fracking for oil and natural gas. It stinks because Obamacare is the craziest thing in the world:

If Donald Trump takes the fight to Hillary on the economy and how the Obama economy is built on how well-connected people are, he’ll win this election. Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Kaine can’t point to the pathetic economic growth as proof that they’re on the right side of that issue.

Sen. Kaine’s first attempt to make a first impression fell flat. It’s long past time to worry about Mrs. Clinton’s first impression on the nation. Saying that she’s a polarizing figure is understatement.

Donald Trump wasted a valuable commodity this week — time. The week started right, with him winning the first third of the debate. Then he forgot his purpose and started chasing ghosts. The lesson that his advisors need to teach him is that he needs to focus on things that will help him connect with blue collar workers. The other thing that Mr. Trump must highlight is the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play scandal and the FBI’s faux investigation.

By highlighting the FBI’s faux investigation, Mr. Trump would connect with Bernie Sanders’ voters that think that the system is rigged. The FBI’s faux investigation would play well with suburban voters who think Mrs. Clinton isn’t trustworthy. It’d be great if he could flip those voters. At this point, Mr. Trump’s campaign would probably be satisfied if it drove Mrs. Clinton’s turnout with suburban voters down.

The Clintons are disgusting, immoral people who’ve lived in the mud their entire lives. Spending 5 more weeks there to win the presidency means nothing to them. Trump’s path to victory is to highlight the things that matter most to people. When in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump should highlight Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she’s going to put coal companies out of business. Wherever he goes, he needs to highlight his plan for energy independence, then contrast that with Mrs. Clinton’s green energy policies.

Part of Mr. Trump’s presentation on green energy should highlight the rigged game that Solyndra tapped into. Mostly, though, Trump should highlight the fact that coal-mining and fracking jobs are just waiting to be filled. Ask people if they want to subsidize Mrs. Clinton’s and President Obama’s special interest allies or whether they’d like to keep doing what’s worked for the last half-century.

If Trump gets back on message, he’ll put pressure on Mrs. Clinton because people want change. They don’t want Mrs. Clinton’s more-of-the-same policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Much internet bandwidth has been used on who won Monday night’s presidential debate. Two of the best political thinkers think that Trump won. Pat Caddell, Jimmy Carter’s pollster, has some interesting statistics that indicate some interesting things that contradict conventional wisdom. In this article, Caddell notes that “48 percent said Clinton did a better job, compared to 43 percent, who said Trump did the better job” before noting “95 percent of the people we contacted told us they were not going to change their vote based on the debate.”

Caddell then noted that “Trump won on the most critical factor, on whether Clinton or Trump was more ‘plausible’ as president, 46 percent to her 42 percent,” saying that “that, for him, was what this debate was really about.” Dovetailing off of that is the fact that, according to Caddell, “forty-eight percent of respondents said in the debate Trump showed he would be a strong leader, compared with 44 percent for Clinton.”

That’s the statistical side of things. Newt Gingrich’s op-ed provides the analysis:

The Intellectual Yet Idiot class that dominates our news media fell all over themselves critiquing Trump and praising Holt and Clinton. In doing so, they repeated the mistake they have made about every debate since August 2015.

Trump wins strategically because in a blunt, clear style, he is saying things most Americans believe.

With 70% of the country thinking that we’re heading in the wrong direction, it’s a major victory for a candidate to win the people’s trust. That’s confirmed by Salena Zito’s reporting, which Gingrich cited here:

Salena Zito is one of the country’s most perceptive journalists, in part because she is grounded outside of Washington and New York. Her column about the debate, “How Trump Won Over a Bar of Undecideds and Democrats,” should be required reading for everyone who wants to understand why Trump strategically won the debate.

After that, Gingrich mocked the elitists:

Trump has a hard time with media elites because they earn a living by talking. The media values glibness. In their world you can speak nonsense if you do it smoothly and convincingly. Trump is a blunt, let’s-make-a-deal, let’s-get-the-building-built, let’s-sell-our-product businessman. The first debate showcased a blunt, plain spoken businessman and a polished professional politician.

In other words, the fight was word salad vs. leadership. Here’s how that worked out:

Time: Trump 55 Clinton 45
Fortune: Trump 53, Clinton 47
N.J.com (New Jersey): Trump 57.5, Clinton 37.78
CNBC: Trump 68, Clinton 32
WCPO Cincinnati: Trump 57, Clinton 37
Variety: Trump 58.12, Clinton 41.88
Slate: Trump 55.18, Clinton 44.82
WKRN Nashville: Trump 64.58, Clinton 35.42
Las Vegas Sun: Trump 82, Clinton 18
Fox5 San Diego: Trump 61.45, Clinton 33.69
San Diego Tribune: Trump 65, Clinton 35


Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the Agenda Media, Hillary Clinton mopped the proverbial floor with Donald Trump’s behind. The storyline connecting all of the stories is that she was well-prepared and that she was masterful at getting Trump to take the bait time after time.

That’s the traditional angle, though. It’s the conventional wisdom angle. According to this article, though, voters in swing states might have a different opinion. It’s telling that the article notices “Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate. By the end, they had both pulled away. John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers. By the end, they’d ruled her out.”

Any night that voters say that they’re going to vote for you, it’s a good thing. It’s also good when voters rule out your opponent. That’s what appears to be happening in the post-debate aftermath. That isn’t to say that Trump turned in a masterful performance. He didn’t. He didn’t capitalize on the opportunities that Mrs. Clinton gave him often enough.

Democrats were switching allegiances in Pennsylvania, too:

Ken Reed sat down at the main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind: to dig into the tavern’s oversize cheese steak, and watch the presidential debate. “I am hungry and undecided, in that order,” he said, digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.

Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy, sat beside him. At 28, she has never voted before, and she is now thinking it might be a good idea to start. Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.

Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits. “Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.

Trump’s goal for the debates is to help him win the election. As such, the debates are a tool to be used to help him win. Viewed in that light, Trump definitely benefited from last night’s debate. It isn’t as much a matter of winning or losing as much as it’s about whether you benefited from it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,