The 7th GOP Debate AKA Megyn Kelly and the 7 Dwarves

Ladies and Gentlemen (or whoever is reading this) last night we had a Republican debate.....so you all know what that means.

Its time once again for a GOP DEBATE REVIEW! Now with 100% less Trump.

Now the rules for those just joining us:

The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the last debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

A couple of special notes this time around. First Donald Trump WAS ranked first in this debate, even though he didnt show up. So the first set of numbers here are actually going to be between 2 and 8.

Secondly Rand Paul didnt make the last debate, so the second number on his name will be from the 5th debate, which is the last one he was at.

7) Ben Carson (4/3)
Ben Carson's debate performance can be summed up in 3 letter: WTF?
First off, its worth noting that in 2 hours, Ben Carson made a total of 5 statements over 2 hours including his closing statement, so he barely factored into this debate. Secondly, given that he only made 5 statement its amazing how much weird shit he was able to say

For example: "Putin is a one- horse country: oil and energy. And we ought to fight them on that level."

It appears Ben Carson has become the latest victim of the "republicans not being able to count to incredibly small numbers" disease following in the proud footsteps of Rick "oops" Perry, Ted Cruz, and the Bundy wackjob in oregon.  Or Putin is riding one of those weird Siamese twin horses.

Second, I could be wrong about this, but Im pretty sure Putin isnt a country unto himself......

Speaking of Putin:
"We have so much natural gas now, and we can liquify it, and we can transfer it across the sea so we can make Europe dependent on us instead of Putin -- put him back in his little box where he belongs."
His little box is what exactly? Russia, the largest country on the planet? not exactly a little box.....

Then we get to his closing statement....in which it was pretty clear that despite only having said 4 things before this the poor doctor was tired and at a total and complete loss for words or thoughts.

You see most of the candidates made an appeal to the Iowa voters in the room, seeing as how Iowa votes on Monday, and the debate was in Iowa. But not Dr. Carson, no his closing statement was:

"We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the benefits of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America."

You can almost hear his brain going "Oh shit, I have to talk again.....but i have no idea what to say....quick whats the first political sounding thing that comes to mind?"

6) Marco Rubio (3/6)
Unlike Carson I need 3 full words to describe Marco Rubio's debate preformance:
ISIS God and Guantanamo.

Basically every single one of Marco Rubio's answers involved him being scared shitless by ISIS, his solution to everything lets stick people in Gitmo and torture them.

This was clearly the "evolution" of the desperation I mentioned last time out where Rubio has basically decided his only chance of winning is to regurgitate neocon talking points ad nausem.

For example, Rubio was brought into a discussion over which candidate is the "heir" to Ron Paul's philosophy...to which he had this to say:

" I believe the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest power in the world. And I believe only with a strong America will we defeat this radical group, this apocalyptic group called ISIS.
That's why when I'm president we are going to rebuild our intelligence capabilities. And they're going to tell us where the terrorists are. And a rebuilt U.S. military is going to destroy these terrorists.
And if we capture any of these ISIS killers alive, they are going to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and we're going to find out everything they know, because when I'm president, unlike Barack Obama, we will keep this country safe."

Or when asked if his position on shutting down any place Muslims go for any reason violates the first amendment:

"Look, the threat we face from ISIS is unprecedented. There has never been a jihadist group like this. They have affiliates in over a dozen countries now.

They are the best funded radical jihadist group in the history of the world, and they have shown a sophisticated understanding of the laws of other countries on how to insert fighters into places, and they are actively plotting to attack us here at home and around the world.

We must keep America safe from this threat. And yes, when I am president of the United States, if there is some place in this country where radical jihadists are planning to attack the United States, we will go after them wherever they are, and if we capture them alive, they are going to Guantanamo."

Or he was asked does Ted Cruz's rhetoric match his record:

"Well, again, I mean, obviously, as already has been pointed out, the only budget that Ted has ever voted for is a budget that Rand Paul sponsored that brags about cutting defense spending. And I think that's a bad idea for the following reason.

ISIS is the most dangerous jihadist group in the history of mankind. ISIS is now found in affiliates in over a dozen countries. ISIS is a group that burns people alive in cages; that sells off little girls as brides. ISIS is a group that wants to trigger an apocalyptic showdown in the city of Dabiq -- not the city of Dubuque; I mis-said -- mis-said that wrong once (inaudible) time -- the city of Dabiq in Syria. They want to trigger an apocalyptic Armageddon showdown.

This group needs to be confronted and defeated. They are not going to go away on their own. They're not going to turn into stockbrokers overnight or open up a chain of car washes. They need to be defeated militarily, and that will take overwhelming U.S. force.

Today, we are on pace to have the smallest Army since the end of World War II, the smallest Navy in 100 years, the smallest Air Force in our history. You cannot destroy ISIS with a military that's being diminished. When I'm president, we are rebuilding the U.S. military because the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military in the world."

So everyone caught that right? Apparently ISIS is larger, better funded and a bigger threat then the combined forces of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, hence why we need a World War II sized army to even have a chance against stopping them from triggering Armageddon....

Oh yea, by the way, its not just a world war II sized army we need either, as Rubio threw this out at one point too:

"I think the United States military is operating under rules of engagement that are too strict and that do not allow us to pursue victory. When I'm president, that will change."

I assume the rules hes talking about are the ones where we dont bomb civilians and dont send people to Gitmo to be tortured...but hey I mean its the boggyman....er ISIS, sacrifices have to be made.

Oh and his immigration stance:

"Number one, we're going to keep ISIS out of America. If we don't know who you are, or why you're coming, you will not get into the United States."

To be fair though, he did show occasional pandering to other neocon talking points for example:
On why he would be a good president, mostly he's not Hillary Clinton because you see: "Hillary Clinton stored classified information on her private server. And Hillary Clinton lied to the families of those four brave Americans who lost their life in Benghazi. And anyone who lies to the families of Americans who have died in the service of this country can never be commander-in-chief of the United States."
Of course, except for that first sentence (which applies to all politicans btw) NONE of that is true as the longest congressional investigation in history, itself the 8th, has proven. But its a neocon talking point and Rubio really doesnt want to lose.....

Or on if he regrets calling Chris Christie a flip flopper:

"I think if you do not understand that our Judeo-Christian values are one of the reasons why America is such a special country, you don't understand our history. You see, why are we one of the most generous people in the world -- no, the most generous people in the world? Why do Americans contribute millions of dollars to charity?

It is not because of the tax writeoff. It is because in this nation, we are influenced by Judeo-Christian values that teach us to care for the less fortunate, to reach out to the needy, to love our neighbor. This is what's made our nation so special.
And you should hope that our next president is someone that is influence by their faith. Because if your faith causes you to care for the less fortunate, it is something you want to see in your public figures. And when I'm president, I can tell you this, my faith will not just influence the way I'll govern as president, it will influence the way I live my life.

Because in the end, my goal is not simply to live on this earth for 80 years, but to live an eternity with my creator. And I will always allow my faith to influence everything I do.
And yes, I notice the answer has nothing to do with the question....and its historically wrong. But hey none of that matters when you need to desperately suck off the evangelicals to win an election

Oh and the 80 years thing, Not just a number pulled out of his ass. Here's Psalm 90:10

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

The key fact here is that a score of years is twenty years. So this verse literally says you can only assume God will let you live to 70 or 80. Admittedly not many Christians take this part literally, but the right ones (the religious wack jobs) do.

So yea, apparently hes willing to do the whole Rimjob while hes down there trying pleasuring the evangelical vote.

And finally, his closing pander...er statement:

"The bible commands us to let our light shine on the world. For over 200 years, America's light has been shining on the world and the world has never been the same again. But now, that light is dimming a little, after seven years of Barack Obama. And that's why Monday night, what will happen here in Iowa is so important.

I'm asking you for your vote. Caucus for me on Monday night because if I am your nominee, I will unite this party and I will defeat Hillary Clinton and when I'm president, America's light will shine again and the 21 century will be a new American century."

Vote for me, cause you know bible....

5) John Kasich (7/4)
You know it seems almost unfair that someone has to place only one spot higher than that, cause the gulf of how bad the performance was between Marco Rubio and the person above him was is tremendous. But since I cant just leave a blank in my ranking, I guess someone has to take the spot about him.

See the thing is, Kasich actually had a decent showing, he did a good job (as always) pointing out his strenghts and even made himself look like a washington outsider.

The problem was this one exchange:

"KASICH: Chris...

(APPLAUSE)

... there was a question about foreign policy, by the way, and experience. And I -- I thought, if I didn't jump in, I might not be able to tell everybody this. I think they'd want to hear it.

Look, I served on...

WALLACE: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: ... we'll be talking about foreign policy a little bit later. We're going to talk...

KELLY: We have a lot -- we have a lot to cover. But we want to -- we want to turn the page to domestic...

(CROSSTALK)

KASICH: ... but wait a minute...

KELLY: No, no. No.

KASICH: ...the only reason is -- look...

KELLY: No no no, because we want to turn the page to domestic terror, and let me tell you why: we're partnering with Google on this debate, and they're telling us...

KASICH: OK.

KELLY: ... that their search results have gone through the roof on -- on people...

KASICH: I've always listened to you, Megyn. Go ahead.

KELLY: ... you're a good man, Governor Kasich.

KASICH: Yes -- thank you."
That was basically Kasich being told to shit down and shut the fuck up so they could move on to more important candidates....and the fact he eventually meekly agreed to it didnt really help his perception at all.

Also didnt help that when the moderators finally came back to him with a question about should the cell phone companies put back doors into cell phones to allow the FBI to spy on american's at all times without their knowledge his answer was

"KASICH: Well, look the Joint Terrorism Task Force needs resources and tools. And those are made up of the FBI, state and local law enforcement. And Megyn, it's best not to talk anymore about back doors and encryption, it will get solved, but it needs to be solved in the situation of the White House with the technology folks.

MEGYN: But this is public testimony.

KASICH: But I just have to tell you that it's best with some of these things not be said. Now I want to go back something. See, I was there when Reagan rebuilt the military. I was there in '89 when the wall came tumbling down because we were strong."

Pretty sure that translates not only to a yes, but that the fact we are spying on Americans should be done without the knowledge of any Americans.

Kasich has been the candidate I'd vote for if I was a republican, and the one I've figured republicans should vote for (if they want to win and if they want a reasonable candidate).......and yet with that one answer.....yea, never mind....now I got to find another one of these candidates  to be the choice for reasonable republicans.

4) Rand Paul (8/3)
Rand Paul's back. And returned basically to form. By which I mean, as usual Paul is the divider between those who had a bad debate performance, and those who had a good one, while having a solid but utter forgettable performance himself in which he said everything youd expect him to say and exactly what he said in the other 5 debates that he was in, so nothing new or exciting at all, but at the same time nothing dumb or shocking.

So yea, I dont think I need to rehash it again for the 6th time. If you know what Rand Paul stands for, you can imagine his debate performance with almost 100% accuracy so moving on.....

3) Ted Cruz (2/1)
Cruz actually had the line of night, when asked about Donald Trump's absence
"let me say I'm a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat, and ugly. And Ben, you're a terrible surgeon. Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way..."
Problem was, he kept going back to that well, it didnt work so well the other times

CRUZ: Chris, I would note that that the last four questions have been, "Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted..."

(AUDIENCE)

CRUZ: Let me just say this...

WALLACE: ... It is a debate, sir.

CRUZ: ... Well, no, no. A debate actually is a policy issue, but I will say this. Gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question I may have to leave the stage.

in written form that comes across funnier than it was in real time. In real time it looked petty and I think a lot of people, myself included didnt quite catch the joke.....so it made Cruz look prissy and smug.

Then there was the really awkward Reagan reference he made when he said he would "Tear down the EPA's blend wall which will enable ethanol to expand its market share by up to 60%, all without mandates." It sounded way to clunky and rehearsed to be the "natural inclination towards being Reagan" Cruz intended.

He also got tripped up pretty badly on his ever changing stance on immigration...but that was also true for EVERYONE else up there. mostly because Republicans are total prostitutes on this issue, as they dont really care about it....except that they know their base does so they will say whatever you ask them to, whenever you ask them too. So I cant hold it against him specifically.

All of that said, he actually did a really good job of sounding tough on ISIS and wanting a bigger military without reaching the depths of Marco Rubios  mad ravings. And he did an amazing job turning a seeming negative into a positive when he was asked why none of his senate colleagues support him for president, by saying that just proved he was the ultimate anti establishment candidate.

And he didnt shy away from his position on ethanol (which Iowa cares about even if the rest of us dont), even after it drew criticism from Iowa's Republican  Gov  Terry Bransted, who was in the crowd at the debate.

As much as I hate to say it, Ted Cruz had yet another solid debate.

2) Jeb Bush (5/2)
Once again, I feel like I'm giving Jeb a spot he didnt earn.....but the difference is, this time he might have actually earned 1st.....I just cant give it too him because he only earned first when I actually reread the transcript to do this blog.

See watching the debate live, I thought Bush actually gave some really good and smart answers (even if I disagreed)....say particularly to the Immigrant on Youtube, on Puerto Rico, The Muslim Youtuber.

But what I didnt notice was that all his answers were actually solid....and he gave a lot of them. But thats also why i cant give him first, none of them stood out enough for me to hear as anything other than "Blah Blah Blah" until I went back to take a second look. And the fact is, most people arnt going to take a second look and first impressions count, and my first impression of Bush this time out was boring and dull but not nuts, so second he gets.
 
1) Chris Christie (6/5)
No, thats not a typo. Christie actually did pretty good this time out. He managed to sound strong and tough without crossing over the line to bully. He also usually sounded like he knew what he was talking about, and he didnt keep repeating the same phrases he used in the last debate. He also barely exploited 9/11 to make himself look tough (though he did have to squeeze it in at the end just cause)

Now admittedly objectively his desire to prosecute Hillary Clinton for crimes (of which all evidence suggests didnt actually happen) is well, insane, but unlike the other candidates he got the line out and moved on quickly as opposed to trying to draw it out and tripping over it.

And then there was the time he was asked if he would definitively answer if we would go to war with Libya if he was president....and he answered by talking about how Hillary Clinton wont anwser direct questions.

But on most points he was good....talking about the difference between profiling and law enforcement for example. Or his handling of Kim Davis, he found a middle ground in which I think most everyone on both sides would at least be ok with, even if they didnt like. Or even his answer on why compromise isnt a bad thing was pretty good.

There is however one major line I think he's going to regret saying "Sure, because there has been three different investigations and proven that I knew nothing."

In context this is in reference to bridgegate, but even so it doesnt really sound good, cause his excuse is basically "Shit, like I was paying attention to details". And out of context....well expect to see that in every superpac ad by everyone should christie ever gain any political momentum in this race or any other.

Now as I said, in hind sight I feel like I should reverse his and Bushes standings, but like I said, you dont get a replay in the actual debate.

So yea, Chris Christie did the best in the debate....I cant call him the winner though, but thats we all know the real winner was Megyn Kelly because she made Trump go poopie in his pants.

Also, if you actually like any of these candidates now might be a good time to say good bye. While there will be another debate......next freaking week......that is after voting starts so some of these people may not be around (Hi Rand, Hi Kasich Hi Doc Carson). Which hopefully also means I can do a lot less writing next time....this things are timesinks.

Republicans FINALLY discover who can beat Donald J. Trump:

So for months and months and months the GOP establishment, the entire sane portion of the party and even some of those approaching the fringe have been trying to figure out what to do about their "Trump Problem" AKA the fact it looks more and more likely every day that the part will actually nominate Hitlers understudy as a presidential candidate, a move almost universally agreed to lead to the party being wiped out down ballot.

Well good news republicans, your savior has arrived.

Thats right, we have finally found someone who will leave the mighty Donald J. Trump relegated to wearing brown pants at all times....just in case he catches sight of this person no one will notice him soiling himself.

Now this is the same Donald J. Trump whose mere intimidating glances will cause Mexico to build a wall on their border just to avoid his looking at them

This is the same Donald J. Trump whose business acumen will cause China to rewrite their entire economic policy out of fear he would bankrupt THEM like they were one of his casino's

This is the same Donald J. Trump whose dominating demeanor will cause Valdamir Putin to withdraw from the Crimea, and Georgia....and possible even parts of Russia just to avoid a phonecall from The Donald

This is the same Donald J. Trump whose inherent toughness will cause Iran and North Korea to turn over all their nuclear weapons to him voluntarily and without question. In fact Iran will develop such a weapon just for the honor of turning it over to him.

This is the same Donald J. Trump whose religious conviction waifs off him so strongly that ISIS will fall to their knees en masse and become christian....and will even erect a statute of their Lord and Savior Donald Jesus Trump in the heart of Mecca.

And this is just the stuff he will do on inauguration day.

The point is, if we know anything about Donald J. Trump it is that he's the toughest of the toughest S.O.B.'s to have ever been born in the 6,000 year history of the earth.

So the question you should be asking yourself is this..........how fucking scary does the person who makes Donald J. Trump want to shit himself have to be?

Well I'm about to show you. Fair warning, the following image COULD be so intimidating it could lead to involuntary crying, feelings of inadequacy, hopelessness and even thoughts of suicide so as to avoid ever having to face it again.

So proceed at your own risk

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the NEW FACE OF FEAR:

No, seriously, why are you laughing? thats is. Thats her. Thats the person who can reduce the Almighty Trump to a quivering infantile (well more infantile) mess.

Her name, for those of you who dont know is Megyn Kelly.

Now at this point your probably wondering what Mrs. Kelly does that makes her so fearsome?

She must be the head of the combined Irish and Italian Mobs right? No.

Ok so shes actually the leader of the Illuminati then? Nope.

In charge of the New World Order? Again no sorry.

Shes a journalist. She asks questions. And she's hosting tonight's Republican Debate. The same one Donald J. Trump wont attend, despite it being the final debate before states start voting.

Now at this point maybe your thinking I'm reading too much into this.

Maybe Trumps not coming because he still hasnt managed to dig his private jet out of the snow in New York City. Maybe his wife is sick. Maybe his daughter has a softball game. All valid points.

So dont take my word of it. Take his:

Now admittedly there he is only saying he MIGHT skip the debate in that clip. Which led to FOX issuing the following statement

"As many of our viewers know, FOX News is hosting a sanctioned debate in Des Moines, Iowa on Thursday night, three days before the first votes of the 2016 election are cast in the Iowa Caucus. Donald Trump is refusing to debate seven of his fellow presidential candidates on stage that night, which is near unprecedented. We’re not sure how Iowans are going to feel about him walking away from them at the last minute, but it should be clear to the American public by now that this is rooted in one thing – Megyn Kelly, whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage. Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly. In a call on Saturday with a Fox News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megyn had a “rough couple of days after that last debate” and he “would hate to have her go through that again.” Lewandowski was warned not to level any more threats, but he continued to do so. We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees. Trump is still welcome at Thursday night’s debate and will be treated fairly, just as he has been during his 132 appearances on FOX News & FOX Business, but he can’t dictate the moderators or the questions."

Note the bolded sentence.....thats how you call someone out on their bullshit. They basically just called him a [psychological] terrorist

This wasnt the only reply by FOX either, after news broke Trump was polling his twitter followers to see if he should go to the event.(for the record, the majority said he SHOULD do the debate)

To which FOX had this to say

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president, A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

And really you cant fault FOX for this one. How is ANYONE supposed to believe Trump can stand up to a cardboard cutout of mahatma gandhi, let alone real and potentially dangerous world leaders if he cant face a tough question from a reporter?

Anyways led to Trump announcing his own event, per his spokesman

"He will not be participating in the FOX News debate and will instead host an event in Iowa to raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians. Like running for office as an extremely successful person, this takes guts and it is the kind of mentality our country needs in order to Make America Great Again."

(As a side note its worth noting the last time Trump claimed to host a debate to help vets, the group didnt exist it turned out he kinda just gave all the money to one dude who wasnt a vet)

So, now really just one question remains, is it AT ALL possible, Trump has a legit point? I mean was Megyn Kelly unfair to him in the last debate? did she ask him a bunch of really hard impossible questions like "What do you read?" or "What is your solution to the global poverty and economic disparity problem and the resulting starvation and migration that results in 10 words or less?"

Well lets find out: Here are ALL of the questions Megyn Kelly asked Trump in the last debat

1) " Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.

You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals. Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on 
women?"

2) "Mr. Trump, in 1999, you said you were, quote, “very pro- choice.” Even supporting partial-birth abortion. You favored an assault weapons ban as well. In 2004, you said in most cases you identified as a Democrat. Even in this campaign, your critics say you often sound more like a Democrat than a Republican, calling several of your opponents on the stage things like clowns and puppets. When did you actually become a Republican?"


And well thats it.  1 question about how you would handle the likely democratic attacks against you, and another one about your positions changing over time, especially on abortion...a question that something like 80% of republican get and have the same anwser for (that always works with their base) which was that they basically didnt realize how evil it was when they were younger cause they were dumb.  These are literally the 2 questions you should expect to get if you run (any politician) and about as softball as you can get


But at least on the upside we do know what Donald Trumps answers to both questions was:

So yea, Republicans, you wanted to stop Trump.....well you just found the person who can do it.

If your smart you will announce Megyn Kelly as the keynote speaker at the Republican Nominating Convention.....who knows maybe the fear she inspires will cause Trump to drop out of the race immediately.


Finally, I leave you with this, FOX news just announced in a break from tradition, at the debate tonight Megyn Kelly will get her own theme song, aimed at Donald Trump:

Pulling the strings off the Right Wing Fringe

So complete and utter moron, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is at it again.
[Editors note: dont you think given who the two previous Texas Governors were calling him both a "complete and utter moron" and the "Texas Governor" is a bit redudant?]

This time he attempted to go after favorite right wing boggy man planned parenthood.....and it may have just backfired.

Ok so for those whove been living under a rock for the last year, Planned Parenthood got in trouble a few months back for getting caught on tape selling body parts of dead babies.

Except that, they didnt as the tapes were doctored as admitted almost instantly by the group that put them out.

Now of course as the GOP platform allows for the choosing of the most convenient of multiple potential realities to replace the real one, the GOP decided to choose a reality in which the fact the tapes were doctored didnt exist to them, and started congressional hearings which kinda led to the committee chairmen being embarrassed on national television when he showed a graph he claimed was based on planned parenthoods own data, when the graph itself said it was not.


Now again the GOP just decided to select a reality for themselves in which that never happened.

Enter the Texas Dumbass who decided to use his powers to convene a Grand Jury investigation into Planned Parenthood to see if they had broken any laws.

Well the Grand Jury investigation is over and GOOD NEWS:

They are indicting.

Specifically they are indicting for the crime of buying/selling human organs.

Now I know what your asking yourselves, hey wait a minute, isnt this EXACTLY what Gov Abbott wanted? doesnt this mean it worked? why are you calling him a dumbass?

Well see thats the "catch"  The Grand Jury DIDNT indict planned parenthood. In fact they found no evidence of any wrongdoing by planned parenthood or its representatives.

Instead they indicted the two people who made the tape in the first place.

Oops.

So yea, Good job Gov Abbott, your inability to pull your head out of your own ass is going to likely result in jail time for the people who helped you shove it up there in the first place, while exonerating the group you meant to go after in the first place.

No seriously, fucking up that badly takes talent.

Though I would be remiss if I didnt mention Gov Abbott reaction to all this: Which surprising no one was to just pretend he lives in a reality in which this didnt happen as his office released the following statement.

"“The Health and Human Service Commission’s Inspector General and the Attorney General’s office have an ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions,” said Governor Abbott. “Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation. The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”


Translation: Our own investigation just fucked over our investigation....but dont worry we are going to continue to investigate and pretend our own investigating didnt happen.

Now staying on the topic of Texan's with their head up their ass, it appears the Canadian Cruz Missile missed it target and detonated in its own hanger:

See a few days ago Senator Cruz said this:

“I’ll tell you, you know who one of those millions of Americans is who’s lost their healthcare because of ObamaCare? That would be me, I don’t have healthcare right now.” he added later "I had purchased an individual policy and Blue Cross Blue Shield canceled all their individual policies in the state of Texas effective December 31st, So our health care got canceled. We got a notice in the mail. Blue Cross Blue Shield was leaving the market."

Thing is, he's lying. But dont take my word for it.....take his....or at least his campaigns, per his spokeswoman Catherine Frazier "The Cruz family is currently covered by a Blue Cross HMO.” however they apparently arnt sticking around as the coverage options were changed in and they chose to leave the plan so Cruz instead "will be a Humana enrollee effective March 1 in one of their wider-network PPO plans"

But I guess if we are playing under the "select your own reality" rules of the right wing, chosing to change health insurance plans means you "lost" your healthcare and "dont have any" cause Obama.

Lastly its worth mentioning that like ALL US Senators, Cruz is entitled to much cheaper and better healthcare though his job.....he's just choosing not to use it. So he's basically blaming Obamacare for his own desire to waste money......but I'm sure that kind of buck passing wont affect his ability to be an accountable president right?

Now I dont want to give the wrong impression, its not JUST texas that's full of crazy people.

They have some in Oregon too....although in Oregon's defense those are involuntary imports from Nevada.

By which of course I mean the Bundy Boys/Y'all Quadea/ the militia who took over (and have inexpectiably been allowed to keep) a wildlife refugee back at the beginning of the month.

Turns out, they finally have a list of demands......cause I guess they finally figured out what they are doing up there.

And as expected, the list is pretty epic

First, according to the "leader" Ammon Bundy

"The FBI does not have, really anything to do with the situation. It is the people, their county, and their land. And, the federal government simply needs to adhere to the constitution of the United States. Adhere to the rules and Article 1.817 and comply."

Funny story about that. Assuming he means article 1, Clause 8, AKA the enumerated power clause and the 17th listed power well here it is:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


Translation: Federal government has the SOLE authority over any lands given to them by the state.....like say a wildlife refugee in Oregon that they got back in 1908.

But really its no surprise Ammon Bundy accidentally disproved his own arguement. He's a right winger after all, they read the Constitution about as much as a catholic reads the bible (which is to say they dont) and for the same reason (someone else told them what it actually "means"/"says")

“They are not happy they barricaded off their schools, you barricaded off their courtrooms and that you are walking around with literally weapons in the middle of their town and tactical gear and you name it, with a standing army, They’re not happy about that.”

Thats not a misquote by the way, thats actually the part of the speech where he gives his demands.

Just keep that in mind, that the "head" of an armed "standing  army" walking around town in tactical gear and literally with weapons apparently thinks thats the "other guys"

Now on to his demads: Well first he thinks the FBI should "do your job, in which you were established to do, which was to investigate bureaucracies, federal bureaucracies.”

"Well, if you want to do something. Do an investigation of one of your own agencies. Uh, three of ‘em—Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the uh, U.S. Forest Service, the EPA, U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s office, Frank Papagni,”

Oh god damn it. what is it with right wingers being unable to count when it comes to government agencies? First Rick Perry forgot one of his 3, then Ted Cruz repeated one of his 5, now this jackass named 6 "three agencies" 

he ends back where he started,,,making the same mistake too

"The federal government does not own these lands, does not have authority to be administrating or controlling these lands. It is clearly, clearly the people’s lands and not the government’s. You guys have blatantly and openly violated the Constitution and the people insist on standing or they will not have any law to protect them. And that is very simple, Chris. You guys need to recognize that you are acting outside the authority of the people and peacefully allow this transfer or transaction or however you want to say it and back to the the people and them using it as their rights. It’s very simple."
Again the very part of the Constitution Mr. Bundy directed us to says he's full of shit. But I guess in right wing world you can change your Constitution just like you can your reality.


Final thing I'm going to leave with....there is ONE more demand(Although admittedly not by Bundy but by another milita member):

Chris Christie has to Sumo Wrestle them.


And no....I'm not kidding

(and no for the record, this guy ISNT actually Christie's brother.....at least not in the reality most of us live in. And yes, he DOES appear to be an actual member of the Milita)

 

 

This Campaign Season in Stupid.

Ok so its been a while since I've done one of these.....but honestly thats because so far most of the presidential candidates have either confined their stupid to debates or to themes, allowing me to address those there.

This on the other hand is my more traditional smattering of stupid of all shapes and kinds.

Lets start this time with Chris Christie....or more accurately his campaign.

So Christie was doing a campaign stop in Iowa (of course) and was asked the following question

"What are you going to do about the lunches, because they were fine when Mrs. Bush was the first lady, but now that Mrs. Obama is the first lady, they've gone down." The question asker goes on to mention he doesnt like Gluten Free food and wants to go back to the "Crispitos" they used to have because "Now, their version of crispito the tiniest tortilla shell they can find. They cook it for two minutes. Literally, two minutes. And then they put two pinches of beef in it and then they give it to us. And then they call that food,"
Now on its face, thats actually an ok set of question......except for one small problem. They were asked by a 5th grader.

Which makes the kid 11 years old. Meaning when Mrs. Bush was first lady, 8 years ago, this kid would have been 3 or 4.....just a bit too young to have been eating "school lunches"

Which makes me assume this question was planted by the Christie Campaign. Now to be fair to the Christie Campaign, I dont think thats unusual, its just that, normally campaigns do a much better job of covering that fact up.

Where as in this case, the campaign made it so no matter what Christie says hes going to look like an idiot, given that both sets of "crispito's" mentioned would have been served in the last year or two if this was a legitimate question, and therefore a change that likely had nothing to do with anything outside of local politics.


But Christie gave his pre-prepared answer anyways, the one where he blames Obama for everything, even things that chronologically dont work....


Next Up we leave the campaign trail ever so briefly to address the State of the Union....specifically who was in the audience at the State of the Union, one Kim Davis the Kentucky Clerk who wouldnt allow gays or straights to marry until after going to jail, magically changed her beliefs so that they could.

Anywho, how did she get there? Well like everyone else she was invited.

Well except that, apprently the person who invited her, didnt mean to.

See her tickets came from Congressman Jim Jordan's office....but that was news to Jordan as at first he said:

"I didn't invite anyone,"

Which a few hours later became

'"My understanding is they[his office] gave them[tickets] to the Family Research Council,"

Which lead to “At the request of the Family Research Council, we gave the ticket to Kim Davis’ family,”

Wow, glad to see your on the ball about things like "who's representing my office"  congressman. Like I know your busy but come on. Also I like how at first the FRC gave them the ticket......then it turned out it really was you.....but hey I guess you sometimes know what your doing?

Also your excuse makes you sound like the FRC's bitch, they apprently tell you someone wants a ticket and you OK it without even thinking........but yea glad to see your not bought or anything.

Next up, back to the campaign trail....at least in theory, with theoretical presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Santourm, for some reason, is the only presidential candidate being asked to defend the GOP's naziesque immigration policy, specifically the part about deporting dreamers and of course bollixed it.

“My response is, ‘Great. Do you realize what a blessing they will be to their country when they go back? You are talking about folks who are going to be the leaders of their countries, I think that the best thing that we can do to stem the tide of illegal immigration is to have them go home and save their countries.”

He actually made similar comments at the GOP undercard debate where he said

"We’re going to export America, The education they were able to receive; they learned the English language; they learned about capitalism; they learned about democracy.

You want to stop the flow of immigrants? Let's send 6 million Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans ... back into their country so they can start a renaissance in their country so they won't be coming over here anymore."

The problem of course is the logic of Santorums statement kinda revolves around the idea of American Exceptionalism, that by virtue of basically being americans these kids will be superior to everyone in their home countries.

But, if they are American, as Santorum is claiming, why are we deporting them as we just admitted they are American?

I guess they just all qualify as "blah people" so fuck em?

Next up, the GOP frontrunner, The Donald.

Donald Trump gave a speech at Liberty University, and in typical politician fashion tried to kiss ass.....and in typical Trump fashion failed spectacularly

"We're going to protect Christianity. I can say that. I don't have to be politically correct,Two Corinthians, 3:17, that's the whole ballgame … is that the one you like?"
Ok two things, one how fucking blatant can you be? note the end of that quote, Trump is basically ASKING his audience if thats how they would like to be sucked off or if he needs to do it another way.

Secondly....he failed. WTF is TWO Corinthians? Shit I'm an atheist and even *I* know its SECOND Corinthians.

But of course, this is Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is like the pope (in his own mind at least) in that he is infallible, therefore this whole thing is actually someone elses fault, specifically Tony Perkins (head of the aforementioned FRC from like 2 entries above)

“Tony Perkins wrote that out for me. He actually wrote out the 2, he wrote out the number 2 Corinthians,I took exactly what Tony said, and I said, ‘Well, Tony has to know better than anybody.’ ”

Now actually Trump has a point here. See Perkins clearly wrote the note assuming he was dealing with someone who has a vague familiarity with the bible. And while I realize Trump actually claims to hold the bible above his own book as his favorite, Perkins should have realized he is dealing with a well known liar and complete and utter moron.

Meaning that, despite "2 Corinthians" being the correct written notation, Perkins really should have literally spelled it out for Trump. I honestly dont know what Perkins was thinking, thinking that he was dealing with someone who might have been alive and on the planet for a few decades and therefore at least passably intelligent.

Next up we move to the so called "intelligent" nominee, AKA the GOP establishments last hope to save them from trump...Marco Rubio.....who sadly isnt living up to expectations, mostly because of things like this:


"I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment. I have a right to protect my family if someone were to come after us, In fact, if ISIS were to visit us, or our communities, at any moment, the last line of defense between ISIS and my family is the ability that I have to protect my family from them, or from a criminal, or anyone else who seeks to do us harm. Millions of Americans feel that way.”

To that end he actually DID buy a gun for that purpose on Christmas Eve.


Heres the thing though, like Donald Trump this appears to be nothing more than badly executed pander:


Ok so first, why Christmas Eve? Well as it happens it was "one of the rare days I was home".

Right, so your buying a gun to protect the home you apparently are never at......Not sure the gun's going to do you much good seeing as how you wont be there to use it.

Second, I'm pretty sure home invasion isnt ISIS's MO. In fact Im almost positive they've never committed one in this country. So I think if your worried about them going after you house or family, I think your pretty safe on that.

Thirdly. You know what IS ISIS's usual MO? Suicide Bombing. So that dude who just broke into your house who works for ISIS? You might not want to shoot him, you know just in case he's wearing a bomb and he goes BOOM!

Fourth. Ok so why are you never home? Oh wait thats right your running for president. Now in your defense should you win, you WOULD be the person most likely to have your home attacked by ISIS. Which is why you have your own very well trained protection services. Just saying if the Secret Service cant stop ISIS from breaking into the white house....I dont like your chances gun or no gun.

Fifth:You also mentioned in that same interview that this isnt your only gun. Great. So why cant the other one be used to defend against ISIS? unless.......oh god.......your going to try to double fist them arnt you? Just like you see all the cool guys doing in movies and video games *facepalm*

Finally and lastly, we leave the campaign trail once again for a late breaking bit of stupid (so late breaking that when I first planned this out, Rubio was your winner but this overtook him at the last second)

And who's responsible for this late breaking bit of stupid? who else? The mother of the moronic, the nonsensical numbskull of the north, the half-witted half-Governor Sarah Palin.

Ok so, earlier this week Sarah Palin's son Track was arrested for domestic abused against his girlfriend, where he allegedly attacked her and threatened her with a AR-15 (that would be an assault rifle for those whos dont know; you're welcome mom).

Now of course as this came on the heels of her endorsement of Donald Trump, Palin *had* to address this publicly, and wasted no time in placing the responsibility exactly where it belonged.....with Barack Obama.

“My son, a combat veteran … was fighting for you all, America, in the war zone. My son, like so many others, came back a bit different, they come back hardened, They come back wondering if there is that respect for what it is that their fellow soldiers and airman and every other member of the military so sacrificially have given to this country, And that starts from the top. … That comes from our own president. Where they have to look at him and wonder, ‘Do you know what we go through? Do you know what we’re trying to do to secure America?[...]What my own son is going through, what he is going through coming back, I can relate to other families who feel ramifications of PTSD and some of the woundedness that our soldiers do return with, And it makes me realize, more than ever, it is now or never for the sake of America's finest that we have that commander in chief who will respect them and honor them."

See if only Obama would show more respect towards the military Track Palin wouldnt have been forced to beat up some innocent woman.......so what Track did is TOTALLY Obama's fault dont ya know.

Now of course this also sounds like Palin is saying her son has PTSD....and to be far that might actually be the fault of whatever commander in chief sent her son into war to see these massive horrors for no good reason.

Now of course, Track was deployed to Iraq for a year, which is where he presumably experienced the events leading to his PTSD......thing is he was deployed in 2008....you know when Bush was around.

Unless shes saying Obama should have shown more respect for her son by leaving him over there to see even more fucked up shit and just not bothered to bring him home?

Incidentally by the way, isnt the official stance of Sarah Palin on guns that guns arnt the problem we just need to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people?

I mention this because Track is currently living with his parents.....and like I said, was threatening to shoot his girlfriend in the head with his AR-15.

So I am glad to see Sarah Palin is totally doing her part to make sure mentally unstable people in her own home dont have access to guns.......

Oh wait what am I saying? Sarah Palin clearly wants Obama to come to her house, and take the guns away from her son himself....cause you know this is really Obama's responsibility.

You know I would say I'd bet Trump is sorry now he got Palin's endorsement......except that he's backing her up on this. He also believes this whole incident is Obama's fault.

So yea, score two for the party of personal responsibility.  

GOP Debate: the Stupid Seven.

Ok so Im a bit later on this then i would like.....chalk it up to having to move over the weekend. Anyways better late than never right?

Now the rules for those just joining us:

The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the last debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.

7) Donald Trump. (1/9)

I honestly kinda regret putting Trump on the bottom of my last couple of reviews.....because it means the impact of having him down here is lessened, despite this being by far the worst debate performance Ive seen any candidate have so far.  And unlike the last couple times Ive put Trump at the bottom, I have a sense a lot of people will agree with me this time.

First, did you know it took Donald Trump a little over 20 minute to speak this time around?

Thats roughly an entire 5th of the debate in which the Frontrunner for a party apparently had no opinions on any issues.

And then when he did speak, he spoke with a vocabulary that makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar.

For example: 

"We are nineteen trillion dollars."
 Not sure what we are 19 trillion dollars of? Could it be Trump is literally made of money?

"If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now."

The words your looking for are "shoot back" or "return fire"......not "bullets go in the different direction"

"We have to protect our 2nd amendment and you cannot do this and certainly what Barack Obama was doing with the executive order."

I'm not even sure what he was TRYING to say with this one. I mean I get it up until the words "do this and" and then its kinda right wing talking point word salad, cause he seems to be saying you cannot protect the second amendment but Obama did?

"And unlike President Obama, where he refuses even to use the term of what's going on, he can't use the term for whatever reason. And if you can't use the term, you're never going to solve the problem"

And WHAT term is that EXACTLY? I have no idea cause apparently you cant even allude to it.....

Or the odd contradictions that ran throughout his answers:

" they killed 15 people in actually 14 -- going to be probably 16"

PICK A FUCKING NUMBER DAMN IT,

Or

"Neil Cavuto (moderator):Last week, the New York Times editorial board quoted as saying that you would oppose, "up to 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods."

Trump: That's wrong. They were wrong. It's the New York Times, they are always wrong.

[...]

Trump: What I'm saying is this, I'm saying that we do it but if they don't start treating us fairly and stop devaluing and let their currency rise so that our companies can compete and we don't lose all of these millions of jobs that we're losing, I would certainly start taxing goods that come in from China. Who the hell has to lose 505 billion dollars a year?

Cavuto: I'm sorry, you lost me.

[...]

Cavuto: So you're open to a tariff?


Trump: I'm totally open to a tariff. If they don't treat us fairly, hey, their whole trade is tariffed. You can't deal in China without tariffs. They do it to us, we don't it. It's not fair trade."

So yea, as soon as the moderator challenged him, Trump went from "oppose tariff to jibberish to support tariff"

And that wasnt the only time he had some trouble with being challenged

"Trump: And we don't need a weak person being president of the United State, OK? Because that's what we'd get if it were Jeb -- I tell you what, we don't need that.

We don't need that. That's essentially what we have now, and we don't need that. And that's why we're in the trouble that we're in now. And by the way, Jeb you mentioned Boeing, take a look. They order planes, they make Boeing build their plant in China. They don't want them made here. They want those planes made in China.

Bush: They're a mile away from here

Trump: No, the new planes. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about in the future they're building massive plants in China because China does not want Boeing building their planes here, they want them built in China, because China happens to be smart the way they do it, not the way we do it."

See, not the real world, but in the world in Trumps head.....

Finally there was this, which comes mid way though one of the worst evisceration I have ever seen any candidate unleash on another (and I will cover it when we get to Ted Cruz the person who delivered said evisceration)

First the set up, by Ted Cruz:

"You know, back in September, my friend Donald said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there.There was nothing to this birther issue.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, since September, the Constitution hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

But the poll numbers have.[...]"

Then the denial by Trump (side note check the butchering of the English language)

TRUMP: ... first of all, let me just tell you something -- and you know, because you just saw the numbers yourself -- NBC Wall Street Journal just came out with a poll -- headline: Trump way up, Cruz going down. I mean, so don't -- so you can't -- you can't...

(BOOING)

... they don't like the Wall Street Journal. They don't like NBC, but I like the poll.

(LAUGHTER)

And frankly, it just came out, and in Iowa now, as you know, Ted, in the last three polls, I'm beating you. So -- you know, you shouldn't misrepresent how well you're doing with the polls.

(APPLAUSE)You don't have to say that. In fact, I was all for you until you started doing that, because that's a misrepresentation, number one.

Then the challenge by the moderator:

CAVUTO: Why are you saying this now -- right now? Why are you raising this issue now?

And then the full reversal:

TRUMP: Because now he's going a little bit better. No, I didn't care(inaudible). It's true. No, it's true. Hey look, he never had a chance. Now, he's doing better. He's got probably a four or five percent chance.

Allow me to translate: Trump is basically saying he doesnt care at all about the issue, he's just a political whore who will do whatever he needs to do to win.

And before we move on, one last damning problem for Trump:

BARTIROMO: So you'll put your assets in a blind trust?

TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that's a blind trust, I don't know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved because I wouldn't care about anything but our country, anything.

When your running on your expertise and intelligence as a businessman, your kinda expected to understand these things......

6) Marco Rubio.  (3/3)

So if you were one of the many republicans who supported Marco Rubio because he seemed like a reasonable candidate.....

It appears Marco Rubio has gotten desperate.....so desperate in fact, he's decided to become a right wing talking point factory

For example: 

On Hillary Clinton:
"Someone who cannot handle intelligence information appropriately cannot be commander in chief and someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi can never be president of the United States. Ever."
Yea, you know, those lies, the one something like 8 republican congressional committees, including the longest running committee in US history and 11 hours of direct questioning couldnt find?

Or on Obama:
"And that's how you get a foreign policy where we cut deals with our enemies like Iran and we betray our allies like Israel and we gut our military and we go around the world like he has done on 10 separate occasions and apologized for America."

Why only 10? I mean if your pulling random numbers out of your ass why not make it 20? or 50?

Also did I miss something? are we no longer allied with Israel? We are?.....weird

Or on ISIS:
When I'm president of the United States, we are going to win this war on ISIS. The most powerful intelligence agency in the world is going to tell us where we are, the most powerful military in the world is going to destroy them. And if we capture any of them alive, they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and we are going to find out everything they know.

 

Wait you mean we can find and bomb ISIS? BRILLIANT! why didnt anyone else think of that?

Also glad to see we are going back the good ol days of torturing people. 

By the way, anyone else notice the irony of a guy who claims to be the son of people who fled Castro to avoid torture advocating to send people to Cuba to be tortured? Im just saying...(in his defense, he is lying about his parents fleeing Castro)

By the way, buckle up folks, this could take a while......these 3 quotes are just from his opening remarks.

And yea, he basically kept this up for the whole debate....no matter what the question "watch this"

"Cavuto: Marco Rubio. I'm sorry, it's the time constraints. You and Governor Christie have been exchanging some fairly nasty words of late, and I will allow the governor to respond as well.

The governor went so far to say, you won't be able to slime your way to the White House. He's referring to a series of ads done by a PAC, speaking on your behalf, that say quote,"One high tax, Common Core, liberal, energy-loving, Obamacare, Medicaid-expanding president is enough. You think you went too far on that and do you want to apologize to the governor?"

So Rubio is asked a question about Christie.....and the answer is:

Rubio: You know, as I said already twice in this debate, we have a very serious problem in this country.

We have a president of the United States that is undermining this country's security and expanding the role of...

Cavuto: That is not my question."

Yep thats right....the answer to a question about Christie by blaming Obama.....at least he was until even the FOX moderator cut him off for being full of shit.

Or this one:

"Cavuto: Senator Rubio, you said that President Obama wants to take people's guns away. Yet under his presidency, gun sales have more than doubled. That doesn't sound like a White House unfriendly to gun owners."
Thats actually a fair question by Cavuto......but back to Rubio's reply

"Rubio: That sounds like people are afraid the president's going to take their guns away.

Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families. I am convinced that if this president could confiscate every gun in America, he would. I am convinced that this president, if he could get rid of the Second Amendment, he would. I am convinced because I see how he works with his attorney general, not to defend the Second Amendment, but to figure out ways to undermine it."

Which basically translate to "I reject the reality of your question in favor of right wing talking point"

Also as a side note, Republicans have been saying for 7 years now we are in immanent danger of losing our guns. To which I say to the President....whats talking so long? how bad at this are you that in 7 years you cant do something the GOP said you could have done before you even got off the inauguration stage?

Oh and on the question of letting Muslims into the country (which is you know protected under the first amendment)

"If we do not know who you are, and we do not know why you are coming when I am president, you are not getting into the United States of America."
Except, I assume for Cubans? just saying, if these policies had been in place 40 or so years ago, someone wouldnt be running for president right now.....

Or on to question about tariff with China:
"It continues with regulatory reform. Regulations in this country are out of control, especially the Employment Prevention Agency, the EPA, and all of the rules they continue to impose on our economy and hurting us."

Because I'm Marco Rubio and I answer the question I want to answer not the one you asked god damn it. Also see there I made a funny by linking the Environment to Employee which are clearly linked via my head up my ass.

By the way, want to know how ISIS gets into this country well Per Rubio:
"They've contacted the trafficking networks in the Western Hemisphere to get people in through the southern border. "

Except you know, not so much....but I guess all brown people look alike. And again the guy worried about people just washing up on our southern border is you know, a self professed proud Cuban-America. Irony abounds. 

Which finally at long last brings us to closing statements:

Rubio: You know, 200 years ago, America was founded on this powerful principle that our rights don't come from government. Our rights come from God. That's why we embraced free enterprise, and it made us the most prosperous people in the history of the world. That's why we embraced individual liberty, and we became the freest people ever, and the result was the American miracle."

Except you know, in the Constitution, the document written "200" years ago....but hey, again Reality < Right wing talking point.

Also, some one might want to ask Ben Carson about how free his people were 200 years ago, when we became the freest people ever....just saying.

In short there was basically NOTHING that left Marco Rubio's mouth this debate that wasnt a far right wing talking point in what can only be seen as a desperation play for relevance and poll support.   

5) Chris Christie (5/2)

So Christie didnt particularly have a good debate, he just didnt particularly have a bad one either.

Granted he lied about not supporting Justice Sotomayor or giving money to planned parenthood, but that stuff is obscure enough no one notices.   

However there is a problem that he's starting to sound trumpesque, in that his explanations for things sound like the logic a 7 year old uses:

"And the problem, Maria, is that the military is not ready, either. We need to rebuild our military, and this president has let it diminish to a point where tinpot dictators like the mullahs in Iran are taking our Navy ships. It is disgraceful, and in a Christie administration, they would know much, much better than to do that."
or later:

"We need to make the government run smarter and better, and reform this corporate tax system, bring that money back to the United States to build jobs and rebuild our infrastructure, and we need to use it also to protect our grid from terrorists.

All of those things are important, and all those things would happen in a Christie administration.

How would you do that and how would other countries learn? who knows, I mean why let little things like details or policy slow you down. It appears the transitive power of Christie answers all

Also there was this odd claim:

"Hillary Clinton cannot be president. It will lead to even greater war in this world. And remember this, after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had nearly 8 years, we have fewer democracies in the world than we had when they started."

Which ones would those be?  Maybe I missed something but I dont remember any democratic governments falling in the last 8 years.

In fact I remember the emergence of South Sudan as the newest democracy just a few years ago.

I mean maybe Christie meant the military Coup in Egypt....you know the one against the dictator in all but name.....except oddly they installed a presidential democracy in 2014.

Or maybe Christie just has no clue about foreign policy at all, and resorts to pulling things out of his rather ample ass.

Also is Chris Christie in favor of banning Muslim immigrants?
Well: "Now Maria, listen. I said right from the beginning that we should take no Syrian refugees of any kind. And the reason I said that is because the FBI director told the American people, told Congress, that he could not guarantee he could vet them and it would be safe. That's the end of the conversation.

I can tell you, after spending seven years as a former federal prosecutor, right after 9/11, dealing with this issue. Here's the way you need to deal with it. You can't just ban all Muslims. You have to ban radical Islamic jihadists. You have to ban the people who are trying to hurt us."
So that sounded like a YES, then a NO and then a YES. Maybe the next time Christie says something is the end of the conversation he will actually learn to stop talking?

Then there was this:

" And this president turns his back -- this president doesn't enforce the marijuana laws in this country because he doesn't agree with them."

I'm actually not sure what this is in reference too. I assume it has something to do with the laws in Oregon and Colorado.

Which is odd, cause Im pretty sure this means Chris Christie is now promising to use the power of the federal government to crush state authority, and force states to change their laws against the will of the people. Is it just me, or does anyone else remember when Conservatives were against that? (I guess unless they dont get their way?)

Also, Colorado is a swing state......so Im sure their is no possible way pissing off their voters could ever end badly for the GOP.....

4) John Kasich (7/8)

So there was a debate, it was hosted in South Carolina....and surprisingly John Kasich was there. And he named dropped former South Carolina Senator and avowed racist Strom Thurmond....and got a bare smattering of applause, so it basically failed.

He also has no anwser on if hes a Trump like Nazi trying to ban people based on ethnicity or not

"I -- I've been for pausing on admitting the Syrian refugees. And the reasons why I've done is I don't believe we have a good process of being able to vet them. But you know, we don't want to put everybody in the same category."

Ok so is that a yes or a no?

And well, thats it, thats all I've got. Kasich was basically a non factor in this debate, so moving on

3) Ben Carson. (4/7)

So I gotta give it Ben Carson this time around, he brought the funny.

On his first early question:
"Well, I'm very happy to get a question this early on. I was going to ask you to wake me up when that time came."

Or his attempt to inject himself into a conversation:

CARSON: Neil, I was mentioned too.
CAVUTO: You were?
CARSON: Yeah, he said everybody. (LAUGHTER)

Sadly though that was most of the extent of his participation....with one minor policy exception....turning over part of America's sovereignty to Israel

Carson on how to handle Syrian refugees:

 "Well, first of all, recognize it is a substantial problem. But like all of our problems, there isn't a single one that can't be solved with common sense if you remove the ego and the politics. And clearly, what we need to do is get a group of experts together, including people from other countries, some of our friends from Israel, who have had experience screening these people and come up with new guidelines for immigration, and for visas, for people who are coming into this country."

So I guess in a Carson administration we are going to out-source our countries security and immigration to Israel? cause you know....why bother doing things ourselves instead of having a country we blindly back for religious purposes can do it for us?

2) Jeb Bush (6/1)

Consider that Ben Carson got 3rd for basically showing up and cracking a few jokes and your realize just how low the bar was to actually appear to do really well.

Now Bushes biggest moment was when he got Trump to switch to an alternate future reality when he pointed out some basic facts about the location of the Boeing Plant. and I covered that under Trump so I wont revisit it here.

But generally he sounded pretty solid and sounded like he had reasonable polices and knew what he was talking about.

However that said, he did have two really odd moments
1) "Well first of all, the idea that somehow we're better off today than the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States is totally an alternative universe. The simple fact is that the world has been torn asunder."

2) " Well, first of all, under President Jeb Bush, we would restore the strength of the military. Last week, Secretary Carter announced that the Navy's going to be cut again. It's now half the size of what it was prior to Operation Desert Storm."

These are only really odd because Jeb Bush is speaking. See both of these events involve his family (His Brother being the president before Obama and his father as President in Operation Desert Storm) so the fact he used rather evasive obscure language and never mentioned either one by name or familial association at any point in the debate (despise doing so in previous debates) stuck me as a little odd.

One other shining...but also odd moment for Bush, on Guns:

"Look, here's the deal, in this particular case, the FBI made a mistake. The law itself requires a background check, but that didn't fulfill their part of the bargain within the time that they were supposed to do.

We don't need to add new rules, we need to make sure the FBI does its job. Because that person should not have gotten a gun, should not -- would not have passed a background check. The first impulse of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is to take rights away from law- abiding citizens.

That's what they do, whether it's the San Bernardino attack or if it's these tragedies that take place, I think we need to focus on what the bigger issue is. It isn't law-abiding gun owners.

Look, I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while.

And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off than creating a political argument where there's a big divide.

The other issue is mental health. That's a serious issue that we could work on. Republicans and Democrats alike believe this."
It's odd because  he alternates between being completely correct and talking out of his ass.

For example, hes actually right on the FBI background check, and how you get a gun if the FBI cant complete the check on time.  He's also right when he says Republicans and Democrats both want to work on mental health. In fact he makes a very good case as to WHY something needs to be done....and even what could be done.

But then again, in between those two points he's lying when he says Obama wants to take your guns away. In fact what Obama did was address and fix the very points Jeb just said need to be fixed...


Also that bit where he said Florida is safer, not so much actually. 

So you look at the chart, you'll notice the number of gun murders WAS falling, from 1991 to 2000.

But then started to climb again after 2000, peaking in 2007 I mention this because Jeb Bush was in office between 1999 and 2007. Also worth noting he didnt pass any laws to address any of the issues he mentioned could reduce gun violence.

But see thats what happens when you want an A+ Rating from the NRA....you KNOW what you have to do....then you do the opposite.

1) Ted Cruz (2/5)

Ok, this one hurts....I really really really really really dont want to do it. But the winner of the 6th GOP debate was Ted Cruz.

And mostly for eviscerating Donald Trump on the birther thing. I know I quoted some of this before with Trump but this time around, the full ass kicking.

"You know, back in September, my friend Donald said that he had had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, since September, the Constitution hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

But the poll numbers have.

(APPLAUSE)

And I recognize -- I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.

If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president.

If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.

At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on -- some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.

Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.

(APPLAUSE)

(UNKNOWN): Not me.

CRUZ: Because -- because Donald's mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized. Now, Donald...

TRUMP: But I was born here.

CRUZ: ... on the issue -- on the issue of citizenship, Donald...

TRUMP: (inaudible). Big difference.

CRUZ: ... on the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm not going to use your mother's birth against you."

Note to all future candidates, thats what it looks like when your opponent totally bitch slaps you. Cruz not only effectively deflected the issue, he turned it around on Trump AND got a shot in a John McCain (whos also questioned his eligibility) for good measure. Oh and by the way....he's not done. Trump did try to fire back, which led to this 

"CRUZ: And I'll tell you what, Donald, you -- you very kindly just a moment ago offered me the V.P. slot.

(LAUGHTER) I'll tell you what. If this all works out, I'm happy to consider naming you as V.P. So if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day.

TRUMP: No -- no...

(LAUGHTER)

... I think if it doesn't...

(APPLAUSE)

I like that. I like it. I'd consider it. But I think I'll go back to building buildings if it doesn't work out.

CRUZ: Actually, I'd love to get you to build a wall."

So yea, Cruz asked Trump to put his money where his mouth is, reduced trump to a incoherent mess for a moment, and when trump recovered.....bitch slapped him again with some other crazy shit hed said.

Now this wasnt the only Trump/Cruz fight of the night, and lots of people say Trump won the other one, I disagree, and one I lay it out I'll explain:


BARTIROMO: "Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?

CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.

CRUZ: What -- what -- you're from New York? So you might not.

(LAUGHTER)

But I promise you, in the state of South Carolina, they do.

(APPLAUSE)

And listen, there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.

And -- and I would note indeed, the reason I said that is I was asked -- my friend Donald has taken to it as (ph) advance playing Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA", and I was asked what I thought of that.

And I said, "well, if he wanted to play a song, maybe he could play, 'New York, New York'?" And -- and -- you know, the concept of New York values is not that complicated to figure out.

Not too many years ago, Donald did a long interview with Tim Russert. And in that interview, he explained his views on a whole host of issues that were very, very different from the views he's describing now.

And his explanation -- he said, "look, I'm from New York, that's what we believe in New York. Those aren't Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York." And so that was his explanation.

And -- and I guess I can -- can frame it another way. Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I'm just saying.

Trump retaliated with this

TRUMP: So conservatives actually do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley and others, just so you understand.

(APPLAUSE)

And just so -- if I could, because he insulted a lot of people. I've had more calls on that statement that Ted made -- New York is a great place. It's got great people, it's got loving people, wonderful people.

When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York. You had two one hundred...

(APPLAUSE)

... you had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. Thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction. I was down there, and I've never seen anything like it.

And the people in New York fought and fought and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death -- nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air.

TRUMP: And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers. And I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.

Thing is, Cruz was pretty clear what he was talking about.....the Liberal political values usually associated with New York.

Which happen to have nothing to do with 9/11. Trump just had no other defense, so he basically exploited the reverence people hold for 9/11 to make Cruz look bad for allegedly attacking the people who survived 9/11 (which again, its clear what Cruz meant, and he wasnt doing that).

Now like I said, most of the media saw this a "masterful attack" by Trump, I see it as a cheap exploitative deflection, hence his standing in this rating and Cruz's.

Cruz by the way as masterfully handled his other potentially disqualifying scandal, in which he may have failed to disclose a large sum of money in violation of election law, claiming that while he did accidentally forget to list it on one form, it is listed on another, and was basically a typo. I havnt bothered to check if thats true, but it sounds believable and makes the whole story seem minor, so point to him.

Now I dont want to give the false idea, Cruz had a great debate. he didnt. Like many of the other candidates he also favors violating the first amendment and barring people of specific ethnic groups from entering the US.

He was also attacked by Marco Rubio for being a flip flopper a liar and untrustworthy on many issues, which led this attempted defense:

"CRUZ: -- at least half of the things Marco said are flat-out false. They're absolutely false."

presumably this means the other half are TRUE...not exactly a steller defense. Its clear to me at least that while Cruz was prepared for Trump's attack's hes clearly not prepared for unexpected attacks on him....and given that I think this debate may cause him to pass Trump in the polls, it may be hard for him to hold that position long given this weakness.  

Here come the poll truthers 2016 edition.

So in the last election cycle the GOP had a bit of a problem with their polls. Basically there was a group of republicans who believed that the polls were basically rigged against republicans, and therefore the "real" election results if the polls were done right would be a massive Romney landslide.  (including Karl Rove and Dick Morris, both of whom have some epic youtube clips Im not going to post (as they are about 10-20 minutes long each) of each of them losing it when they realized the polls had been correct the whole time but feel free to look those up).

They even had an entire website, UnSkewedPolls.com devoted to showing the "real" numbers and the true Romney landslide. By the way unlike Rove and Morris both of whom evenually came to grips with reality, at last check (admittedly in the middle of 2013) the founder of that website STILL wont admit he was technically wrong claiming

"I was only wrong in those projections because I was not aware nor did I calculate in the voter fraud and the voter suppression, both of which exceeded the margin by which Barack Obama was declared the winner of that election last Fall," 
And posted this map as "proof"

(by the way it should be noted that the UnSkewedPolls.com domain name now leads to a German language hair care website) 

Now clearly, Republicans couldnt be that stupid (by which I mean predicting a history landslide, not just a republican victory)

After all as a famous man once said

Well with all due respect to President Bush......looks like he was wrong.

Heres a quote from an economist named Arthur Laffer, who worked in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations

"I would be surprised if the Republicans don’t take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50, I mean, I think we’re going to landslide this election.”

Its not entirely clear AT ALL on what evidence he bases this claim, other than the belief he has the inherent ability to stick his head that far up his own ass.

To put this in perspective how crazy this comment is If Democrats ONLY won the states they have won in every election since 1988, the GOP STILL wouldnt win 45 states. (the Dems have held 8 states every election in that period)

Now people might point out the reason I can only go back to 1988 is because in 1984 Reagan won 49 states.....as did Nixon in 1968 and FDR (46 of 48) in 1932 so clearly Laffer's claim is possible right?

Not really, See Reagan did this during his REELECT, as did FDR and Nixon.

Now yes Regan came close in his first race too (getting 44 states), but again an incumbent president.

But then again FDR got all but 6 states, in his first race.....and thats really the ONLY example of that happening (at least in the 150 years, im not going back father than that just because the country was much smaller and trying to reduce the % of states this guy is saying you can win out of the number we have is just too much damn math to do at the moment given it wont really affect my point) and keep in mind, thats still not as many as this guy is claiming the GOP can win now (actually its even worse percentage wise as in 1932 there were only 48 states)

So what this guy is calling for is a historic landslide, that has NEVER happened before in an open election....based on what appears to be no evidence at all, well except that:

"I don’t think Hillary’s going to win this election no matter whom she runs against, I mean, Hillary’s day is over.

“I think she’s a very impressive person, she’s very articulate, very well educated, got a great resume and all of that, but her policies are not good. And it’s about issues, not about people, and her day has gone."

Problem of course being, none of that is a fact (well except the well educated and articulate parts), so hes basically making this prediction fact free.

Here's the funny part though, thanks to the electoral college, the number of states you won dont really matter.

For example in the 3 landslides I mentioned, by state count FDR in 1936 did the worst. But by electoral count he actually did the best.

Cause see he lost two states, but he only lost 6 electoral votes due to the two states he lost being tiny.

Compare this to Reagan and Nixon who lost 1 state each plus DC....but lost 13 and 17 electoral votes, cause they lost larger states.

Futhermore as far as numbers of states won, its entirely possible (and maybe even likely) for the GOP to win 30 states.....and still lose. (in fact its almost a sure thing the GOP will win the majority of states, win or lose)

See the 18 states that are firm democrat are more populated than the 23 that are firm Republican.(as comparison the largest (population wise) 3 democratic states are worth 104 electoral votes, the republicans are 65, In fact the 5 largest GOP states are worth 87 all combined. (this by the way leaves 9 swing states, FL, NV, CO, VA, OH, NC, NH, WI and IA)

In fact the Democratic 18 are so large that taken as a combined unit the Dems start with 237 electoral votes out of 270 needed to win.

Compared to the GOP 23 which bring 191 to the table.

So if the Democrats win the state of Florida (29 votes), that would kick their electoral vote count up to 266, leaving them only 4 votes away from winning and all the 8 remaining swing states are worth at least 4 votes.

As a sidenote by the way, to emphasis the general importance of Florida in the election, with all 9 swing states in play there are 39 different combinations of swing states that allow the Democrats to win, and 27 for the GOP.

With Florida in the Democratic column, those numbers drop to 8 for the Dems, and 1 (and only 1) for the GOP. No other state has that much of an impact. Sadly for the GOP it doesnt work in reverse, a republican Florida only changes the numbers to 31 for the Dems and 26 for the Republicans.

Anyways how you get the GOP wins 30 but still loses situation.

Which brings us to the insane part, even if this guy happened to be right, the vote might NOT be that much of a comparative landslide.

Consider the 5 largest states (CA, TX, FL, NY and either IL or PA) are worth a total of 171 votes together....or just 20 worse than what the GOP starts with.

To put that in comparison thats a better showing than Michael Dukakis made in 1988 OR that George HW Bush made in 1992 OR that Bob Dole made in 1996, and its only a couple votes worse than what John McCain did in 2008, and none of those races are considered landslides for their respective winners.

Now I admit its extremely unlikely (to the point of being near impossible except for statistical probability) that the Dems would win those 5 states and only those 5 states. But even the 5 largest Democrat states (CA, NY, IL, PA and MI) get 140 votes...still a better showing than Dukakis made, and again I mention this only because HW bush isnt considered to have won in a landslide.

Which brings us to the irony of the new 2016 poll truther...even if by some miracle their totally unsupported hypnosis was right (that the electoral split would be at least 45 states) they would still be wrong about it looking like a comparative landslide.

I guess Ron White (from the blue collar comedy tour) is right....you really cant fix stupid.