Don't let people know that you don't know what the word capitulate means, just fake it till you make it guy. Anyway, remember the "red line" in Syria? Remember when it was crossed? Remember when Putin told Obama not to do anything about it, so nothing was done about it? Remember any of the other dozen times Putin has slapped around Obama over the past several years? It's pretty embarrassing actually. I'm no fan of Hillary, but I like to think that at least she'd have more respect for herself than that.
You've got to be kidding right? They clearly demonstrated that they are unfit to lead. They were unable to withstand tough questioning by the media without crying like babies and demanding only softball questioning in the future. World leaders would laugh in their faces in a real negotiation.
By "Putin slapping around Obama", you mean the US essentially crushed the Russian economy and isolated them politically from the rest of the world. Compared to 2008 or 2012, the US is far stronger both economically and politically, while Russia is weaker in both. In the latest round, the US negotiated circles around Russia with regards to Iran and got a deal that no political or nuclear proliferation expert ever thought Russia would agree to. It's not terribly surprising given your history, but you appear to value rhetorical wins more than actual results.
[rQUOTEr]Blue-state Republicans have already propelled moderates in the 2016 money chase. According to Federal Election Commission filings, donors in the 18 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992 have accounted for 45 percent of Rubio’s total itemized contributions, 45 percent of Bush’s, 53 percent of Fiorina’s and 85 percent of Chris Christie’s. By contrast, they’ve provided just 20 percent of Cruz’s contributions and 36 percent of Carson’s. For comparison, blue-state Republicans cast just 37 percent of all votes in the 2012 GOP primaries.2 But their real mojo lurks in the delegate chase. The electorate that nominates GOP presidential candidates is much bluer than the ones that nominate other GOP officials, a distinction that is almost impossible to overstate. Look at where the Republican Party lives: Only 11 of 54 GOP senators and 26 of 247 GOP representatives hail from Obama-won locales, but there are 1,247 delegates at stake in Obama-won states, compared with just 1,166 in Romney states. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-primary-rules-might-doom-carson-and-cruz/[/rQUOTEr]
What I remember is the dozens of times conservatives have claimed that happened, when the exact opposite has been true and in the end Obama simply has to point to the scoreboard.
So Ben Carson writing about his lack of political experience, and trying to use that to his benefit claimed that every single signer of the Declaration of Independence didn't hold elected office. He was wrong on pretty much every single account. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3rokz7/ben_carson_every_signer_of_the_declaration_of/ Yet, he doesn't seem to care, and neither do the voters. I'm just curious what that says about both Ben and the GOP voters.
Huh? No, Putin hasn't slapped around Obama... If anything Obama has crippled the Russian economy, squarely in response to Putin running his mouth.
Looking at that link, many of them had just been elected once in 1774-- just two years earlier. You make a deal out of this with that lying sack of **** Hillary Clinton prancing before the voters?
Didn't I just read that for the third year in a row that Putin is the most powerful figure in the world... Obama was third I think behind Angela Merkel of Germany.
You seriously don't recall Putin riding a polar bear, half naked with an axe in one hand, bow in the other chasing a girly Obama?
So like I said Carson's statement was ignorant or a lie, and didn't serve to illustrate the point he was trying to make at all. His statement was incorrect on every single account. I don't trust Hillary as far as I could throw her. She is by no means my top preference for the office of Presidency. You are more than willing to put forward any legitimate stories of her falsehoods. I'm only interested in real ones though, not the made up crap like Benghazi. I can think of a couple times when she's been less than honest, and like I said, I don't trust her now, nor have I trusted her in the past. What does that have to do with Carson having no clue about things like Pyramids not being grain silos, or stating crap like he did about those signing the Declaration of Independence, or not having a clue that Saudi Arabia had kicked OBL out before 9/11, or somehow throwing Iraq into that conversation? Here's a clue... You're flailing at Hillary doesn't in anyway change Carson's statements, or the fact that plenty of people don't seem to care that the guy has no clue what he's talking about.
Looks like ISIS has joined in slapping Putin around now, just blew up one of his commercial airliners for meddling in Syria. That guy is such a strong leader. The Russians are glad to have him I'm sure. Smart guy that Putin.
https://soundcloud.com/abcpolitics/ben-carson-radio-ad We are "Reaching [young black voters] on a level they appreciate and follow and see if we can attract their consciousness about the election. They need to get involved and express their voice through their vote.” We are "reaching out and talking to them in a language that they prefer and in a language that, and in a cultural format that they appreciate." Well done, Ben Carson.
Strictly speaking, Carson was wrong, but practically speaking what he implied was pretty spot on: most of those signers had very limited experience as office-holders because they were elected to offices that had just been created a couple of years earlier. Those signers had not been stalking the halls of congress for years; they were fumbling through the creation of a government so their experience was short and shallow not long and deep as those offices were inaugurated just two years earlier.
The point he was trying to make is worse. He think no experience is ok because they have a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God (and I suspect more than a few of them don't believe this either) and a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King. What is he trying to imply? That the US need to rise up from the current system. Is he thinking that his freedom, his freedom of religion is under attack and he need to rise up against that? That's what it sounds like to me. Most American, I think, view OUTSIDER of Washington as not being influenced by the big money players, not because they sought after someone that doesn't know crap about governance, about basic facts, or so religious that they think their freedom is under attack and should start a rebellion.
