Derek 2.0

And how does that differ from Fiorina? Fiorina doesn't sound like a hillbilly, lost a Senate race and called Trump a clown........she belongs in 1600 why?

Right, but her sexual orientation has been public knowledge since the 90s........it didn't hurt her father among social conservatives in 2000 or 2004, I don't see it as an issue anymore among those that mater in the GOP.

Why/how? Reform of the State's delivery of social services, namely restructuring since in office both public education and child-welfare. I don't think, on her own, that she would seek (any) public office, that would be predicated on Jeb Bush winning the nomination. Assuming he does, I would expect a greater than 50/50 chance that she would be asked (once again) by the Bush family to serve her country, in a complementary role to Jeb Bush, shoring up his perceived short comings: National security and International relations.........As to the GOP not being ready for Rice, quite simply, if/when he wins the nomination, her personal life would be of little consequence (see Mary Cheney), and the Democrat/Media to bring it up, would bring forth their own demise...... If Bush the elder asked Dr Rice to aide another one of his sons, I frankly can't see her refusing the request, unless on personal health grounds.....

Such as? I've asked the same question of Kimmy and Cybercoma, and would put it to anyone suggesting that she should be the face of the GOP in 2016. She oversaw a large corporation go into the ground and has trashed Trump.......how does that equate to making a good GOP nominee for President?

I have

What accomplishments? That side-by-side, she's not a clown like the majority of the 17? That is something I suppose. To be inclusive of the GOP field as a whole, likewise to field the best contenders for 2016........John McCain didn't select Sarah Palin to run on his ticket until after he won the nomination, several months prior to the election. Yet have more executive experience, a measure of intelligence (in my opinion) far greater, likewise are more socially moderate, than the majority of the current 17 candidates, including Fiorina.

In hope of an adult conversation, likewise to address your nonsensical suggestion that my aversion towards Fiorina was caused by her gender.

Right, but then nobody has yet to distinguish the two........Palin was made a joke, but Fiorina is a creditable choice because? Sure: Gov. Nikki Haley http://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionImages/uptown/Nikki_Haley%5B1%5D.JPG Gov. Susana Martinez img=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Governor_NewMexico.jpg Former Secretary* of State Condoleezza Rice img=http://www.fordhallforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rice-Condoleezza2-RICE-10-28-10-e1281725188778.jpg *WCR, Secretary of State is an actual important position within the US Government, I don't want you to mistake Dr. Rice as the former colored girl that made coffee and photo copies for President Bush.

So? Just because she has decided to run doesn't translate into her being a viable choice.........Palin ran for Vice President, do you feel she was then a viable choice? If not, why do you feel Fiorina is qualified now? And where have I back peddled? Your posts are barely worth a response, let alone recanting of ones own views.

Or Jeb Bush, to whom, was both successful in business and political office.

Simple, Fiorina and Palin share near exactly the same political beliefs, from gun rights, abortion, opposition to same-sex marriage etc, the difference, Palin sounds like backwoods mountain folk.......and was lambasted by her opponents in 2008......Fiorina is a polished Palin. And please, drop the sexist strawman........I've already listed three prominent Republican women in this very thread, women that are largely socially moderate and have experience that would aide in their holding of the most (or second most) powerful position in the World........ What does that mater? I never suggested business experience was the sole prerequisite to be President (By far, the most accomplished US Presidents have been successful Governors). With Fiorina, her experience is in business, and a piss-poor experience at that......

Of course I am, she made difficult decisions sure, but they turned out to be the wrong ones and it cost her job (along with thousands of other workers)............contrast with Pailn Sarah Palin at least ran a State successfully, yet I think one would be hard pressed to find someone (outside the Tea Party) that would suggest she would make a fine President.......how does Fiorina differ?

Compared to what? As compared to our annual Federal budget of ~$280-290 billion, 14 billion represents a ~4% increase.....so yes, "slight debt increase" is a fair label.

I don't deny that her time spent at HP was during the tech bubble burst, but the reality is, she doesn't have any real experience or accomplishments to run on, other than being a women in a male dominated race.......she is like Hillary, but sans a record. She might very well be capable, and in my mind, both her and Perry could replace Carson/Paul/Huckabee/Cruz/Christie at the next grown-up debate, and she might do well........but her sole attention to date has been from going after Trump, but so has Megan Kelly, yet nobody has suggested she would make a capable President.

All three of the moderators were asking everyone tough questions........(IIRC) Chris Wallace asked Bush about his tenure on a charity that donated to Planned Parenthood.......Or Cruz's recent attack on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....Or Chris Christie's poor economic record in New Jersey, everyone took shots FNC puts on a creditable debate, with zero softballs for anyone......Trump got booed numerous times by the crowd, not only for his refusal to pledge not to run as an independent, but also for his past donations to the Clintons and his companies going bankrupt four times....... Short-term hype aside, I doubt it:

Right, or the NDP's Hans Marotte's support for the PLO and second Intifada ...........of course, the CPC has a highlight reel of Moonbat statements from members of the NDP

I don't deny she did better than expected, and perhaps that will translate into some gains, but I don't think any of the four were clear winners.....or even losers.

The current Minuteman-III do use a far smaller, variable yield, warhead, but quite easily, a Minuteman-III wing of ICBMs equates to all the explosive force ever used by man...... Actually no, most modern strategic arsenals make use of much smaller warheads (compared to those used into the 70s/80s), but are far more accurate.........this is evident but the older American Titan's that carried a single 9 megaton city killer warhead (Equal to 3 times the explosives used in WW II) or the older Soviet Satan ICBMs that carried a single 20 megaton city killer.......this of course was a reflection of the then poor guidance systems in use, which could have seen Soviet ICBMs (yes plural) targeted at say Toronto missing, instead hitting Hamilton, Barrie or Peterborough, as such, large warheads were then a requirement, versus today, a single ICBM with several MIRVs could place 3+ ~350 kiloton warheads inside the downtown core...... As to modern conventional "bunker busters", not even close to a low yield nuclear weapon, a single nuclear armed depth charge or anti-armor weapon, had far more explosive force.....the most modern US nuclear bunker buster (B61-Mod 11) has a ~50 kiloton warhead (which is extremely small), the mega conventional bunker busters aren't even in the same ballpark........ Agreed, even at the height of the Cold War, both sides refrained from brash threats of nuclear holocaust onto each other.....Iran has quite clearly stated they would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth........I've no doubt a nuclear armed Iran will result in other Middle Eastern nations developing (or just buying) their own nuclear arsenals, already Saudi Arabia has thousands of nuclear physicists training in the United Kingdom and the United States.........

I think, as he noted, expectations were so low for Trudeau going in........I'm a CPC supporter, and dislike both the Liberals and NDP equally for countless reasons, but in an attempt at being unbiased, I feel Trudeau did well parroting his platform, well remaining calm, well lending a level of decorum (like Harper) in his "attacks" on the others........ Mulcair's tone, namely on the Clarity Act portion, was something I'd expect from an idiot on a Strata council, not someone that wants to lead G7 nation.........likewise (my wife just reminded me) even the tone he took with the moderator over an Article 5 call from NATO with regards to the Ukraine.....clearly the moderator stated if Russian attacked a surrounding country, not Ukraine, yet Mulcair sarcastically pointed out that Ukraine was not apart of NATO (even though it was never suggested to be) to dance around the issue........... No, Mulcair sounded like a sarcastic jerk lawyer in court..........Trudeau sounded like a person, though aloof, you'd wouldn't mind if he and his family moved in next door to you.....

I think so, likewise Michael Den Tandt: As I said, I was surprised Trudeau did so well, inversely, that Mulcair didn't do better, better as in avoiding rudeness and cheesy one liners (that is what the attack adds are for!!), resulting in getting some mud on his own suit.....we'll see if it has any effect in the next several days, but I wouldn't be surprised with a slight Trudeau bump at the expense of Mulcair.......

I dislike Trudeau too, but I don't feel that he won the debate (nobody won it), but that he'll gain the most out of it.......perhaps May too, or at least reverse the Press Gallery incident.......Harper didn't win or lose, just as in past debates, but maintained his cool despite the onslaught, well defusing "his roll" in the Senate scandal politically, muting the issue going forward.......Mulcair, at first seemed too calm (like valium calm) but then launched into rudeness with Trudeau, ignored May and though berated Harper, did so in a more diplomatic fashion, far more then his past performances in QP.......he came across as unnatural, repetitive and rude, well admitting that there will be a carbon tax, coupled to increases in CPP and EI deductions for average Canadians........ I thought Mulcair would have done better, well handling Trudeau with a polite indifference........a perceived front-runner, leading or tied in the polls, doesn't need, nor should, come across as a jerk, (Maybe could have been one towards Harper, but didn't), namely to the leader of the other left of center party, a party that he needs to take away vote share....... In the next few days I'd be interested in seeing the polling results among Women........we, as in the Tories, learned over a year ago that to attack Justin Trudeau, one must do it in a diplomatic and polite fashion, pointing out his deficiencies with tact, not with sneering rudeness.

Sure, I agree fully that it is largely a non-issue (One most Canadians outside of Quebec don't know of, nor care), what is left, is a bad image left by Mulcair......he should have asked Trudeau once "his number" and let it alone, well confirming the Prime Minister's point that its largely a non-issue...... ----- I also think, in the weeks ahead though, Mulcair confirming his carbon tax, well raising CPP and EI deductions will sink him........

I agree fully, but Mulcair made Justin the fool by being a jerk, that will hurt Mulcair among some.

In my opinion: Prime Minister Harper- Same old, same old solid, calm, defense. I liked how he didn't apologize for Duffy etc, but accepted responsibility and to hold those that broke the rules to account. I also enjoyed his response to the Clarity Act debate. We still need to get his programmer to rewrite the code for his Sheldon Cooper smirk though.....I think he did go in not sounding like a jerk to Trudeau and May, well still discounting them. May- I was surprised, she did come across as well read and calm.......kept the lid on the tin-foil hat stuff for the most part. Mulcair- Never realized how beady his eyes are, his voice sounded like he had a few stiff ones.........joking aside, I think he did himself a great disservice during the Clarity part with Trudeau......his continual "Justin what is your number", well others were talking, made him seem childish, and I think he wrecked any likability among undecideds......he came across as a bully and rude. Trudeau- As much as it pains me, despite sometimes sounding whiny, he did well, and I think, will benefit the most out of this debate.....much thanks for the bullying and rudeness from Mulcair, but there you go.......

That's your opinion of course, but doesn't change the fact that without the advent of smart munitions, coalition forces striking Iraqi (in 1991 & 2003) reinforced targets would have required flattening Baghdad with months of aerial bombardment, resulting in not only mass Iraqi casualties, but coalition losses akin to the Allied bombing campaign over Germany.......as a result, and quite probably a precursor to a large scale conventional attack, the usage of low-kiloton nuclear weapons (still larger than those dropped on Japan) on Baghdad, or the dams upstream of Baghdad, on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in effect, flattening the entire city. Smart munitions enabled both NATO and the Soviets the ability to drastically start cutting their production and development of smaller nuclear warheads in the 1970s, granting the furtherance of a reduction in strategic (city killers) warheads with SALT II...........Even today, the development of smart guidance packages is allowing a reduction in size and scope of nuclear warheads, in effect, further reducing the number of large warheads in the various nuclear arsenals around the World.