Ray Jay wrote:Would you all want to put Pres. Obama on one of your notes

Well, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize, so it might make a little more sense for the British than Thatcher for the USA.

That's funny in so many ways . . .

Jeb made the most bone-headed comments (other than Trump of course). Maggie on the 10, how his brother "kept us safe." The funny thing is from a policy standpoint he's not terrible, but he's such a geek and so awkward, you never know what's going to come out of his mouth. Does not bode well for his candidacy. Pataki did well in the undercard, but no one's talking about it . . .

To be honest, it would probably be more controversial to put Maggie on one of our notes. Either would be ridiculous though. We don't really go in for politicians on the banknotes. We do have Adam Smith mind you, who you'd have thought Jeb might approve of.

Ray Jay wrote:Would you all want to put Pres. Obama on one of your notes, in exchange?

We would be pulling off the most lopsided trade since . . . well, hmm, I guess the Iranian nuke deal. :)

I'm hoping the Democratic debates will be so "entertaining." In other words, will the moderators be trying to start food fights there too?

Count me in the "dubious" camp. Why? Because the moderators have a built-in bias, so subtle they don't even know it. They will ask Democrats to comment on the Republican candidates, which is as close to red meat as those poor vegans can handle. In other words, we won't hear "Senator Sanders, how can Secretary Clinton reasonably expect to help the working class given her ties to Goldman-Sachs?"

Secretary Clinton, considering that Sen. Sanders is a self-avowed Socialist; state the differences in how your administration would function differently than a Sanders administration.

Senator Sanders, how would you pay for the new programs you are proposing? Please be specific.

Senator Sanders, how big would you let the national debt get before you would address it in any meaningful way?

Wow...should have asked GW those questions...

freeman3 wrote:Wow...should have asked GW those questions...

Fair, except that GWB did not campaign on invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Other than that, your point is well taken.

geojanes wrote:Well, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, I read an article about the guy who had some sort of leadership position on the committee saying it didn't have the effect hoped for and that it was probably a mistake.

For them of us who worked in IT, this is a funny story about the business and negotiating acumen of Carly Fiorina...

https://medium.com/backchannel/how-stev ... d1380663de

Trump back in the lead as Carson appears to have peaked.

I need more popcorn.

danivon wrote:Trump back in the lead as Carson appears to have peaked.

I need more popcorn.

I think we'll see Carson continue to fade. His statements, coupled with his lack of an interesting persona, are going to relegate him to a lesser standing.

Trump gets away with stuff because he's larger than life. Some people just believe in him. He's kind of the reverse image of Obama--over the top rhetoric, but it's not lofty; lots of "me" and "I," but willing to zing anyone who disagrees with him too. The only way I'd vote for him is if he gets the nomination, but I still don't think that's happening.

Cruz may well get Iowa. Trump seems a lock in NH. South Carolina is where it will start getting interesting.

I still like Rubio's chances.

danivon wrote:Trump back in the lead as Carson appears to have peaked.

I need more popcorn.

I agree that it was entertaining. But Carson plus Trump in some recent Iowa polls are at over 50%, which is making it a little too real for me. In the UK you can look at this race like a movie, that will end when you walk out of the theater, but the more real either of those guys become to being the nominee, the more worried I become. Even the misanthrope Chris Christie would be a (much) better choice than either of those guys. Why haven't they faded yet? Is anyone else getting worried?

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:Trump back in the lead as Carson appears to have peaked.

I need more popcorn.

I agree that it was entertaining. But Carson plus Trump in some recent Iowa polls are at over 50%, which is making it a little too real for me. In the UK you can look at this race like a movie, that will end when you walk out of the theater, but the more real either of those guys become to being the nominee, the more worried I become. Even the misanthrope Chris Christie would be a (much) better choice than either of those guys. Why haven't they faded yet? Is anyone else getting worried?

Only in the sense that it doesn't seem to matter what Trump says. I see a few of his supporters on my FB feed. They are implacable in their support of him. In that sense, I suppose, one could argue they are similar to Hillary's supporters, except she at least says normal things.

I am hopeful Cruz will overtake Trump in Iowa. I don't know if anyone can beat him in NH. If he lost both of those, he'd quit. Failing that, we may have to endure it a while longer.

I hope it comes down to Cruz vs. Rubio, but . . .