Re: 2016 Election
 

The criteria were set by the cable channels that hosted them.

Re: 2016 Election
 

And then changed to suit their needs and include Fiorina.

Re: 2016 Election
 

A good question is why either the DNC or the RNC allow the cable channels to set the criteria. Would they refuse to carry a debate where the party sets the rules?

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'm not sure, but what I do know is that neither the RNC or the DNC will allow any debate that they don't authorise, and any candidate participating in an unauthorised debate will be banned from all the authorised debates.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Bigots of color. Awesome.

Re: 2016 Election
 

So remind me again what this has to do with the US Presidential election??

Re: 2016 Election
 

Foreign policy. Which of the candidates will bomb the shit out of them just in case.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Less than a month. I love it when a plan comes together.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Thank you. Foreign policy in this election - given the state of current events - may be near the top of voters' concerns this time.

Each of the candidates, on both sides, is trying to convince you that they know more about how to deal with the world than the current occupant of the WH, which should be child's play.

On the Republican side there is a range of views from "bomb the shit out of them" (Trump) to strict isolationism, war only if they bomb Pearl Harbor (Rand). On the Democratic side you have a former Secretary of State who will dazzle you with her resume and try her level best to reassure you that she actually does know what to do when the phone rings at 3:00 AM - this time. Choose your poison.

Hopefully each of the more likely candidates has some clue about how to navigate the treacherous sands of the Middle East.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Are you even following this election? :blink:

Donald Trump hasn't said much of anything about bombing anybody. For that matter, he hasn't said anything substantive at all about foreign policy because he doesn't have a foreign policy. Lindsey Graham is the one wanting to bomb the shit out of everybody.

Hillary Clinton is just as hawkish as the majority of the Republican bench.

Truth of the matter though ... without a major event, Americans do not vote on foreign policy.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Ok, cool. Odd, though, that you would have latched on to Carson's comments about the illegitimacy of a Muslim president to start that discussion.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Foreign policy may not be the #1 concern of voters in the general, but in the primaries it is in the top tier of concerns.

As Hillary moves left, the main thing separating her from Bernie is foreign policy. For Republicans, it's who they think presents the most clear-eyed view of the world, as it's assumed (by R voters) that any of them would do better with the economy than any of the Dem contenders.

So although I agree with you that American elections aren't usually decided by foreign policy positions of the candidates, those positions are very important in the primaries and the primaries will determine who runs in the general.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Foreign affairs comes lower than a number of other issues according to this poll. Even if we throw in "terroism" in general, it still rates as a lower concern than "The way government operates in Washington" and "Healthcare Policy". Additionally,


Economy Trumps Foreign Affairs as Key 2016 Election Issue

Re: 2016 Election
 

Actually, it was the Right Honorable member, sir_eccles, who latched onto that issue and made a very clever comment about it.

I supposed it might be the concern of some, and pointed out that it would make no difference to us. Now, if the candidate's position were to impose Sharia Law in the US, that position would clearly be against the Constitution although it still wouldn't disqualify the candidate. So I disagree with Carson.

Re: 2016 Election
 

We'll see if that poll holds up. Probably foreign policy interests me more than most people. By the way, are you a fan of the Lancaster F.C.?