100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Republican Debates | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So just wondering if anyone watched the marathon that was the debate tonight?
Thought most candidates made some ground up on Trump as the discussion turned to more issues of substance. Thought Carly Fiorina came off quite well. She played a very power oriented game. Her answers were basically a bigger military, better relations with allies, better tax code, make America great. She got her shots in at Trump. Chris Christie was basically the same. Big on military, kick bad guy butt, make America great, help the middle class, tax cuts. He seemed a little ticked part way through complaining that Trump and Fiorina were comparing business achievements and how everyone knows they are successful people, and let's talk about real stuff. Kasich was all about how he has been the consensus builder during his political life and how we can make deals with our enemies and allies by being reasonable and having a goal. He felt bills that Obama threatens to veto should be sent up to the WH so that he actually does kill them. The GOP can then show voters what the Dems are doing to mess up the country at election time. Rubio was very strident on immigration, the military, how Obama has failed the country. He was very powerful on what's broken in America and why it needs to change. I thought Rand Paul and Ben Carson came off as the most intellectual members of the group. Paul especially provided thoughtful answers in my opinion. Not sure if he would ever get my vote, but he seems like the guy in the room you go to for a second opinion on things, because he just seems a little more complete in his thinking on issues. Ben Carson I hate to say comes off as having some kind of cognitive problem when it comes to his cadence when he speaks. It's like he knows what he wants to say, tries to be very careful about how he says it, but then later wishes he had said it better. There's no doubt he's an intelligent guy, and I think like Paul he takes a different route to arrive at solutions to a problem. When he gives an answer you go "Hmmm. Ok, I could maybe agree with that. Tell me more." He just never gets the complete thought out. It may just be the lights and the cameras, and maybe he feels a little pressure to perform. Huckabee? Makes a nice grandfather for someone, don't see him as an in the trenches guy who can scrap for the job. Bush? Talked a lot, but didn't say much. Seemed a little defensive, like "Hey, I really am smart you know." but not a real fire and brimstone kinda guy. Did get in a couple good shots at Trump though. Ted Cruz to me really came off as the guy I don't want anywhere near the nuclear button. To me he came off as a little too much "Kill em all, let God sort em' out." when it comes to Muslims. I dig that it makes for a cool t-shirt, you know, a big skull, some crossed M-4's a couple daggers, whatever. He seems to say it however with a small twinkle in his eye. You kill people when you have to, not because you actually enjoy doing it. Just a thought Ted, maybe dial it back a little. Everyone played their pro-life card, states rights card, Reagan was the greatest president card, lower tax on the middle class, beef up the military, the Iran deal sucks card, etc. In other words a lot of what was heard was expected. Fiorina was amazing on pro-life, and also made an interesting point on more liberal drug laws by discussing how she lost a son to drug use. Best overall point of the night in my opinion went to Rand Paul on the middle east, and talking about boots on the ground. He wanted to know why we were fighting wars for the Syrians and the Iraqis, and the Arabs in general. Give em money, guns and maybe some air support, but it's their country and let them fight for it. If they can't be bothered, then why should we care? Boots on the ground should be Arab boots and not NATO boots. Yes I know it's more complicated than that, but he has a point insofar as we don't seem to go to war anymore to win. War in it's most simplistic form is that you kill people and break things until the other guy gives up. We seem to go to war now with the "Um, excuse me, but if it's not too much trouble Mr. Terrorist, could you maybe not, I mean if it's not too much trouble, kind of maybe stop being so cranky with your guns, and car bombs, and stuff?" Finally The Donald. He was far less animated tonight and tried to be a little more serious instead of the circus freak. He gets credit for forcing the discussion on topics like immigration that Republicans have to hammer out a unified position on as a party. Fiorina noted how the Dems had the White House, Congress and Senate when Obama was elected, but never got the issue settled. Both she and Trump noted the Dems will never actually want the immigration issued settled. It takes away a big chunk of what they can beat the GOP over the head with. Anyone else have comments? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So just wondering if anyone watched the marathon that was the debate tonight? Thought most candidates made some ground up on Trump as the discussion turned to more issues of substance. Thought Carly Fiorina came off quite well. She played a very power oriented game. Her answers were basically a bigger military, better relations with allies, better tax code, make America great. She got her shots in at Trump. Chris Christie was basically the same. Big on military, kick bad guy butt, make America great, help the middle class, tax cuts. He seemed a little ticked part way through complaining that Trump and Fiorina were comparing business achievements and how everyone knows they are successful people, and let's talk about real stuff. Kasich was all about how he has been the consensus builder during his political life and how we can make deals with our enemies and allies by being reasonable and having a goal. He felt bills that Obama threatens to veto should be sent up to the WH so that he actually does kill them. The GOP can then show voters what the Dems are doing to mess up the country at election time. Rubio was very strident on immigration, the military, how Obama has failed the country. He was very powerful on what's broken in America and why it needs to change. I thought Rand Paul and Ben Carson came off as the most intellectual members of the group. Paul especially provided thoughtful answers in my opinion. Not sure if he would ever get my vote, but he seems like the guy in the room you go to for a second opinion on things, because he just seems a little more complete in his thinking on issues. Ben Carson I hate to say comes off as having some kind of cognitive problem when it comes to his cadence when he speaks. It's like he knows what he wants to say, tries to be very careful about how he says it, but then later wishes he had said it better. There's no doubt he's an intelligent guy, and I think like Paul he takes a different route to arrive at solutions to a problem. When he gives an answer you go "Hmmm. Ok, I could maybe agree with that. Tell me more." He just never gets the complete thought out. It may just be the lights and the cameras, and maybe he feels a little pressure to perform. Huckabee? Makes a nice grandfather for someone, don't see him as an in the trenches guy who can scrap for the job. Bush? Talked a lot, but didn't say much. Seemed a little defensive, like "Hey, I really am smart you know." but not a real fire and brimstone kinda guy. Did get in a couple good shots at Trump though. Ted Cruz to me really came off as the guy I don't want anywhere near the nuclear button. To me he came off as a little too much "Kill em all, let God sort em' out." when it comes to Muslims. I dig that it makes for a cool t-shirt, you know, a big skull, some crossed M-4's a couple daggers, whatever. He seems to say it however with a small twinkle in his eye. You kill people when you have to, not because you actually enjoy doing it. Just a thought Ted, maybe dial it back a little. Everyone played their pro-life card, states rights card, Reagan was the greatest president card, lower tax on the middle class, beef up the military, the Iran deal sucks card, etc. In other words a lot of what was heard was expected. Fiorina was amazing on pro-life, and also made an interesting point on more liberal drug laws by discussing how she lost a son to drug use. Best overall point of the night in my opinion went to Rand Paul on the middle east, and talking about boots on the ground. He wanted to know why we were fighting wars for the Syrians and the Iraqis, and the Arabs in general. Give em money, guns and maybe some air support, but it's their country and let them fight for it. If they can't be bothered, then why should we care? Boots on the ground should be Arab boots and not NATO boots. Yes I know it's more complicated than that, but he has a point insofar as we don't seem to go to war anymore to win. War in it's most simplistic form is that you kill people and break things until the other guy gives up. We seem to go to war now with the "Um, excuse me, but if it's not too much trouble Mr. Terrorist, could you maybe not, I mean if it's not too much trouble, kind of maybe stop being so cranky with your guns, and car bombs, and stuff?" Finally The Donald. He was far less animated tonight and tried to be a little more serious instead of the circus freak. He gets credit for forcing the discussion on topics like immigration that Republicans have to hammer out a unified position on as a party. Fiorina noted how the Dems had the White House, Congress and Senate when Obama was elected, but never got the issue settled. Both she and Trump noted the Dems will never actually want the immigration issued settled. It takes away a big chunk of what they can beat the GOP over the head with. Anyone else have comments? Very accurate and concise. My concern with Paul is that the theory of "let them fight it out" leaves ISIL growing and sending harm our way. Maybe a little dose of "total annihilation" is just what they need. What most all of them agreed upon is the current lack of leadership and what Obama did to Iraq. I thought most were pretty short on details of the fix. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did any of them, at least promise to fire all of the welfare recipients?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You left out the very popular Lindsey Graham. He may have a sex change and become........well, Lindsie Graham.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I left out whoever made no impression on me. Scott Walker for example. Talked. Said nothing. Same with Huckabee. He tries, but no is is really listening to him. He makes a meaningful case on issues, but people just kind of offer a polite golf clap, like "Yeah, ok. Good. Thanks for that Mike." You know, no pizazz. You would never expect a Huckabee supporter for example to jump up on a chair and scream "You effin' rule man!" If you watch golf however, at least a couple times a weekend I'll hear some fan scream "Trump 2016!" during the live broadcast.
What I did notice however was post debate how utterly disappointed CNN was that Trump didn't blow up. For a week, they had been setting the stage about how Trump would get his butt handed to him on substance questions, how everyone was going to beat him over the head with one liners, how so many have an axe to grind, and yet he walked out mostly unscathed. It reminded me of the CNN coverage of the Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown cases. Their legal consultant Sunni Hostins (spelling?)was practically salivating over the prospect of convictions in these cases, and when she didn't get her pound of flesh, she went a little mental on air. Same with Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper, they can't wait for the train wreck that is the Trump campaign to finally manifest itself. I guarantee the first time a poll shows that Trumps numbers haven't risen, or if they back slide even 1%, they will be pronouncing the campaign dead in the water. That's it. It's over. The fat lady has sung. There will be glee in CNN land when that happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else have comments? That won't put us in Mingle jail? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevermind the lower case "r" next to their names...
Are there any conservatives in the race yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You left out the very popular Lindsey Graham. He may have a sex change and become........well, Lindsie Graham. Pulease,NOT another one! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mikeybgood1
on
Sun 09/20/15 11:05 AM
|
|
I am quite amused by the 'Trump doesn't correct the Muslim President guy' kerfuffle that has broken out since the debate. It's hilarious for the following reason. If your EVER had any doubts that CNN was completely a biased network, Friday night should have proved it to anyone with any doubt.
In the course of discussing this Trump 'gaffe', night time anchor guy Don Lemon gets invited to comment. He basically berates Trump, and says OMG he can't believe so many Americans are so stupid to think Obama is a muslim, etc. BUT THEN, taking a page from the Hillary Clinton handbook, he basically says "Well, so what if Obama WAS a Muslim. I wouldn't care. In fact, it might be cool to have a Muslim president!" WHHHAAAATTTT? So what IF he was a Muslim???? Well Don, you phuckin' genius, it would mean HE'S BEEN LYING FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS WHILE PRESIDENT. We suspect he's lied about a whole bunch of other stuff, but I mean it's not like he's ever told a whopper before... "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." "I never set a red line in Syria." "Benghazi was caused by a You Tube video." "Obamacare won't add a dime to the deficit." Ya know, he's just a truth telling machine set on auto-pilot that guy....Anyway, so CNN, arguably the place where a large percentage of Americans get their news has at least one (if not several)on air talents who could really care less how blatantly their president lies to them. Stunning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, AT THIS POINT, it would be scandal for him to be muslim JUST BEAUSE he has so explicity stated time and time that he is christian
but the point still stands,, someone with some class would correct a false assumption, in this case the two false assumptions about the presidents religion and about the negative context being applied within the assumption about muslims |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, the only person who knows what is in Obama's heart is Obama. It isn't Trump's job to correct that kind of thinking. Numerous clowns have said outrageous things on CNN without being corrected including the commentators themselves.
It's just a CNN hatchet job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, the only person who knows what is in Obama's heart is Obama. It isn't Trump's job to correct that kind of thinking. Numerous clowns have said outrageous things on CNN without being corrected including the commentators themselves. It's just a CNN hatchet job. but we can know if there is evidence of what religion he practices, which is not MUSLIM and we can have social responsibility if we are running to be a community leader, to correct people who put out the notion that certain religions should be seen as enemy in a country that prides itself on 'constitutional' rights like the practice of religion,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, the only person who knows what is in Obama's heart is Obama. It isn't Trump's job to correct that kind of thinking. Numerous clowns have said outrageous things on CNN without being corrected including the commentators themselves. It's just a CNN hatchet job. but we can know if there is evidence of what religion he practices, which is not MUSLIM and we can have social responsibility if we are running to be a community leader, to correct people who put out the notion that certain religions should be seen as enemy in a country that prides itself on 'constitutional' rights like the practice of religion,,,, It is amazing that Trump is criticized for what didn't come out of his mouth. Many think the comment came from a "plant". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump has established firmly that he still pretends that the whole "Birther" insanity was and is valid.
His trick response of saying that it isn't up to him to correct the lies of people who support him, unfortunately indicates to me, that he has no intention of leading a government based on facts and logic, but instead will try to play into the existing assumptions of anyone willing to vote for him, so that he can gain the power to do other things he wants to do. Granted, this is the most Republican thing about his candidacy (the bulk of the rest of the GOP power structure opposes most of his proposals), but it's not a good one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, the only person who knows what is in Obama's heart is Obama. It isn't Trump's job to correct that kind of thinking. Numerous clowns have said outrageous things on CNN without being corrected including the commentators themselves. It's just a CNN hatchet job. but we can know if there is evidence of what religion he practices, which is not MUSLIM and we can have social responsibility if we are running to be a community leader, to correct people who put out the notion that certain religions should be seen as enemy in a country that prides itself on 'constitutional' rights like the practice of religion,,,, It is amazing that Trump is criticized for what didn't come out of his mouth. Many think the comment came from a "plant". why shouldnt it,? he is known for not having a filter, and speaking freely,, isnt he? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump has established firmly that he still pretends that the whole "Birther" insanity was and is valid. His trick response of saying that it isn't up to him to correct the lies of people who support him, unfortunately indicates to me, that he has no intention of leading a government based on facts and logic, but instead will try to play into the existing assumptions of anyone willing to vote for him, so that he can gain the power to do other things he wants to do. Granted, this is the most Republican thing about his candidacy (the bulk of the rest of the GOP power structure opposes most of his proposals), but it's not a good one. well your "facts and logic" differs from others facts and logic... liberal logic never makes any sense to anyone thats not a liberal.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm stunned at the lack of townspeople (media) with pitchforks and burning torches (calls to withdraw)going after Ben Carson for his no Muslims in the White House comments.
Oh sure, the story has been reported on, but the only condemnation of his comments is (surprise!) from a Muslim advocacy group. Where's Hillary on tape calling him a racist (ironic) or islamophobic, or pandering to peoples baser instincts? Hmmmmm? Where's Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper passing judgement? How come Wolf Blitzer hasn't fired up the Situation Room? Jeez if Trump or Bush had said it, then holy crap on a cracker, we got us a right wing racism fest! Ben Carson says it and the room goes "Ooooo, he's going there. Provocative stuff." So does Ben have immunity from sustained media criticism because HE can play the race card against them if needed? Have Hildabeasts people said "Leave the black guy alone. You can't win on this one today. Move on."?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did any of them, at least promise to fire all of the welfare recipients? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, AT THIS POINT, it would be scandal for him to be muslim JUST BEAUSE he has so explicity stated time and time that he is christian but the point still stands,, someone with some class would correct a false assumption, in this case the two false assumptions about the presidents religion and about the negative context being applied within the assumption about muslims |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, the only person who knows what is in Obama's heart is Obama. It isn't Trump's job to correct that kind of thinking. Numerous clowns have said outrageous things on CNN without being corrected including the commentators themselves. It's just a CNN hatchet job. but we can know if there is evidence of what religion he practices, which is not MUSLIM and we can have social responsibility if we are running to be a community leader, to correct people who put out the notion that certain religions should be seen as enemy in a country that prides itself on 'constitutional' rights like the practice of religion,,,, |
|
|
|
|
