Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

I'm honestly not sure the high ratings are necessarily a good thing. Usually the primaries are decided by interested people within the primaries- it's a form of pluralism. But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

So from a legal perspective you get apoplectic when you think people are allegedly being denied their right to vote, but from an elitist perspective you'd prefer those people not vote anyway?

the less people who vote the better

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm honestly not sure the high ratings are necessarily a good thing. Usually the primaries are decided by interested people within the primaries- it's a form of pluralism. But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

Not really. But the more people tuning into a Republican debate when the lead Democrat refuses to answer any and all questions, the better.

I agree with that, & Fiorina went on MSNBC and CNN right after too, took it right to `em.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm honestly not sure the high ratings are necessarily a good thing. Usually the primaries are decided by interested people within the primaries- it's a form of pluralism. But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

Uhm well Hillary just did an Instragram/selfie twitter-burst with Kardashian/Kanye during the GOP debates, and she's purposefully avoiding debates. That sounds much more cynical to me. She's actually chasing the AI vote there.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I wish they would just stop asking questions about abortion, illegal immigration, religion, guns and taxes. Don't we know what the answers will be by now? 98% of the debate is basically:

Are you opposed to illegal immigration?

Yes! (wild applause)

Where do you stand on abortion?

I'm opposed! (cheers)

What do you think about God?

I love Him! (standing ovation)

Will you raise taxes or lower them?

Lower! (frenzy)

Are you pro gun?

You bet I am! (audience fires approval shots into the air)

 

[Phil Elliott]

Allen Grayson?

Maybe that "ED" show guy.

Louis Farrakhan?

17 Democratic Presidential candidates:

1. Hillary

Chafee [snicker]

Webb

Sanders

Biden

Booker

Patrick

Klobucher

Warren

10. Waters

11. Grayson

12. Farrakhan

13. Ed Schultz

- who else? Keep going, let's fill out the field.

Louis is last. He's not really a Democrat.

12. Ed Schultz

13. Nancy Pelosi

14. Alec Baldwin

15. Michael Moore

16. Rosie O Donnell

17. Louis Farrakhan

17. Jennifer Granholm. I mean, if Ted Cruz can run...

18. If that's the list, might as well add Obama.

Not legal, but of course might as well throw in Michelle.

If we are following the law now, then yes, he is off the list. But Michelle is a good add.

 

[satch]

For the record, I'm still very much undecided as to who I'll be voting for as I imagine most of us are. I've been discussing Trump simply because until now he's the only one interesting enough to discuss imo. Obviously he brings some qualities that separate him from the others, and some of those qualities do appeal to me. I'm certainly not alone. I never said he would make a great President, though I can't say he would be a bad President either. He so different from what we're used to there's really no way to predict what a Trump Presidency would look like, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious. I defended him a bit today mainly because I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss Trump supporters as stupid mindless idiots who like him because he's famous. His straight talking non-pc attitude is resonating loudly with many voters and to completely dismiss that as stupidity is to ignore what voters are looking for in a leader. I want to see another candidate be a more like Trump in that respect, but in a more respectful and Presidential manner.

I was very dissapointed that none of them had the guts to speak up when Trump called them all "stupid politicians" on stage last night. Hard to respect any of them at that point, including Trump. The truth is, I don't want vote for Trump. I want another candidate to give me a reason not to. But if the rest of the candidates turn out to be typical political puppets in nice suits filling my ears with the same Charlie Brown teacher voice I hear every four years I'll be tempted to vote for Trump just to see what happens. Like many of you have said, it's not like Trump could just do whatever he wants and fire peope at will. Chances are a Trump Presidency wouldn't be all that much different than any of the other candidates, since they all have similar Republican policies and agendas. But a Trump Presidency would be far more entertaining.

A few of the other candidates stood out a little to me last night and I'll be following them more closely going forward.

 

[Fennis]

I wish they would just stop asking questions about abortion, illegal immigration, religion, guns and taxes. Don't we know what the answers will be by now? 98% of the debate is basically:

Are you opposed to illegal immigration?

Yes! (wild applause)

Where do you stand on abortion?

I'm opposed! (cheers)

What do you think about God?

I love Him! (standing ovation)

Will you raise taxes or lower them?

Lower! (frenzy)

Are you pro gun?

You bet I am! (audience fires approval shots into the air)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aNxzF7MAk

 

[RCon]

But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

No! My election rules proposal would fix this, by the way.

 

[Fennis]

But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

No! My election rules proposal would fix this, by the way.

my election rules proposal would fix this too.

 

[Ilov80s]

In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.

I thought Paul was easily the biggest loser of the night. His strategy of attacking Trump out of the blue seemed like an act of desperation and not that of someone who believed he could win. And Trump was right when he said Paul didn't even hear correctly what he said about not being for single payer. Paul mischaracterized what Trump had said seconds before. Then he rolls around in the mud with Christie and got bloodied pretty good. Going after Christie for hugging Obama for coming to NJ to see the hurricane devastation? He came off like a desperate candidate trying to get traction in the polls instead of having a clear and concise agenda. From a superficial standpoint his voice and cadence sounded like an old loon from the 1800's when speaking. He also has a bad habit of immediately looking straight down at his podium the second he finishes his answers. It makes him come off not confident and almost embarrassed of what he just said.

Parties and the country needs people like Paul, but it isn't as the chief executive and face of the country.

 

[Ilov80s]

He is really good at being a sleazy real estate developer, I'll give him that. And he is a genius at self-promotion.

Are those useful skills in the Oval Office?

Useful for whom? They will be really useful for him.

 

[Amused to Death]

I wish they would just stop asking questions about abortion, illegal immigration, religion, guns and taxes. Don't we know what the answers will be by now? 98% of the debate is basically:

Are you opposed to illegal immigration?

Yes! (wild applause)

Where do you stand on abortion?

I'm opposed! (cheers)

What do you think about God?

I love Him! (standing ovation)

Will you raise taxes or lower them?

Lower! (frenzy)

Are you pro gun?

You bet I am! (audience fires approval shots into the air)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aNxzF7MAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f69PnAUwv-E

 

[timschochet]

I'm honestly not sure the high ratings are necessarily a good thing. Usually the primaries are decided by interested people within the primaries- it's a form of pluralism. But suppose the same people who vote for the American Idol winner suddenly start voting in state primaries. You guys sure that's what you want?

So from a legal perspective you get apoplectic when you think people are allegedly being denied their right to vote, but from an elitist perspective you'd prefer those people not vote anyway?

I think this is accurate yes!

 

[Ilov80s]

This wasnt a debate, at least not like most of those Ive seen.

This was an inquisition.

On Thursday night in Cleveland, the Fox News moderators did what only Fox News moderators could have done, because the representatives of any other network would have been accused of pro-Democratic partisanship.

They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has.

It was riveting. It was admirable. It compels me to write a cluster of words I never imagined writing: hooray for Fox News.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/a-foxy-rowdy-republican-debate.html?_r=0That's what Trump didn't get, they were being asked how they would respond to the harshest criticism they would receive in the general, and Trump was the only one who took it personally.

It is great too because it opens things wide for the other debates. It will be tough to pivot to a "oh you liberal moderator" when Fox already put these on the table.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Trump won the debate last night. For real.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/08/06/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-first-gop-debate/

http://drudgereport.com/now.htm

 

[Apple Jack]

Where the dame from the JV debate??

 

[Courtjester]

Pretty sure anyone with a triple digit IQ is on this train with you.

Nah, I specifically remember Perot got this response. It's not IQ, because what the hell is that measurement? It's entirely different.

What is it then? Trump has offered nothing on which to even base an opinion on his candidacy. And as somewhat exposed last night, he definitely isn't a Republican or remotely conservative in any way in the views that he's stated prior to the current dog and pony show.

IMO, he saw an opportunity for a ton of personal publicity and took it, and will ride it for as long as he can. No more, no less.

Now I tend to vote Republican, but I would be pretty hard pressed to vote for Trump. However, you keep repeating this mantra throughout this thread about Trump not staking out a position on anything and using that at the primary basis for your criticism of him, but honestly have any of the GOP candidates? I mean, the primaries are basically a popularity contest plain and simple. Those without deep pockets fall to the wayside and those that do have the resources continue. None of these guys and girls want to glue themselves to a position at this point because that can and will be used against you later on. The primary philosophy is always about fluidity and seeing the way the wind blows, before staking out a position.

I can think of a lot of reasons not to vote for the man, but criticizing him for not staking out a position at this point seems more like a personal issue you have with Trump the person vs Trump the candidate.

I personally like all the attention he is giving the GOP at this point because when he bails, hopefully one of these other candidates will catch the favor of all those turning in and result in a large voter turnout for the Republicans.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.

I thought Paul was easily the biggest loser of the night. His strategy of attacking Trump out of the blue seemed like an act of desperation and not that of someone who believed he could win. And Trump was right when he said Paul didn't even hear correctly what he said about not being for single payer. Paul mischaracterized what Trump had said seconds before. Then he rolls around in the mud with Christie and got bloodied pretty good. Going after Christie for hugging Obama for coming to NJ to see the hurricane devastation? He came off like a desperate candidate trying to get traction in the polls instead of having a clear and concise agenda. From a superficial standpoint his voice and cadence sounded like an old loon from the 1800's when speaking. He also has a bad habit of immediately looking straight down at his podium the second he finishes his answers. It makes him come off not confident and almost embarrassed of what he just said.

Parties and the country needs people like Paul, but it isn't as the chief executive and face of the country.

He isn't a great candidate, but his positions on most things are far closer to my own than any other candidate's.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump won the debate last night. For real.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/08/06/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-first-gop-debate/

http://drudgereport.com/now.htm

Nobody else is close.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I just hope Fiorina starts putting out some ads like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8

-QG

 

[rockaction]

Pretty sure anyone with a triple digit IQ is on this train with you.

Nah, I specifically remember Perot got this response. It's not IQ, because what the hell is that measurement? It's entirely different.

What is it then? Trump has offered nothing on which to even base an opinion on his candidacy. And as somewhat exposed last night, he definitely isn't a Republican or remotely conservative in any way in the views that he's stated prior to the current dog and pony show.

IMO, he saw an opportunity for a ton of personal publicity and took it, and will ride it for as long as he can. No more, no less.

Now I tend to vote Republican, but I would be pretty hard pressed to vote for Trump. However, you keep repeating this mantra throughout this thread about Trump not staking out a position on anything and using that at the primary basis for your criticism of him, but honestly have any of the GOP candidates? I mean, the primaries are basically a popularity contest plain and simple. Those without deep pockets fall to the wayside and those that do have the resources continue. None of these guys and girls want to glue themselves to a position at this point because that can and will be used against you later on. The primary philosophy is always about fluidity and seeing the way the wind blows, before staking out a position.

I can think of a lot of reasons not to vote for the man, but criticizing him for not staking out a position at this point seems more like a personal issue you have with Trump the person vs Trump the candidate.

I personally like all the attention he is giving the GOP at this point because when he bails, hopefully one of these other candidates will catch the favor of all those turning in and result in a large voter turnout for the Republicans.

I missed the above comment from Coeur, which went the way of attention span and the board.

I'm pretty sure he's got a definitive antithetical position on illegals and will fight the fourth estate; that's his thing right now. When a situation is so abject in the eyes of the country, it might be all he needs.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?

At this point he's the most recognizable. He says outrageous stuff that gets a ton of play in the media. There are a ton of people who don't really care that he's an empty suit with exactly nothing specific on anything whatsoever. It's pretty sad that this is what we've come to in this country, actually. Evidently some people are OK with the guy running the country hurling random insults from the Oval Office and doing nothing else. You said it yourself upthread -- "I don't know what he'll do, or even what I want done, but he's not PC and that's enough for me." Seriously?

Yeah...seriously. There are a lot of people who hate both parties and view him as an independent. He is winning those people. By aligning with a party he gets those votes to add to the I hate R & D party base.

Go watch Brewsters millions Trump is a living embodiment of the "None of the Above" candidates.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's the best explanation I've heard of him.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Pretty sure anyone with a triple digit IQ is on this train with you.

Nah, I specifically remember Perot got this response. It's not IQ, because what the hell is that measurement? It's entirely different.

What is it then? Trump has offered nothing on which to even base an opinion on his candidacy. And as somewhat exposed last night, he definitely isn't a Republican or remotely conservative in any way in the views that he's stated prior to the current dog and pony show.IMO, he saw an opportunity for a ton of personal publicity and took it, and will ride it for as long as he can. No more, no less.

Now I tend to vote Republican, but I would be pretty hard pressed to vote for Trump. However, you keep repeating this mantra throughout this thread about Trump not staking out a position on anything and using that at the primary basis for your criticism of him, but honestly have any of the GOP candidates? I mean, the primaries are basically a popularity contest plain and simple. Those without deep pockets fall to the wayside and those that do have the resources continue. None of these guys and girls want to glue themselves to a position at this point because that can and will be used against you later on. The primary philosophy is always about fluidity and seeing the way the wind blows, before staking out a position.I can think of a lot of reasons not to vote for the man, but criticizing him for not staking out a position at this point seems more like a personal issue you have with Trump the person vs Trump the candidate.

I personally like all the attention he is giving the GOP at this point because when he bails, hopefully one of these other candidates will catch the favor of all those turning in and result in a large voter turnout for the Republicans.

We know where most of the others stand on things based on the public record of their time in office. But yeah, I can't stand Trump -- more so based on what his candidacy says about our political system than personally -- and I'm sure that colors my commentary.

 

[tom22406]

Pretty amazing how all the focus is on Trump.It's almost like he is the rabbit in the race to deflect away stuff from Bush,Walker and a few of the other bigger names.

I doubt it works no matter which way they slice this cake but it sure is entertaining.

 

[Ilov80s]

Trump is like a bizarro Ron Paul on steroids. He has collected lots of fringe R/D/I and has this huge online following that skews online polls but pretty zero mainstream pundits or politicians consider him anything more than a sideshow. However, Paul had little money. no name recognition, never could get tv time, had lots of detailed thoughts on government and had political experience. I know a few people that were Paul supporters that are now Trump supporters. I think they are just looking for someone they perceive to be different and anti-establishment.

 

[Zegras11]

My theory is that Trump doesn't want to be POTUS. He will make money off all this free publicity he's getting with a new TV show or something. He will also do whatever it takes to make sure the GOP loses the general (third party run if he has to). Then when Hillary wins he will be able to get any favor he wants from her.

He gave several indications last night that he doesn't want Hillary or any Dem to win.

I think he's there to energize the base and in the end, will support the nominee. Him saying he might run as a 3rd party just keeps the focus on him and off the Dems.

All this publicity is helping all the R's get their messages out better than they ever could have on their own. Trump is very strategic and if he doesn't win, he knows he can help the others.

 

[jamny]

So who gets knocked out of the top 10 to make room for Fiorina?

Carson?

 

[General Tso]

In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.

I thought Paul was easily the biggest loser of the night. His strategy of attacking Trump out of the blue seemed like an act of desperation and not that of someone who believed he could win. And Trump was right when he said Paul didn't even hear correctly what he said about not being for single payer. Paul mischaracterized what Trump had said seconds before. Then he rolls around in the mud with Christie and got bloodied pretty good. Going after Christie for hugging Obama for coming to NJ to see the hurricane devastation? He came off like a desperate candidate trying to get traction in the polls instead of having a clear and concise agenda. From a superficial standpoint his voice and cadence sounded like an old loon from the 1800's when speaking. He also has a bad habit of immediately looking straight down at his podium the second he finishes his answers. It makes him come off not confident and almost embarrassed of what he just said.

Jesus Willie, that is some of the best commentary I've heard yet. Great analysis, particularly on the subtleties of his behavior and persona, which I believe are hugely underrated, particularly by the talking heads.What did you think of Rubio? Kasich?

 

[FlapJacks]

Fiorina ripping it up on Hardball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-w69K9apHk

wow

maybe they can get her out there in place of Huck or Christie or Paul

 

[Zegras11]

For the record, I'm still very much undecided as to who I'll be voting for as I imagine most of us are. I've been discussing Trump simply because until now he's the only one interesting enough to discuss imo. Obviously he brings some qualities that separate him from the others, and some of those qualities do appeal to me. I'm certainly not alone. I never said he would make a great President, though I can't say he would be a bad President either. He so different from what we're used to there's really no way to predict what a Trump Presidency would look like, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious. I defended him a bit today mainly because I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss Trump supporters as stupid mindless idiots who like him because he's famous. His straight talking non-pc attitude is resonating loudly with many voters and to completely dismiss that as stupidity is to ignore what voters are looking for in a leader. I want to see another candidate be a more like Trump in that respect, but in a more respectful and Presidential manner.

I was very dissapointed that none of them had the guts to speak up when Trump called them all "stupid politicians" on stage last night. Hard to respect any of them at that point, including Trump. The truth is, I don't want vote for Trump. I want another candidate to give me a reason not to. But if the rest of the candidates turn out to be typical political puppets in nice suits filling my ears with the same Charlie Brown teacher voice I hear every four years I'll be tempted to vote for Trump just to see what happens. Like many of you have said, it's not like Trump could just do whatever he wants and fire peope at will. Chances are a Trump Presidency wouldn't be all that much different than any of the other candidates, since they all have similar Republican policies and agendas. But a Trump Presidency would be far more entertaining.

A few of the other candidates stood out a little to me last night and I'll be following them more closely going forward.

Why speak up when he's just going to trample on you more like he did to Paul. Just shut up and let him make the mistakes on his own.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I must live in a different country than these guys. I thought things have been going pretty well recently. Didn't know that there was so much doom and gloom out there.

Agreed. Everyone I know well is empoyed and doing well. Housing market has roared back. Trump and a few others talk like it is 2008 all over again.

Take a look at government debt to GDP. Not good.

I do all the time. For the most part every president EVER has reduced this number except for times of war and the great depression. That was true since WWII until we hit the "tax cuts pay for themselves" guys, or the "voodoo economics" guys.. And dealing with the "great recession" But don't worry, if you change your perspective a bit, narrow your focus you can find a way to shift the blame and take the credit of others. Of course the problem of paying for tax cuts for three plus decades with surpluses generated by payroll taxes starts to become problematic when those surpluses go away, So the answer last night? More tax and regulatory cuts to grow the economy!

You said everything seems great. I pointed out that is far from the case.

The fact that the policy prescriptions being touted by those in the debate may not help wasn't really the point of discussion.

Where is that post? I never said things were "great". Nor did Ilov80s . But things certainly are not in any critical condition with little time left to find that savior that so many were promising to be last night. There is certainly not the doom and gloom projected last night.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.

So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

 

[ffldrew]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.

So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Eddie Mac carted off the field - I just drank more that night and had a bad buzz the next morning and it took a while for it to register what had happened.

It will be interesting to see if Fox goes after him - they went after Brian Williams for about 2-3 weeks after more details came out of his mideast mission. This seems nearly as bad.

 

[Ilov80s]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.

So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Eddie Mac carted off the field - I just drank more that night and had a bad buzz the next morning and it took a while for it to register what had happened.

It will be interesting to see if Fox goes after him - they went after Brian Williams for about 2-3 weeks after more details came out of his mideast mission. This seems nearly as bad.

What's the point? Brian Williams had a job. Christie is going to be in about 12th place after the first round of the first round of the job application process. Why even bother giving him the attention? I am sure one of the other candidates will point it out though.

 

[FlapJacks]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.

So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

 

[Galileo]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.

So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

Not sure it really matters. His point was that he was involved in prosecuting terrorists...something that none of the other candidates can claim. Not that this fact really makes much difference either, but who cares what the exact dates were.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

Not sure it really matters. His point was that he was involved in prosecuting terrorists...something that none of the other candidates can claim. Not that this fact really makes much difference either, but who cares what the exact dates were.

Because he's trying to project that he was Rudy running through smoke to find someone to hug. It's distasteful and duplicitous to exploit 9/11, and to think a sentence before he accused Paul of using the senate floor for fundraising.

Christie, apparently, falsely invoking or embellishing his 9/11 experiences makes him a piece of ####

 

[Eephus]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

Not sure it really matters. His point was that he was involved in prosecuting terrorists...something that none of the other candidates can claim. Not that this fact really makes much difference either, but who cares what the exact dates were.

It's disappointing that this is the takeaway issue from a question about NSA surveillance

 

[Willie Neslon]

In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.

I thought Paul was easily the biggest loser of the night. His strategy of attacking Trump out of the blue seemed like an act of desperation and not that of someone who believed he could win. And Trump was right when he said Paul didn't even hear correctly what he said about not being for single payer. Paul mischaracterized what Trump had said seconds before. Then he rolls around in the mud with Christie and got bloodied pretty good. Going after Christie for hugging Obama for coming to NJ to see the hurricane devastation? He came off like a desperate candidate trying to get traction in the polls instead of having a clear and concise agenda. From a superficial standpoint his voice and cadence sounded like an old loon from the 1800's when speaking. He also has a bad habit of immediately looking straight down at his podium the second he finishes his answers. It makes him come off not confident and almost embarrassed of what he just said.

Jesus Willie, that is some of the best commentary I've heard yet. Great analysis, particularly on the subtleties of his behavior and persona, which I believe are hugely underrated, particularly by the talking heads.What did you think of Rubio? Kasich?

To me, when I see Rubio I feel like he's acting. I don't feel like I'm watching a real person, I feel like I'm watching someone pretend to be the politician they think other people want to see. It's funny, right after the debates he was on one of the shows and they came back from break and had Rubio on camera. He was sitting there stone faced, looking off into the distance and as soon as the host welcomed him to the show, Rubio lit up and smiled. He completely changed, instantly putting on the face the moment required. He's good at memorizing long passages and delivering them clearly but I feel like I'm always watching him perform. He has a bad habit over over simplifying his point, patronizing and talking down to voters though I didn't see it much, if at all last night. I thought he was smart to be the only guy to say the election was about the future (though the "amazon has no stores" line needs to go). That party desperately needs a forward looking candidate and not the Santorums and Perrys of the party. It's early but if the nominee is an old guy not named Bush you have to think Rubio would be on the short list for VP.

Kasich was solid. I didn't know anything about him and that probably helped him with most not having any preconceived notions. I liked his gay marriage answer. It was from the heart and not in lock step with the party view. I feel like he was very human and not a republican robot like some of the other guys. His chance at the nomination is slim to none though.

 

[Galileo]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

Not sure it really matters. His point was that he was involved in prosecuting terrorists...something that none of the other candidates can claim. Not that this fact really makes much difference either, but who cares what the exact dates were.

It's disappointing that this is the takeaway issue from a question about NSA surveillance

+1

 

[Amused to Death]

The Sept 7th make it more of a fudge than an outright lie....still disappointing....

I don't know about you, but I remember september 10th as much as I do september 11. Giants-Broncos, opening night, can tell you the bar I was at.So this guy can't remember when the President calls him to give him, at the time, the biggest job of his life?

Or he's just a ghoul brokering in 9/11 ashes.

Maybe the President called him on September 10th and told him he was the guy...the newspaper from 9/7 basically said that they expected him to be the guy, so it's certainly a plausible narrative

Not sure it really matters. His point was that he was involved in prosecuting terrorists...something that none of the other candidates can claim. Not that this fact really makes much difference either, but who cares what the exact dates were.

It's disappointing that this is the takeaway issue from a question about NSA surveillance

Its disappointing to me that the NSA warrantless data collection isn't a bigger issue. I give Paul a ton of credit for railing against it. Yet his fellow "I love the Constitution" party members don't want to discuss it and in Christie's case, threaten Paul with legal action. And Christie's a former US Attorney who should know better; who tucked his tail between his legs when Paul pointed out that Christie always had a judge-ordered warrant when prosecuting. CC was Constitutionally on the wrong side of that blow up with Paul. And lied to garner sympathy for his flawed justification.

Don't touch our guns! Second amendment! 'Merica!

 

[General Tso]

Just heard the Mark Levin show on the way to the gym. I knew Conservatives would be pissed at Megyn Kelly but I think I may have underestimated their anger. Levin is just ripping her to shreds for her takedown of Trump (Rosie comments) and Cruz (abortion exception to save a woman's life).

Maybe this is what the party needs - for Moderates like Megyn to be fearless with the reactionaries. But these guys aren't going down without a fight, that's for sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just heard the Mark Levin show on the way to the gym. I knew Conservatives would be pissed at Megyn Kelly but I think I may have underestimated their anger. Levin is just ripping her to shreds for her takedown of Trump (Rosie comments) and Cruz (abortion exception to save a woman's life).

Maybe this is what the party needs - for Moderates like Megyn to be fearless with the reactionaries. But these guys aren't going down without a fight, that's for sure.

Wow, questioning Megyn Kelly's bona fides. That is something. To think it was just a week or so ago the Democrats were in a purgefest, now the GOP seems they want some of that porridge too. Not a great way to go, folks.

 

[General Tso]

Just heard the Mark Levin show on the way to the gym. I knew Conservatives would be pissed at Megyn Kelly but I think I may have underestimated their anger. Levin is just ripping her to shreds for her takedown of Trump (Rosie comments) and Cruz (abortion exception to save a woman's life).

Maybe this is what the party needs - for Moderates like Megyn to be fearless with the reactionaries. But these guys aren't going down without a fight, that's for sure.

Wow, questioning Megyn Kelly's bona fides. That is something. To think it was just a week or so ago the Democrats were in a purgefest, now the GOP seems they want some of that porridge too. Not a great way to go, folks.

Guys like Levin don't #### around. They will take anyone to the woodshed who doesn't support their reactionary beliefs, even Miss Megyn.I love Megyn but her question to Trump really wasn't fair. The lady Trump said "I bet you'd look good on your knees" to didn't even remember it being said. She loves Trump and thinks he's a great guy.

 

[satch]

For the record, I'm still very much undecided as to who I'll be voting for as I imagine most of us are. I've been discussing Trump simply because until now he's the only one interesting enough to discuss imo. Obviously he brings some qualities that separate him from the others, and some of those qualities do appeal to me. I'm certainly not alone. I never said he would make a great President, though I can't say he would be a bad President either. He so different from what we're used to there's really no way to predict what a Trump Presidency would look like, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious. I defended him a bit today mainly because I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss Trump supporters as stupid mindless idiots who like him because he's famous. His straight talking non-pc attitude is resonating loudly with many voters and to completely dismiss that as stupidity is to ignore what voters are looking for in a leader. I want to see another candidate be a more like Trump in that respect, but in a more respectful and Presidential manner.

I was very dissapointed that none of them had the guts to speak up when Trump called them all "stupid politicians" on stage last night. Hard to respect any of them at that point, including Trump. The truth is, I don't want vote for Trump. I want another candidate to give me a reason not to. But if the rest of the candidates turn out to be typical political puppets in nice suits filling my ears with the same Charlie Brown teacher voice I hear every four years I'll be tempted to vote for Trump just to see what happens. Like many of you have said, it's not like Trump could just do whatever he wants and fire peope at will. Chances are a Trump Presidency wouldn't be all that much different than any of the other candidates, since they all have similar Republican policies and agendas. But a Trump Presidency would be far more entertaining.

A few of the other candidates stood out a little to me last night and I'll be following them more closely going forward.

Why speak up when he's just going to trample on you more like he did to Paul. Just shut up and let him make the mistakes on his own.

Paul looked very weak after that exchange and that's kind of my point. When Trump referred to our politicians being stupid one of the candidates should've put Trump in his place. If you're suggesting none of them are capable of standing up to him without getting trampled what does that say about the rest of the candidates?

I understand what you mean about letting Trump bury himself, but that was a great opportunity for one of the other candidates to stand up to Trump, and show strong leadership qualities.

Something as simple as, "Mr. Trump, I'm not going to stand here and allow you to refer to myself and the rest of the men on stage as stupid politicians. We're all well educated and experienced men who've worked incredibly hard to earn a place on this stage and we deserve a little more respect than you've shown us to this point. I know I do. I'm not here to be part of the Donald Trump show and it's about time you understood that."

I imagine something like that would've been followed by a rousing applause, and whoever said it would be seen as a strong leader. Unfortunately, no one had the guts.

 

[FlapJacks]

Just heard the Mark Levin show on the way to the gym. I knew Conservatives would be pissed at Megyn Kelly but I think I may have underestimated their anger. Levin is just ripping her to shreds for her takedown of Trump (Rosie comments) and Cruz (abortion exception to save a woman's life).

Maybe this is what the party needs - for Moderates like Megyn to be fearless with the reactionaries. But these guys aren't going down without a fight, that's for sure.

as if these candidates would go through an election cycle without somebody bringing this stuff up, or worse bringing it up and not giving them a chance to respond.

that analysis is simply unhinged.

the debate improved the GOP brand more than any debate in the last cycle and the moderators helped that

 

[Fennis]

Just heard the Mark Levin show on the way to the gym. I knew Conservatives would be pissed at Megyn Kelly but I think I may have underestimated their anger. Levin is just ripping her to shreds for her takedown of Trump (Rosie comments) and Cruz (abortion exception to save a woman's life).

Maybe this is what the party needs - for Moderates like Megyn to be fearless with the reactionaries. But these guys aren't going down without a fight, that's for sure.

Wow, questioning Megyn Kelly's bona fides. That is something. To think it was just a week or so ago the Democrats were in a purgefest, now the GOP seems they want some of that porridge too. Not a great way to go, folks.

Guys like Levin don't #### around. They will take anyone to the woodshed who doesn't support their reactionary beliefs, even Miss Megyn.I love Megyn but her question to Trump really wasn't fair. The lady Trump said "I bet you'd look good on your knees" to didn't even remember it being said. She loves Trump and thinks he's a great guy.

poll of registered voters shows that 62% of women have an unfavorable view of Trump

 

[FlapJacks]

All of this whining about the debate questions from the Trumpheads tells me that in their hearts they know that he didn't look like a guy who could navigate DC and get things done. They know that despite some great one-liners, he got his clock cleaned on policy.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If I was a weed smoker I think I'd get a bag of chips and watch this again.