Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

[Bighittz56]

"In a debate, in response to a difficult foreign policy question, imagine a politician who answers: "That's a hard question. I don't have enough information at the moment to give you a good answer. I would need to confer with my advisers, study our intelligence -- which I'm currently not privy to -- study the expected outcomes in a number of possible scenarios, and then make a probabilistic assessment of the least bad course of action, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. But it's a difficult situation that probably doesn't have a perfect solution." Then imagine Trump's likely answer about how we're going to forcibly impose peace on the Middle East and make them pay for it, or whatever, and guess who's going to get more support.

There's simply no room in politics for people who are intellectually honest enough to admit their own limitations. Everyone has to pretend to be an expert on everything so often that they stop pretending and start believing it themselves. And that's not going to lead to good decision-making, IMO."

This is a great point, MT, but I don't think Obama qualifies in any way, shape, or form as a politician that operates in this manner.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I actually think that Obama is a very good counterexample to my last post. But every rule has exceptions...

Obama says he knows more about the issues than any of his policy advisors. I would say he is a great example of overconfidence. That, or he is extremely poor at picking policy advisors.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Do you have an example of why he's not exactly what you described??

I think his book is filled with them. (Not the book about his dad -- the other one.)

A lot of politicians like to play both sides of an issue. But they stereotypically do so by giving evasive non-answers to questions. In numerous places in his book, Obama played both sides of an issue by actually giving strong arguments for both sides of it. In doing so, his attitude was the exact opposite of "The Democrats are obviously right about this issue and the Republicans are obviously wrong." His attitude, on the contrary, was "I'm a Democrat and ultimately I side with the Democrats on this issue, but I think the Republicans make a good point here that we need to take seriously." (I'm not directly quoting, obviously. I don't have the book in front of me. But he showed an impressive ability throughout the book, IMO, to acknowledge the uncertainty in his positions by casting his opponents' arguments in their best light rather than simply being dismissive.)

 

[cstu]

"In a debate, in response to a difficult foreign policy question, imagine a politician who answers: "That's a hard question. I don't have enough information at the moment to give you a good answer. I would need to confer with my advisers, study our intelligence -- which I'm currently not privy to -- study the expected outcomes in a number of possible scenarios, and then make a probabilistic assessment of the least bad course of action, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. But it's a difficult situation that probably doesn't have a perfect solution." Then imagine Trump's likely answer about how we're going to forcibly impose peace on the Middle East and make them pay for it, or whatever, and guess who's going to get more support.

There's simply no room in politics for people who are intellectually honest enough to admit their own limitations. Everyone has to pretend to be an expert on everything so often that they stop pretending and start believing it themselves. And that's not going to lead to good decision-making, IMO."

This is a great point, MT, but I don't think Obama qualifies in any way, shape, or form as a politician that operates in this manner.

Just one example from the start of the 1st debate in 2008.

 

[cstu]

BTW, that 2008 is hilarious - McCain wanted an across the board spending freeze in the middle of the Great Recession.

 

[Bighittz56]

"In a debate, in response to a difficult foreign policy question, imagine a politician who answers: "That's a hard question. I don't have enough information at the moment to give you a good answer. I would need to confer with my advisers, study our intelligence -- which I'm currently not privy to -- study the expected outcomes in a number of possible scenarios, and then make a probabilistic assessment of the least bad course of action, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. But it's a difficult situation that probably doesn't have a perfect solution." Then imagine Trump's likely answer about how we're going to forcibly impose peace on the Middle East and make them pay for it, or whatever, and guess who's going to get more support.

There's simply no room in politics for people who are intellectually honest enough to admit their own limitations. Everyone has to pretend to be an expert on everything so often that they stop pretending and start believing it themselves. And that's not going to lead to good decision-making, IMO."

This is a great point, MT, but I don't think Obama qualifies in any way, shape, or form as a politician that operates in this manner.

Just one example from the start of the 1st debate in 2008.

I'm sure you can find a clip from almost every current politician that echoes something to that effect. Generally, those are the exceptions, not the rule. Politicians don't like to not have "the" answer.

Obama lacks the outward arrogance and hubris as Trump. My statement is more an indictment of Obama and his tendency to shove his 2 cents into virtually every controversial situation, even when he has little information or personal knowledge base on that situation. That is the overconfidence that gives me nausea when it comes to BO.

Someone like Trump makes sensational claims and statements to glorify himself. He has the answer to virtually everything. The guy is just a narcissistic nutjob in my opinion and Ted Cruz needs to separate himself from Trump at all costs.

 

[cstu]

Obama lacks the outward arrogance and hubris as Trump. My statement is more an indictment of Obama and his tendency to shove his 2 cents into virtually every controversial situation, even when he has little information or personal knowledge base on that situation. That is the overconfidence that gives me nausea when it comes to BO.

He's perfect for FFA - someone send him an invite!

 

[RBM]

I actually think that Obama is a very good counterexample to my last post. But every rule has exceptions...

Obama says he knows more about the issues than any of his policy advisors. I would say he is a great example of overconfidence. That, or he is extremely poor at picking policy advisors.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Do you have an example of why he's not exactly what you described??

I think his book is filled with them. (Not the book about his dad -- the other one.)

A lot of politicians like to play both sides of an issue. But they stereotypically do so by giving evasive non-answers to questions. In numerous places in his book, Obama played both sides of an issue by actually giving strong arguments for both sides of it. In doing so, his attitude was the exact opposite of "The Democrats are obviously right about this issue and the Republicans are obviously wrong." His attitude, on the contrary, was "I'm a Democrat and ultimately I side with the Democrats on this issue, but I think the Republicans make a good point here that we need to take seriously." (I'm not directly quoting, obviously. I don't have the book in front of me. But he showed an impressive ability throughout the book, IMO, to acknowledge the uncertainty in his positions by casting his opponents' arguments in their best light rather than simply being dismissive.)

That's fine and all in his book but that's not at all how he's behaved the last 7 years.

 

[joffer]

I actually think that Obama is a very good counterexample to my last post. But every rule has exceptions...

Obama says he knows more about the issues than any of his policy advisors. I would say he is a great example of overconfidence. That, or he is extremely poor at picking policy advisors.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Do you have an example of why he's not exactly what you described??

I think his book is filled with them. (Not the book about his dad -- the other one.)

A lot of politicians like to play both sides of an issue. But they stereotypically do so by giving evasive non-answers to questions. In numerous places in his book, Obama played both sides of an issue by actually giving strong arguments for both sides of it. In doing so, his attitude was the exact opposite of "The Democrats are obviously right about this issue and the Republicans are obviously wrong." His attitude, on the contrary, was "I'm a Democrat and ultimately I side with the Democrats on this issue, but I think the Republicans make a good point here that we need to take seriously." (I'm not directly quoting, obviously. I don't have the book in front of me. But he showed an impressive ability throughout the book, IMO, to acknowledge the uncertainty in his positions by casting his opponents' arguments in their best light rather than simply being dismissive.)

That's fine and all in his book but that's not at all how he's behaved the last 7 years.

maybe because the last 7 years have been The Ted Cruz's of the world

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think the next debate can be a springboard for someone like kasich, Rubio, or even Firoina to gain steam as a viable "not crazy, not Jeb" candidate. At least I hope so.

I thought you were behind trump now?

 

[Sand]

Other than the last name, why is Bush not a viable choice for sane Republicans?

He's a dweeb. And his immigration policy sucks.

Hmmm. He doesn't come off as a dweeb to me. Perhaps dry, or even a bit boring, but someone like Jindal comes off as infinitely more dweeby to me. Even so, does perceived dweebiness really render him unviable as a candidate to mainstream Republicans?

I think a lot less of Jindal. On immigration his border enforcement isn't nearly enough. His plan for interior enforcement is reasonable.

In the balance, fair or not, just him having the last name of Bush is enough to ensure a DNC victory next year.

 

[Rove!]

Other than the last name, why is Bush not a viable choice for sane Republicans?

He had eight years to come up with a solid answer to the Iraq question and he flubbed it...

 

[Rove!]

Ted Cruz/Allen West or Ben Carson 2016

Cruz is about the only GOP candidate that sticks to his guns and doesn't waver when difficult questions are asked. He will blast anyone he is put up against in debates. He has good backing from a funding standpoint. He may need to tone down the religious ramblings a bit though.

Trump is a nightmare, and unelectable. Bush is almost as bad as Hillary.

Cruz is a smart guy, but a bit too unwavering. Even though Trump is tacking wildly right, even he stayed away from Kim Davis.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So, is Fiorina setting herself up to be the VP candidate?

 

[QuizGuy66]

So, is Fiorina setting herself up to be the VP candidate?

She might not think so, but I think that's what the party is shooting for.

-QG

 

[Brady Marino]

So, is Fiorina setting herself up to be the VP candidate?

She might not think so, but I think that's what the party is shooting for.

-QG

Carson/Fiorina 2016 would be quite an interesting ticket.

 

[MikeIke]

So, is Fiorina setting herself up to be the VP candidate?

She might not think so, but I think that's what the party is shooting for.-QG

Carson/Fiorina 2016 would be quite an interesting ticket.

Sure to be a winner

 

[joffer]

Carson

 

[NutterButter]

i need to start one of those change.org petitions to get Megan Kelly to moderate all the debates.

 

[timschochet]

Should be fun tonight. A lot of guys need to have good showings to keep themselves alive. Everybody is sure to go after Trump.

 

[B-Deep]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

 

[timschochet]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

 

[B-Deep]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

wow

that's a lot of trump hate

 

[timschochet]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

wowthat's a lot of trump hate

I don't hate Donald Trump.

 

[B-Deep]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

wowthat's a lot of trump hate

I don't hate Donald Trump.

not the person himself

not Donald Trump

but you hate Trump, the candidate, the brand, the ideal he is selling to the country

 

[timschochet]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

wowthat's a lot of trump hate

I don't hate Donald Trump.

not the person himselfnot Donald Trump

but you hate Trump, the candidate, the brand, the ideal he is selling to the country

Yes

 

[B-Deep]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

wowthat's a lot of trump hate

I don't hate Donald Trump.

not the person himselfnot Donald Trump

but you hate Trump, the candidate, the brand, the ideal he is selling to the country

Yes

i thought if i just gave him the nomination, not the presidency, maybe it'd be a tough call. He could still lose!

 

[The Commish]

i thought if i just gave him the nomination, not the presidency, maybe it'd be a tough call. He could still lose!

too much fear for that to be the case

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't think Trump is a threat to win the nomination - I think he has maxed out his support. As candidates drop out the support will consolidate with 1 or 2 of the "establishment" candidates - but I don't know who that will be.

I originally assumed Bush, but I don't think it will be him. I don't know enough about Carson to understand his appeal - so I don't know if he can get enough support. It won't be Fiorina - too much baggage surrounding HP. So we are running out of possibilities. I'll say Rubio and Cruz need to stand out tonight, with Kasich as a darkhorse.

I do like Fiorina as the VP choice, particularly if Clinton secures the Dem nomination, but even if Sanders gets the nomination, I think Fiorina would give independent women a reason to vote GOP. But, she needs to continue to rise in the polls to make that happen.

 

[culdeus]

Is this a correct characterization that basically anyone can agree with?

-Trump is pulling anti-immigrant voters in droves.

-The establishment candidates are told that making an anti-immigrant stance in the primary stage would hurt in general, therefore they are not taking one.

 

[timschochet]

Is this a correct characterization that basically anyone can agree with?

-Trump is pulling anti-immigrant voters in droves.

-The establishment candidates are told that making an anti-immigrant stance in the primary stage would hurt in general, therefore they are not taking one.

Yes. Though you need to use the word "illegal", because not everyone who is anti illegal immigrant is anti all immigration. And the establishment candidates other than Bush have changed their tone about illegals, particularly Walker, Rubio and Christie. They have all used tougher rhetoric in recent weeks though not to the racist extent that Trump has.

 

[Don Quixote]

Is this a correct characterization that basically anyone can agree with?

-Trump is pulling anti-immigrant voters in droves.

-The establishment candidates are told that making an anti-immigrant stance in the primary stage would hurt in general, therefore they are not taking one.

I don't think the position of the latter is necessarily because they "are told" it would hurt in general. I haven't dug too deeply into it, but some polls suggest a majority of Republicans support a path to citizenship. They may also sincerely believe that things like deportation are bad policy, but I don't know what is in their heads.

 

[timschochet]

Is this a correct characterization that basically anyone can agree with?

-Trump is pulling anti-immigrant voters in droves.

-The establishment candidates are told that making an anti-immigrant stance in the primary stage would hurt in general, therefore they are not taking one.

I don't think the position of the latter is necessarily because they "are told" it would hurt in general. I haven't dug too deeply into it, but some polls suggest a majority of Republicans support a path to citizenship. They may also sincerely believe that things like deportation are bad policy, but I don't know what is in their heads.

The polls you linked, IMO, are analogous to the polls which show that a vast majority of Americans want background checks for all gun sales, and this includes even a majority of NRA members. But the key to that issue is that the minority is loud and united and care much more about that issue than the majority does. I think it's the same here. The Republicans who oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants may be a minority, but they are loud and united and for many of them this is their #1 issue.

 

[rockaction]

Carson

Such an awful candidate.

 

[timschochet]

Matt Taibbi provides some drinking game rules for tonight:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-2-20150916

Drink THE FIRST TIME and the FIRST TIME only:

1. A candidate invokes the memory of Saint Reagan.

2. A candidate mentions Hillary's emails.

Drink EVERY TIME:

3. Hugh Hewitt hurls a douchey gotcha question at Trump.

4. Trump – or any of the other candidates – insults or threatens one of the moderators. Beer chaser if it's Tapper or Bash, and the candidate rips liberal-### CNN in the process.

5. Trump brags about his wealth or his poll numbers, or mocks the low poll numbers of an opponent.

6. A candidate pledges to stand with Israel.

7. Carly Fiorina makes a joke about her own face.

8. A candidate claims a positive relationship with a minority. We're keeping this rule in every debate. (So far we're one-for-one: Kasich said he had a gay friend in the first debate.)

9. Anyone mentions Kim Davis or the "War on Christians."

10. A candidate says he'll stand up to Putin.

11. Trump derides someone for being a "lightweight" or having "low energy" or "low enthusiasm."

12. Anyone mentions Tom Brady or Deflategate.

13. Anyone calls Black Lives Matter a "hate group," argues that BLM or Barack Obama have endangered the lives of police, or pulls a "What about black-on-black crime?" line.

14. A candidate mentions the founders. Double shot if it's Rand Paul.

15. Carson invokes the Bible as an authority for something that has nothing to do with the Bible, like tax policy.

16. A candidate says, "I'm the only person on this stage who…" Double shot if it's Carson saying something like, "I'm the only candidate who's had his hands inside a human thorax."

17, Anyone mentions Hitler, Nazis or Neville Chamberlain. Includes related imagery, e.g. "ovens."

18. A candidate stumbles over what to call ISIS/ISIL, or mispronounces the name of a world leader.

19. Anyone mentions the Governator or makes a Terminator-themed joke, e.g. "To illegal immigrants, I say, Hasta La Vista."

Drink EVERY TIME you hear:

20. "Anchor babies."

21. "Thug."

22. "Leading from behind."

23. "All lives matter."

24. "Apologize for America."

25. "Eye-ran."

Take a shot of JAGERMEISTER if:

26. Anyone compares Kim Davis to Rosa Parks.

27. Any candidate is seen wearing a Blue Lives Matter bracelet.

28. A candidate offers an insincere paean to departed Rick Perry. Double shot if someone references his "smart glasses."

 

[lod01]

Tim

if you had to choose between Trump getting the GOP nomination (he could be president!!!)

or

Tom Brady and the Pats winning another super bowl

which would you pick

Not really a tough question, BDeep. Give me 10 more rings for Brady. The Pats could win the next 100 Superbowls, that would still be preferable.

Go Trump!

 

[Buckfast 1]

Matt Taibbi provides some drinking game rules for tonight:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-2-20150916

Drink THE FIRST TIME and the FIRST TIME only:

1. A candidate invokes the memory of Saint Reagan.

2. A candidate mentions Hillary's emails.

Drink EVERY TIME:

3. Hugh Hewitt hurls a douchey gotcha question at Trump.

4. Trump – or any of the other candidates – insults or threatens one of the moderators. Beer chaser if it's Tapper or Bash, and the candidate rips liberal-### CNN in the process.

5. Trump brags about his wealth or his poll numbers, or mocks the low poll numbers of an opponent.

6. A candidate pledges to stand with Israel.

7. Carly Fiorina makes a joke about her own face.

8. A candidate claims a positive relationship with a minority. We're keeping this rule in every debate. (So far we're one-for-one: Kasich said he had a gay friend in the first debate.)

9. Anyone mentions Kim Davis or the "War on Christians."

10. A candidate says he'll stand up to Putin.

11. Trump derides someone for being a "lightweight" or having "low energy" or "low enthusiasm."

12. Anyone mentions Tom Brady or Deflategate.

13. Anyone calls Black Lives Matter a "hate group," argues that BLM or Barack Obama have endangered the lives of police, or pulls a "What about black-on-black crime?" line.

14. A candidate mentions the founders. Double shot if it's Rand Paul.

15. Carson invokes the Bible as an authority for something that has nothing to do with the Bible, like tax policy.

16. A candidate says, "I'm the only person on this stage who…" Double shot if it's Carson saying something like, "I'm the only candidate who's had his hands inside a human thorax."

17, Anyone mentions Hitler, Nazis or Neville Chamberlain. Includes related imagery, e.g. "ovens."

18. A candidate stumbles over what to call ISIS/ISIL, or mispronounces the name of a world leader.

19. Anyone mentions the Governator or makes a Terminator-themed joke, e.g. "To illegal immigrants, I say, Hasta La Vista."

Drink EVERY TIME you hear:

20. "Anchor babies."

21. "Thug."

22. "Leading from behind."

23. "All lives matter."

24. "Apologize for America."

25. "Eye-ran."

Take a shot of JAGERMEISTER if:

26. Anyone compares Kim Davis to Rosa Parks.

27. Any candidate is seen wearing a Blue Lives Matter bracelet.

28. A candidate offers an insincere paean to departed Rick Perry. Double shot if someone references his "smart glasses."

It's a good thing that he limited drinking for the invocation of St. Reagan to the first time only, otherwise emergency rooms across the country would be packed with alcohol overdoses of people who attempted to play this drinking game.

 

[Eephus]

too bad Rick Perry dropped out or we could raise our glasses to Ronald Raven in the JV debate

 

[timschochet]

Kids table debate starts in about 90 minutes.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Can't wait to see Jindal Pwn Pataki here

-QG

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Graham looks wasted. And sad.

 

[lod01]

Boring!!!!! Boring!!!!!!!!!!

Why do I hate these idiots? Because they can't answer 1 damn question.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Why are they in a hangar?

 

[lod01]

Santorum is a beedy eyed weasel.

 

[SIDA!]

LMAO at that tool Santorum getting decimated by that tool Graham.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Tapper has actually gotten some fighting going at the kids table cool!

-QG

 

[SkyRattlers]

Has anyone posted this graph yet?

Shocking to see the difference between what Cruz and Rand say vs how they vote.

How could anyone ever support someone who votes so radically divergent from what they sell?

http://static.digg.com/images/8ee040f0d4924f8ba76813ebd6988cb4_1Fhb3g5_1_post.png

 

[Capella]

I love when these guys say "when I'm president" while they are at 0.5% and in the undercard debate.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Has anyone posted this graph yet?

Shocking to see the difference between what Cruz and Rand say vs how they vote.

How could anyone ever support someone who votes so radically divergent from what they sell?

http://static.digg.com/images/8ee040f0d4924f8ba76813ebd6988cb4_1Fhb3g5_1_post.png

That is an amazing chart. Funny thing is - Paul is now undermined by his rhetoric as he is not seen as a credible person to question Trump.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

We are all within 1% of these guys in the polls.

-QG

 

[Dickies]

I love when these guys say "when I'm president" while they are at 0.5% and in the undercard debate.

Never gets old