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

[Galileo]

Christie was a private attorney on 9/11.

Very disingenuous there - made it sound like he was governing in 2001.

Finally heard the exact sound byte and yeah - he basically is trying to imply that he was in charge there or something when he wasn't governor until 2010.

Fox News asked rough questions but clearly had their thumb (and a few fingers) on the scale. Heck they said "let's hear from two candidates from 5pm" and one of those was basically Perry saying how great and qualified Fiorina is. I think they were really counting on nobody watching the 5pm debate and the media even being too lazy to watch it and just rolling with whatever Fox says about it (which is pretty much what happened - every news article I saw about 5pm just cited the Fox talking heads).

Good article on how basically all of the would-be presidents failed to stand up to Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-pushes-his-stupid-rivals-around-donald-126092692181.html

If they can't handle a clown like Trump how can they handle Putin?

-QG

Why would they stand up to him? There is a reason this debate was the highest ever in the ratings. He is bringing attention and publicity to the process. I think the RNC sees that as a good thing for now. Who would be paying attention to this otherwise beyond the hardcore? Eventually, his lack of substance will seal his fate and the serious candidates will have benefited from the circus.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Following the debate, Clinton's campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri issued a statement saying Trump's comment 'hurts [Hillary Clinton's] feelings.'

'He invited her. They’re acquaintances. This is long, long established,' she said. 'It hurt her feelings, I’m sure, to hear him suggest that he didn’t actually want her there for her company.'

I'm trying to decide which makes Hillary look worse to her own voters, that she went to his wedding because she "had" to because she was bought and paid for or because she's friends with him.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

As much as I hate the prospect of a business-as-usual Clinton

Let's not pretend that Trump is the only politician who's sliding down the slippery slope of blurring politics with entertainment. Obama entertained YouTube stars at the White House, Lindsey Graham recently released a video of the different ways he could smash his cell phone, and this is what business-as-usual Clinton was up to during Trump's circus show last night.

 

[satch]

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?

Seriously? Is it ok to make up quotes now? I never said what you quoted. You edited and spliced that together to fit your agenda. I said sonething similar to that in response to a specific question about terrorism, not about Trump in general. Pretty lame of you.

Give me one specific policy position that Trump has outlined that you agree with, then. I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

:crickets:The people supporting Donald Trump are exactly what is broken about the Amercan political system. It would be funny if it weren't so freaking sad and distiurbing. As much as I hate the prospect of a business-as-usual Clinton v Bush general, it's infinitely more appealing than Donald effing Trump in the White House, likely using his time in office to personally enrich himself and starting a few wars just to show how big his #### is.

Crickets? You expect me to hurry up and respond to you after you intentionally misquoted me, editing and splicing my words to fit your agenda? The fact that I chose not to waste my time responding to your post doesn't make your point any more valid.

Yeah, given the fact that you actually believe that Donald Trump deserves serious consideration for President of the United States, I probably just should have gone the route that others took and just called you too stupid to be helped as opposed to a semi-serious question on actual policy positions. My bad. Although I would like to hear more about "my agenda."

It's ironic that you're trying to paint a picture of me as "too stupd to be helped", yet you're the one hurling insults like a 12 year old. Don't bother replying, I won't be seeing it.

 

[Eephus]

If you're making a serious list of 17 dems you are missing Julian Castro who may run next time.

He's not making a list of serious Democrats.

Examples:

Gov. Deval Patrick.

Sen. Patty Murray

Gov. Tom Wolfe

Sen. Bill Nelson

Sen. **** Durbin

Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Al Franken

Sen. Jon Tester

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Gov Jon Hickenlooper

Gov. Steve Beshear

Gov. Terry McAuliffe

There's 12 additional candidates all with as much (or really more) resume than most of the Republican field.

And I left off a couple obvious ones (like Cuomo) and didn't include congress critters or recent former electeds.

I realize this bursts someone's bubble. HTH.

-QG

I know nothing of Hickenlooper's politics but would vote for him because of his Marx Brothers name

 

[BowieMercs]

http://mindy-fischer-writer.com/2015/08/twitter-debate-question-suggestions/

Gold, Jerry! Gold!

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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?

Seriously? Is it ok to make up quotes now? I never said what you quoted. You edited and spliced that together to fit your agenda. I said sonething similar to that in response to a specific question about terrorism, not about Trump in general. Pretty lame of you.

Give me one specific policy position that Trump has outlined that you agree with, then. I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

:crickets:The people supporting Donald Trump are exactly what is broken about the Amercan political system. It would be funny if it weren't so freaking sad and distiurbing. As much as I hate the prospect of a business-as-usual Clinton v Bush general, it's infinitely more appealing than Donald effing Trump in the White House, likely using his time in office to personally enrich himself and starting a few wars just to show how big his #### is.

Crickets? You expect me to hurry up and respond to you after you intentionally misquoted me, editing and splicing my words to fit your agenda? The fact that I chose not to waste my time responding to your post doesn't make your point any more valid.

Yeah, given the fact that you actually believe that Donald Trump deserves serious consideration for President of the United States, I probably just should have gone the route that others took and just called you too stupid to be helped as opposed to a semi-serious question on actual policy positions. My bad. Although I would like to hear more about "my agenda."

It's ironic that you're trying to paint a picture of me as "too stupd to be helped", yet you're the one hurling insults like a 12 year old. Don't bother replying, I won't be seeing it.

Actually, I'm the one who said anybody who seriously thinks Trump would make a good president is too stupid to be helped.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

As much as I hate the prospect of a business-as-usual Clinton

Let's not pretend that Trump is the only politician who's sliding down the slippery slope of blurring politics with entertainment. Obama entertained YouTube stars at the White House, Lindsey Graham recently released a video of the different ways he could smash his cell phone, and this is what business-as-usual Clinton was up to during Trump's circus show last night.

Agree 100% -- the system is broken. People don't care enough to actually look at what candidates actually stand for and vote either on straight party lines or based on soudbytes on their news channel of choice. And we've been getting exactly what we deserve for it.

 

[tom22406]

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.

Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/

Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.

Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Christie is now Bud-Lite compared to Trump's Bud. People who are attracted to outspoken, confrontational candidates who "tell it like it is" want the candidate who's willing to take it the furthest. Christie has been Trumped at his own game.

I still can not believe a year ago people thought this was a front runner. It's like when people thought Matt Barkley was a potential #1 over all pick in NFL draft or people that William Green was going to be the next bing fantasy RB.

Just to back it up even more

At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.

“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.

Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”

An editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger from September 7, 2001, says “Bush is preparing to name Morris County attorney Chris Christie” to the position. The New York Times article from December marking the official nomination notes that it was “expected for months.” Christie was confirmed the next month, after New Jersey’s two senators agreed to support the nomination despite their concerns that Christie had no prosecutorial experience at the time.

Christie’s misrepresentation of the timeline, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, was not a debate flub induced by bright lights and adrenaline. Christie has been claiming to have taken the USA job the day before the attacks for at least five years.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/

 

[rockaction]

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.

Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/

Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.

Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Christie is now Bud-Lite compared to Trump's Bud. People who are attracted to outspoken, confrontational candidates who "tell it like it is" want the candidate who's willing to take it the furthest. Christie has been Trumped at his own game.

I still can not believe a year ago people thought this was a front runner. It's like when people thought Matt Barkley was a potential #1 over all pick in NFL draft or people that William Green was going to be the next bing fantasy RB.

Just to back it up even more

At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.

“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.

Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”

An editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger from September 7, 2001, says “Bush is preparing to name Morris County attorney Chris Christie” to the position. The New York Times article from December marking the official nomination notes that it was “expected for months.” Christie was confirmed the next month, after New Jersey’s two senators agreed to support the nomination despite their concerns that Christie had no prosecutorial experience at the time.

Christie’s misrepresentation of the timeline, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, was not a debate flub induced by bright lights and adrenaline. Christie has been claiming to have taken the USA job the day before the attacks for at least five years.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/

Wow. I wish Rand had been privy to this during the debate.

You're buried; move over for Fiorina.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

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?

Seriously? Is it ok to make up quotes now? I never said what you quoted. You edited and spliced that together to fit your agenda. I said sonething similar to that in response to a specific question about terrorism, not about Trump in general. Pretty lame of you.

Give me one specific policy position that Trump has outlined that you agree with, then. I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

:crickets:The people supporting Donald Trump are exactly what is broken about the Amercan political system. It would be funny if it weren't so freaking sad and distiurbing. As much as I hate the prospect of a business-as-usual Clinton v Bush general, it's infinitely more appealing than Donald effing Trump in the White House, likely using his time in office to personally enrich himself and starting a few wars just to show how big his #### is.

Crickets? You expect me to hurry up and respond to you after you intentionally misquoted me, editing and splicing my words to fit your agenda? The fact that I chose not to waste my time responding to your post doesn't make your point any more valid.

Yeah, given the fact that you actually believe that Donald Trump deserves serious consideration for President of the United States, I probably just should have gone the route that others took and just called you too stupid to be helped as opposed to a semi-serious question on actual policy positions. My bad. Although I would like to hear more about "my agenda."

It's ironic that you're trying to paint a picture of me as "too stupd to be helped", yet you're the one hurling insults like a 12 year old. Don't bother replying, I won't be seeing it.

Actually, I'm the one who said anybody who seriously thinks Trump would make a good president is too stupid to be helped.

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

 

[TripItUp]

And we've been getting exactly what we deserve for it.

this

 

[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.

 

[ffldrew]

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.

Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/

Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.

Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Christie is now Bud-Lite compared to Trump's Bud. People who are attracted to outspoken, confrontational candidates who "tell it like it is" want the candidate who's willing to take it the furthest. Christie has been Trumped at his own game.

I still can not believe a year ago people thought this was a front runner. It's like when people thought Matt Barkley was a potential #1 over all pick in NFL draft or people that William Green was going to be the next bing fantasy RB.

Just to back it up even more

At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.

“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.

Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”

An editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger from September 7, 2001, says “Bush is preparing to name Morris County attorney Chris Christie” to the position. The New York Times article from December marking the official nomination notes that it was “expected for months.” Christie was confirmed the next month, after New Jersey’s two senators agreed to support the nomination despite their concerns that Christie had no prosecutorial experience at the time.

Christie’s misrepresentation of the timeline, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, was not a debate flub induced by bright lights and adrenaline. Christie has been claiming to have taken the USA job the day before the attacks for at least five years.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/

Didn't Brian Williams report his nomination as US Attorney?

 

[tom22406]

This may explain it ffldrew

https://i.imgflip.com/nob7o.jpg

 

[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.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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.

Perot was a much more serious candidate than Trump.

 

[Loan Sharks]

With regard to addressing national security threats from nations and groups who seek to do us harm, which Republican candidate would be most likely to make leaders of those nations and groups think twice before doing so?

Imagine you are the leader of a nation/group who is considering an attack of some kind against the USA is n 2017. Which candidate on that stage last night would you least like to see in charge of our nation's response?

Honestly, Trump because I would have NO IDEA what he would do.

 

[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.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

From a superficial standpoint his voice and cadence sounded like an old loon from the 1800's when speaking.

Good point. Voice and cadence are far more important than people realize. An authoritative voice with the proper cadence subconsciously moves you. There's no doubt in my mind that Jesse Ventura was elected Governor, in great part, because of his incredibly authoritative voice. Cadence is certainly a part of Obama's success as well.

 

[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.

Perot was a much more serious candidate than Trump.

In what ways? After the next few sentences, I'll hang up and listen. Perot tapped into subtler anti-immigration sentiments than Trump, but Trump's conditions are less subtle regarding illegal immigration. Whereas Perot farmed out all policy decisions, Trump has actually stated what he would do. Perot picked Stockdale as his running mate, and was thoroughly embarrassed. Perot might have taken advantage of less-stringent ballot laws than we have now to solidify his candidacy. I'd like to know the contra to the last statement.

Perot tapped trade; Trump taps overt and abject refusal to enforce basic immigration laws. It almost inherently makes Trump serious.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

With regard to addressing national security threats from nations and groups who seek to do us harm, which Republican candidate would be most likely to make leaders of those nations and groups think twice before doing so?

Imagine you are the leader of a nation/group who is considering an attack of some kind against the USA is n 2017. Which candidate on that stage last night would you least like to see in charge of our nation's response?

Honestly, Trump because I would have NO IDEA what he would do.

The people that want to directly attack the United States are the kind of people hoping for a gigantic heavy-handed military response to their actions. They'd love a "west v Muslim" world war. That's what they think they're doing already.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

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

Im not anit-trump.....I like him. Primarily because he doesn't give a ####. He tells people what he actually thinks, can't be bought, is an actual business man who KNOWS business. I enjoy that the pinko media hates him and I love that the republicans are scared of him. Its great.

I would love nothing more than to see him on the same stage as that complete bisnatch Hillary Clinton. Love to see her face as he rips into her.

 

[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.

Perot was a much more serious candidate than Trump.

In what ways? After the next few sentences, I'll hang up and listen. Perot tapped into subtler anti-immigration sentiments than Trump, but Trump's conditions are less subtle regarding illegal immigration. Whereas Perot farmed out all policy decisions, Trump has actually stated what he would do. Perot picked Stockdale as his running mate, and was thoroughly embarrassed. Perot might have taken advantage of less-stringent ballot laws than we have now to solidify his candidacy. I'd like to know the contra to the last statement.

Perot tapped trade; Trump taps overt and abject refusal to enforce basic immigration laws. It almost inherently makes Trump serious.

Wat? He's said he'll have Mexico pay for the Berlin Wall 2.0 on the border, which is pretty absurd in every possible way. Beyond that, what specifically has he said?

 

[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.

Like I said, I think people are moved by the distrust in the fourth estate, or the media. They're also moved by the way illegals have been given status that defies description when compared to an average citizen of the country. We are a tolerant country; Trump has seized upon what is possibly our own largesse regarding these matters. Rubio was spot-on about immigration, though. It's not the pejorative "Mexicans," it's a much larger thing. We're lucky we haven't been invaded yet, like Britain has been through France the past few weeks. It's luck, accident, and will.

Look, I don't think people trust the media at all, and there are smarter people than me who can assess what happens with media and postmodernism and reality shows and all of that, but it's an element of Trump's success.

 

[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.

Perot was a much more serious candidate than Trump.

In what ways? After the next few sentences, I'll hang up and listen. Perot tapped into subtler anti-immigration sentiments than Trump, but Trump's conditions are less subtle regarding illegal immigration. Whereas Perot farmed out all policy decisions, Trump has actually stated what he would do. Perot picked Stockdale as his running mate, and was thoroughly embarrassed. Perot might have taken advantage of less-stringent ballot laws than we have now to solidify his candidacy. I'd like to know the contra to the last statement.

Perot tapped trade; Trump taps overt and abject refusal to enforce basic immigration laws. It almost inherently makes Trump serious.

Wat? He's said he'll have Mexico pay for the Berlin Wall 2.0 on the border, which is pretty absurd in every possible way. Beyond that, what specifically has he said?

It's better than Perot. Remember the experts he kept referring to? Perot was fundamentally unserious; he just tapped into a populist sentiment.

 

[ImTheScientist]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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.

Perot was a much more serious candidate than Trump.

In what ways? After the next few sentences, I'll hang up and listen. Perot tapped into subtler anti-immigration sentiments than Trump, but Trump's conditions are less subtle regarding illegal immigration. Whereas Perot farmed out all policy decisions, Trump has actually stated what he would do. Perot picked Stockdale as his running mate, and was thoroughly embarrassed. Perot might have taken advantage of less-stringent ballot laws than we have now to solidify his candidacy. I'd like to know the contra to the last statement.

Perot tapped trade; Trump taps overt and abject refusal to enforce basic immigration laws. It almost inherently makes Trump serious.

I should have phrased that differently: Perot appeared to be a much more serious candidate in the early going than Trump does. Perot's business career and "On Wings of Eagles" gave him much more gravitas than Trump has.

Of course, in the final analyis, Perot turned out to be little more than a buffoon pretender, as you correctly outlined. But he didn't look like it from the jump. Trump does.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

I just meant I appreciated his confronting Trump, that's all, no one else did.

I am not sure what Paul said exactly about Trump being pro single payor but Trump was for universal health care at one point, maybe he is now, who knows. Which is ok but Trump saying that what he had meant was that he was for insurers crossing state lines is senseless, how the hell is that single payor if he's saying that's what he meant at the time?

I know what you mean about the mannerisms, and I agree with the point about the stupid hug comment.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Rove!]

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.

Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/

Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.

Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

Christie is now Bud-Lite compared to Trump's Bud. People who are attracted to outspoken, confrontational candidates who "tell it like it is" want the candidate who's willing to take it the furthest. Christie has been Trumped at his own game.

I still can not believe a year ago people thought this was a front runner. It's like when people thought Matt Barkley was a potential #1 over all pick in NFL draft or people that William Green was going to be the next bing fantasy RB.

Just to back it up even more

At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.

“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.

Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”

An editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger from September 7, 2001, says “Bush is preparing to name Morris County attorney Chris Christie” to the position. The New York Times article from December marking the official nomination notes that it was “expected for months.” Christie was confirmed the next month, after New Jersey’s two senators agreed to support the nomination despite their concerns that Christie had no prosecutorial experience at the time.

Christie’s misrepresentation of the timeline, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, was not a debate flub induced by bright lights and adrenaline. Christie has been claiming to have taken the USA job the day before the attacks for at least five years.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/

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

 

[General Malaise]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

People are STILL doing this? Obama is crushing it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

I'd like to hear someone ask Trump if he plans to halt his business existence as president or will it be a part time job for him?

 

[ImTheScientist]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, his skills are useful skills in the oval office.

 

[shuke]

Trump coming up next on Hannity.

I hope this guy runs for president every election. Just awesome.

Keep him in it as long as possible. He's good for the party, if for no other reason than people are tuning in. Can't wait to see the ratings from tonight. Bet it was off the charts.

His honesty and lack of political correctness is pretty great to watch. We need both of those, even if it doesn't have the same views I do.

I don't find him particularly honest.

Do you think he is shtick?

I did until last night. I now think he's just a lunatic with a massive ego.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, his skills are useful skills in the oval office.

He'll put a garish hotel tower in Tehran?

 

[General Malaise]

Trump coming up next on Hannity.

I hope this guy runs for president every election. Just awesome.

Keep him in it as long as possible. He's good for the party, if for no other reason than people are tuning in. Can't wait to see the ratings from tonight. Bet it was off the charts.

His honesty and lack of political correctness is pretty great to watch. We need both of those, even if it doesn't have the same views I do.

I don't find him particularly honest.

Do you think he is shtick?

I did until last night. I now think he's just a lunatic with a massive ego.

With a hot daughter.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Trump coming up next on Hannity.

I hope this guy runs for president every election. Just awesome.

Keep him in it as long as possible. He's good for the party, if for no other reason than people are tuning in. Can't wait to see the ratings from tonight. Bet it was off the charts.

His honesty and lack of political correctness is pretty great to watch. We need both of those, even if it doesn't have the same views I do.

I don't find him particularly honest.

Do you think he is shtick?

I did until last night. I now think he's just a lunatic with a massive ego.

I still think it's schtick.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

Yes, and lot more useful than the skills of the guy in office currently.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, his skills are useful skills in the oval office.

He'll put a garish hotel tower in Tehran?

He'll acquire Iran by eminent domain.

Problem solved.

 

[Fennis]

Trump coming up next on Hannity.

I hope this guy runs for president every election. Just awesome.

Keep him in it as long as possible. He's good for the party, if for no other reason than people are tuning in. Can't wait to see the ratings from tonight. Bet it was off the charts.

His honesty and lack of political correctness is pretty great to watch. We need both of those, even if it doesn't have the same views I do.

I don't find him particularly honest.

Do you think he is shtick?

I did until last night. I now think he's just a lunatic with a massive ego.

I still think it's schtick.

Its not shtick.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You know who profits the most from this? Darrell Hammond.

He'll be doing Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on SNL pretty much round the clock the way this is going.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Trump coming up next on Hannity.

I hope this guy runs for president every election. Just awesome.

Keep him in it as long as possible. He's good for the party, if for no other reason than people are tuning in. Can't wait to see the ratings from tonight. Bet it was off the charts.

His honesty and lack of political correctness is pretty great to watch. We need both of those, even if it doesn't have the same views I do.

I don't find him particularly honest.

Do you think he is shtick?

I did until last night. I now think he's just a lunatic with a massive ego.

I still think it's schtick.

Far less schtick in him than any other politician around.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.


Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.
Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

Christie is now Bud-Lite compared to Trump's Bud. People who are attracted to outspoken, confrontational candidates who "tell it like it is" want the candidate who's willing to take it the furthest. Christie has been Trumped at his own game.

I still can not believe a year ago people thought this was a front runner. It's like when people thought Matt Barkley was a potential #1 over all pick in NFL draft or people that William Green was going to be the next bing fantasy RB.

Just to back it up even more

At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.

“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.

Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”

An editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger from September 7, 2001, says “Bush is preparing to name Morris County attorney Chris Christie” to the position. The New York Times article from December marking the official nomination notes that it was “expected for months.” Christie was confirmed the next month, after New Jersey’s two senators agreed to support the nomination despite their concerns that Christie had no prosecutorial experience at the time.

Christie’s misrepresentation of the timeline, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, was not a debate flub induced by bright lights and adrenaline. Christie has been claiming to have taken the USA job the day before the attacks for at least five years.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/

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

Not a fudge - it's a lie. The guy was not nominated yet. Neither Senator had signed off on it (which is custom with these sorts of appointments) so the nomination had not happened was not a done deal.

He's making this imaginary story to somehow bolster himself.

He also conflated the hugging thing on purpose (He was running around hugging people during Sandy. During 9/11 he was private citizen like the rest of us - and yes, there was a lot of hugging going on around that time - but no hugs of authority on his part.)

A man who goes after his political enemies in the fashion that Christie has is the kind of person that the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from.

-QG

 

[Willie Neslon]

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.

I think it has to do with ego, not money. He's lost serious money on this endeavor so if financial gain was his goal then this was a misstep from a supposed master businessman. I think he was about to turn 70 and thought, "what else do I have left to do? Oh yes, run the world". The early lead in the polls has stroked his ego even further. He'll ride this as long as it continues to swell his head and then jump off when it makes him look the best.

I thought the moment when he called Bush a true gentleman was the most underrated moment of the debate. That was significant. There is going to be about 15% of likely voters up for grabs who could determine the nomination once Trump exits. Even though he has stumbled a bit early I thought Bush has handled the issue of Trump very well by differentiating his positions while not getting down in the dirt and now has put himself in a position to secure Trump's supporters while not alienating the rest of the party voters. I keep hearing that Bush had a bad night but I think he had a pretty good one. Out of all of the people on that stage he looks like and comes off the most presidential. He hasn't been the most substantive when articulating his positions but then again neither has anyone else.

 

[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?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This wasn’t a debate, at least not like most of those I’ve 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=0

That'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.

 

[rockaction]

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.

This wasn’t a debate, at least not like most of those I’ve 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=0

That'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.

Yes. But that's only likely. Once they leave Fox News, gloves may come off again.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

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?