Republican Candidate's Debate (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

Unfortunately it seems that there is a dearth of responses focused on the debate. Fundamentally, irrespective of what your opinion is of specific candidates, the debate is part of the positive democratic experience. The Republicans are putting themselves out for public evaluation and informing the electorate.

The Republican Party suffers from a multiple personality disorder, it is not ONE party. Too many people fail to comprehend this and heedlessly condemn the apparent mixed messages in a derogatory manner. As mentioned above, this is really a good thing for the electorate and should be viewed positively.

On side "A" you have Bush and Christy who represent the old guard Republican Party. The old guard of the Republican Party, as many have criticized, has failed to shrink the size of the Federal government and has failed to limit the scope of government. Walker, it appears, has recently approved the (inappropriate) use of public funds to construct a new coliseum. So you wont be seeing me "defend" them.

On side "B" you have the Libertarian wing, which should really join with the Libertarian Party. Paul and Cruz would fit into this category. Unfortunately, they have not yet achieved the political clout necessary to implement their policies of shrinking the government.

Side "C", would be the remaining grab-bag, such as Trump and Firoina. Each person in this group could be viewed along the spectrum from "opportunist" to "concerned involved citizen".

Many of the Fox News questions were inappropriate. They were meant to be divisive and inflammatory. Such as the loaded question posed by Kelly to Trump. The questions should have focused on how each candidate would resolved issues, such as reforming the tax code and addressing deficit spending.

An unfortunate consequence of the inappropriate Kelly question is the twisting political correctness world-wind to endlessly denigrate Trump. Instead, the Trump focus should be on demanding that he explain his proposed policies. For example, he speaks of Mexico and China as "stealing" US jobs. How does he propose to actually bring US jobs back? Would he implement a trade war?

Trump is a business person, as such most business persons seek low cost labor as supplied by China and Mexico. Seems like this would be a ripe-topic for the media to ask Trump and those who wish to deflate him.

Paul unfortunately tripped himself, by tossing personal attacks, instead of sticking to making the Libertarian case. Very disappointing to watch.

Time has passed, and I am not going to re-watch the debate. So by now my memory may have drifted. From my point of view Huckabee, Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina made the best presentations.

At the end of the debate, Wasserman Schultz was interviewed. Her response was quite deplorable. Instead of graciously playing the game as to who may have "won" the debate, Wasserman Schultz went on a moronic despicable generalized attack on all the participants. That was not very professional.

And along that line, when asked what the difference was between a "socialist" and a "democrat" she was unable to answer and attempted to change the subject by bad-mouthing Republicans. It is reprehensible that the head of the DNC can't get beyond simple blatant partisanship expressed through hateful language.

 

[Rx_]

Bunch of nit-picky observers that fail to understand The Great Game?
During the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago a cast of characters that included hippie leaders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, Black Panther Party leader Bobby Seale, activist ideologues Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis, and old-time liberal David Dellinger were protesting the war-mongers and racist policy of the Democratic Party including Veit Nam. Known as the Chicago 7 Trial.

Ronald Regan, a smart Liberal Democrat quicky converted into a Conserative Republican by hiring Libertarian Party writers. Of course he still voted exactly the way he did as a California Liberal Democrat. He should have received every award in "acting" as there are still people who ignore the facts and quote his speeches.

Any American who sums up silly differences between the two major parties probably thinks TV Wrestling is real. TV Wrestling is so stupid... yet it makes a LOT of money!

Of course what candidates all say is beyond stupid. It is what the public wants to hear. Anything real would never make the 5:00 News.

During the Chicago 7 trial the list of players in the first paragraph said and conducted some outrageous things in the courtroom. When asked why, Abbie Hoffman said: "if you don't make the 5:00 News story, then you never existed". Everyone else is long forgotten. The only thing that matters is the trivia we share together at 5:00.

Lewis Black, comic from DC, has several skits where he describes each of our new Presidents. He can't beleive during his lifetime how horrible our Presidents are. He tells himself "it just can't get any worse". Then after the next election "they are much worse". (He includes the last President).
Let me predict: The next President, will be much worse. It is our modern tradition.

 

[Libre]

Any American who sums up silly differences between the two major parties probably thinks TV Wrestling is real. TV Wrestling is so stupid... yet it makes a LOT of money!

Of course what candidates all say is beyond stupid. It is what the public wants to hear. Anything real would never make the 5:00 News.

Of course it's fashionable to say this - I've been hearing it all my life.
It's not true. The differences between the parties - and ultimately the candidates - have never been clearer.

This is NOT to say that a radical or fringe candidate is likely to be elected, and I do agree that most of the country's permanent institutions are not up for fundamental change. However, to say that there is no difference between the two major parties ignores reality, as clearly seen in our recent history. In fact the differences between the Dems and the Reps is absolutely stark.
Look at nearly EVERY important initiative undertaken by the Obama admin, opposed tooth and nail at every turn by the Republican House - and now Senate. The republican candidates boast that they will attempt to overturn and repeal Obamacare. With more republican opposition (already very substantial) it would never have been passed by Congress in the first place.

Democratic party is NOT the same as Republican party!

I'm talking about stated positions on such issues as:
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
Immigration
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion rights
Welfare and food stamps
Climate change
Prayer in School, "faith" based initiatives
War on Drugs
Regulation of Banks and Big Business
Foreign policy

No, they are NOT the same.

 

[Rx_]

RE: "I'm talking about stated positions..."
Statements from political salesmen are not a metric some would choose.

Look at the two Party Platforms commitments as they reference the Federal Budget.
Dollars are better metrics than sales literature.
There is less than 1% difference in the actual budget comittment. From the outside, it is difficult to tell any difference between the two major parties.

There are only a miniority of US Citizens that are politically active and personally financally support the two major parties. The rest of us are amused with the same kind of "blame game" and Conspiracy Theory from both of the two major parties.

This President is no different. My state elected officials (democrat) have oppose President Obama's specific proposals. Supporing some of his proposals cost some of them their re-election. I can't give your opposing party's evil plan any credit for success. Credit goes to the unaffiliated voters that wanted to get rid of a worse option.

Not to hijack the Republican thread, looks like Trump isn't making excuses like so many other political candidates. Bloombert TV claims this concept is refreshing to the public.
To be outspoken, blunt, even to the point of rudeness is a successful political ploy that goes back to the classical Greek . Plutarch's Apophthegmata Laconica (178B)
While it is not new, it does appear to be working for now.

Is being outspoken, blunt, even to the point of rudeness going to be the standard for the 2016 election? I hope so!

 

[Libre]

RE: "I'm talking about stated positions..."
Statements from political salesmen are not a metric some would choose.

I guess if you're not going to attach any importance to a candidate's statements or positions, then you're right - there's no point at all in elections.

And you're not wrong to bring out that politicians don't ALWAYS do EXACTLY what they say (does anyone?).

Yet, under every President, there have been very important changes to laws, acts and programs enacted, bills signed and vetoed, that would have not been enacted under a different President.

Although I was born when Truman occupied the Oval Office, and I sported an I LIKE IKE campaign button, I didn't really become politically aware until JFK was elected.

Let's look at each President starting from the 1950's and then look at the opposing Party's candidate - and decide if we think that we would now be in this exact place in history, had the opposition won the election. Obviously not!

Can you really tell me that the man and the party whose philosophy he aligns himself with - makes zero difference? It makes a difference in our everyday lives - far more so than what sports franchise makes the play-offs - although you'd never know it the way the fans go crazy for sports yet can't be bothered to go vote.

 

[statsman]

Not being an American, I find it difficult to understand what is going on. Especially when the person with the lower vote count can become president.

Col

In exactly the same way that in the Parliamentary system a party can get fewer total votes overall, but form the government because they actually elected more members.
More people vote Labour in an election, but the Conservatives actually elect more members.
The system is to ensure that a government can only be formed by electing members from all parts of the country. A regional demagogue can make noise and even elect members on a line that the southeast has been screwed by London for decades, but he will never form a government.

In the US, the electoral college ensures the same thing. Electoral votes are counted on a state by state basis. Electoral votes are assigned to states based on their population.
The largest population states (in no order New York, Penn. Florida, Ohio, Texas, Illinois and California) have the most votes, so the US Presidential election is in fact really fought only in those states.
A candidate has to take the majority of these states and therefore most have support from all parts of the country to be elected.

 

[statsman]

After all the deliberate deceptions through the years - The Pentagon Papers, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, GWB's outright criminal invasion of Iraq under totally false pretenses, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and perhaps trillions of $$ spent to avenge his dad - these are all secondary to Obama mistakenly saying that everyone can keep their existing medical plans when as it turned out (not known at the time by BO) not everyone could.
This, to you, is the most insidious destructive lie in the history of US Presidents, making BO potentially the WORST president in US History.
Fascinating.

By common assent of the vast majority of American historians, the worst president in the history of the US was James Buchanan.
He was the president before Lincoln and did nothing to stop the civil war.
He even cajoled two of the dissenting justices on the Supreme Court to change sides on the Dred Scott decision. This decision ensured the Civil War as it essentially stated there was no peaceful or democratic way to end slavery in the US.
Look for a street or a high school or a federal building named for Buchanan anywhere in the US. They are there but they are hard to find.

 

[Frothingslosh]

That's actually kind of a simplification. For example, it can be taken as a given that California WILL vote Democrat, while Texas' electoral votes WILL go to the Republicans. The battleground states with the most intense campaigning are generally the higher-population states that can go either way, such as Ohio, Florida, and last time, Michigan.

The way things currently stand, each state awards all of its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote at the state level. Also, keep in mind that the number of electoral votes precisely matches the number of districts for House votes. Because each state is allotted a minimum number of Representatives, and thus electoral votes, this skews the numbers just slightly from the actual population distribution. This is what allows the number 2 vote-getter to sometimes win the Presidency anyway, as we saw happen in 2000 (tabling the whole Florida-recount thing for now, as it's not relevant to this discussion).

I could go on about how people are attempting to manipulate that, but that's outside the scope of this comment. Suffice it to say that the system could be gamed if one side or the other did an all-out push, but there would be one HELL of an outcry, and the Law of Unintended Consequences could bite back hard.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Huh, just noticed that statsman snuck a response in while I was typing mine up yesterday. My post was actually in response to his first of the two (number 26).

In regards to his last one, I can't argue Buchanan at all, although my best friend maintains that it's Nixon, due to actual treason on Nixon's part (that whole 'sabotaging the peace talks' thing).

I do find it interesting, however, just how different the rankings are when average citizens are asked rather than historians. Just as one example, you'll almost always find the sitting president in either the top 5 or bottom 5, depending on the respondent's political leanings. The one that really blew my mind was a recent Gallup poll of a couple thousand people showed that conservative Americans placed Reagan, of all people, as the best POTUS in history, beating out Lincoln, Washington, and FDR.

 

[Steve R.]

Reagan was appalling. Obama, is also, appalling. Obama is the "Manchurian Candidate" realized.

Reagan and Obama are alike in that both have slavish unwavering sycophants who worship them no matter what the facts are.

Since the Republican debate is over and some time has passed - onto the next (post debate) phase. Donald Trump, this past week, may be on the verge of fizzling. But it might not be good to place a bet on that.

On Fox News recently Trump simply fell back onto his anti-China talking points instead of answering the question posed to him. To bad that I cannot remember the specific question, but those interviewing Trump were very good at pointing-out how Trump did not really understand the question and the issues involved. As Trump continues to be grilled over time, will he get beyond his very limited talking points and display some deeper understanding? So far I have not seen Trump evolving beyond his limited talking points.

Trump and Jorge Ramos recently got into a verbal exchange. Ramos, jumped in (out of turn) to ask Trump questions concerning immigration. Trump temporarily had Ramos ejected. Good for Trump. Ramos was subsequently allowed back in to ask questions (which I did not see).

Moreover, the Trump/Ramos exchange unfortunately illustrates endemic media bias:

1. the media tends to ask Republicans "loaded" adversarial questions that they never seem to ask the Democratic candidates.
2. it exemplifies that when "establishment" Republicans, like Bush, respond, that they usually give vague conciliatory answers to the reporters instead of giving definitive answers. Trump, is willing to answer the question, even-though one may not like the answer. Which is the way it should be.

Time for the other Republican candidates when presented to with "loaded" adversarial questions to tell the reporter to take a hike. Also time for Hillary Clinton to meet the media so that they (hopefully) will grill her.

 

[Frothingslosh]

As I said, the sitting president at any time is generally ranked either top 5 or bottom 5 depending on if you're on "his side" of the political aisle.

<Removed Obama derail - this is about the GOP debate>

Trump...while I'll freely admit his treatment at the debate was hardly fair (his first question was if he'd run an independent campaign if he wasn't nominated?!?), he's bringing most of this heat down on himself. He and his backers cannot expect him to keep saying stupidly offensive things - like implying Megyn Kelly was on her period - and avoiding issues by attacking other candidates and not get called on it. His real problem, though, as I see it, is that he's completely un-electable. His schtick is just to be rude, overblown, and yell as loudly as he can that immigrants are bad, unrestricted capitalism is perfect, the rich are over-taxed, and Mexicans are scary, and I just don't see the moderates buying it. Hell, most liberals I know are PRAYING Trump wins the GOP nomination. He might be an even worse candidate than Sarah Palin was. She at least TRIED to be diplomatic on occasion.

 

[James Deckert]

The non politician businessman 4 years ago was Herman Cain. He was slandered until he dropped out to protect his family.

 

[statsman]

Winston Churchill once said the first casualty of war is truth.
Truth doesn't seem to do very well in political campaigns either.

 

[Rx_]

On the news this morning, they described the Clinton issue related to the emails on the server as her not telling the truth. Had she said "I did it" and used some valid excuse like her opponents were out to get her it might have been viewed as a mistake, but forgiveable. The polls show voters have an issue with denial of the truth.

Then, they switched gears. The political candidates are afraid to say anything at all and use a lawyer (solicitor) speak to say nothing. They are worried about offending the people that fund them. The voters hear Trump make all kinds of statements, speaking what is on his mind at the time. This is refreshing to weary public they claim.

If you as an individual lie to the government, they fine you or put you in prison. If the government lies to you, they call it Politics.

News Paper Headline: "Republican Candidate's Debate 2015"
Observer Comment: "So, they are up to that many now?"

 

[Steve R.]

On the news this morning, they described the Clinton issue related to the emails on the server as her not telling the truth.

Hillary carefully parses her language to give the superficial appearance of truth, when she is actually obfuscating. This morning, a lawyer was interviewed (who was obviously on Hillary's side) reiterated the tired false mantra that Hillary never received nor sent material marked as classified.

Factually, (in a very specific limited manner) his statement could be considered "true". But the lawyer’s response purposely overlooked a few obvious points. As Secretary of State Hillary should have known what is classified and what is not. When Hillary, for example, writes a hypothetical memo, words don't magically appear out of nowhere to mark the content as classified. It is the content that would make it classified. Hillary, given her responsible position as Secretary of State should know whether the content she is generating or reading qualifies as classified.

I appreciate that she has the technological skill necessary to keep her computer clean with a towel so that those looking at her email server won't get their hands dirty.

 

[Frothingslosh]

What I've always found most interesting about the whole Clinton email thing was that Bush did the same freaking thing with his "gwb43.com" private email server, save that millions of emails mysteriously vanished from the server when they were requested regarding the political firings of US District Attorneys, and that 88 people used the server rather than just one.

Back then, the GOP swore it was right and proper, and that people pointing out just how many laws may have been broken were just overreacting and didn't really understand the law. After Clinton decided "fine, I'll use my own too", the GOP has decided it's now a vile breach of every professional ethic and illegal on a standard never before seen.

"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."

 

[Steve R.]

"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Quite true. The GOP, as you have pointed out, may be foaming at the mouth with false moral indignation. But there is a twist, that pertains to Hillary running for President. While you may be correct to point out that Hillary has "... decided "fine, I'll use my own too", ...", implementing a second future wrong does not absolve Hillary.

The whole reason for the private email server was to hide Hillary's communications from the citizens and the government. Do we really want to elect a future President who is known to be hiding information and is clearly being cleaver in-order to circumvent the law? The Democrats, like Republicans, need to put forth an honest politician, assuming that is possible.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The Democrats, like Republicans, need to put forth an honest politician, assuming that is possible.

Which is why I'm actually backing Bernie Sanders. His voting record actually matches his statements and promises, for starters. I'm fully aware that 90% of what he promises will turn out to be impossible to implement through the usual DC gridlock, but I'm certain he'll at least TRY. I don't see Clinton or ANY of the GOP candidates actually trying to improve things for the Middle Class if they get elected - every last one of them is either fully-owned by Big Money or, in one particular case, IS Big Money.

As to the whole "socialist" thing, people have a bad habit of leaving the "Democratic" part off the beginning, and a Democratic Socialist is nothing at all like the Trotskyist, Marxist, or Communist varieties people generally think of when they hear the word 'socialist'.

 

[Steve R.]

I assume that you may have seen this gem: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Doesn't Know What a Socialist Is

I've run across some occasional opinion pieces that imply that the Democratic Party is attempting to neutralize Sanders, similar to what the Republicans did to Ron Paul.

 

[Steve R.]

Getting back on-topic. Republican debates. In this case, the upcoming debate on September 16, 2015.
Carly Fiorina wins as CNN changes debate rules after complaints